The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12 pm, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
National Security
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (12:01): The global threat we face from Islamist terrorism has been cruelly brought home to us in the past two weeks with young, innocent Australians murdered in Baghdad, London and Melbourne.
In a relatively short period we have also seen attacks in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jakarta and, of great concern, growing ISIL activity in the southern Philippines, with ISIL affiliated forces besieging a city.
We have mourned the loss of four Australians killed in terrorist attacks in the last few weeks.
Twelve-year-old Zynab Al-Harbiya was killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Kirsty Boden and Sara Zelenak were murdered in the London Bridge attack, which saw two other Australians injured.
And only last week a violent criminal known to have had past links to terror groups murdered Kai Hao, a husband and father, in Melbourne. The killer wounded three police officers as well.
Our deepest sympathies are with the victims and their families.
And we thank the police and security services who rush to the scene to keep us safe—whether on London Bridge or in a Brighton street. They, together with the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, put their lives on the line to keep us safe.
The Brighton murder was the fifth terror related attack on our shores in three years.
All of us asked how such a criminal with such a long and well-known history of violence and terrorism could have been allowed parole.
We are all entitled to feel safe and secure in our own country. And we are all entitled to ask the question: what more must we do? We must also be resolute. We must be united.
My unrelenting focus is to do everything possible to keep Australians safe and maintain our way of life, our values and our freedom.
We must be clear eyed and recognise that this is the new reality we face. The national terror threat level remains at probable and we are not immune from the global impact of the conflicts in the Middle East and the instability around the world. But we should also be reassured.
Our law enforcement agencies, intelligence services and the Australian Defence Force are the best in the world; they keep us safe and they enable Australians to do what we always have done—enjoy our freedom.
We lead our Australian way of life on our terms. We will not buckle or be cowed by this scourge of Islamist terrorism.
Today, I update the House and reassure every Australian on our strategy for taking this challenge head on. My No. 1 priority, my government's No. 1 priority, is to keep Australians safe.
Threat Environment
We face real and growing challenges—from senseless terrorist attacks and hardened fighters returning to our region to foreign interference in our country. Islamist terrorists are engaged in a systematic effort to weaken our societies and divide our communities.
We must remain united and remember that our best allies in the war against this extremist scourge are the vast majority of Muslims—leaders and their communities, at home and abroad, who condemn the terrorists and their hate-filled ideology and join with us in defeating them. Our adversaries' methods and tactics are constantly evolving, and so must we.
Government action/CT-d omestic
That is why we are continually reviewing and adapting our laws and our approach to operations to thwart those who seek to do us harm. Reacting is not enough. We must, we will, stay ahead of this threat.
Since August 2014, we have invested $1.5 billion in our law enforcement and security agencies to combat terrorism. We have passed eight tranches of additional national security legislation.
Last year, for example, we strengthened our control order regime, allowing us to monitor and limit where terrorist suspects can go and with whom they can associate. Last week the government accepted all of the recommendations relating to the Commonwealth from the coroner's report on the Lindt cafe siege, and we have already been acting on the recommendations of the joint New South Wales-Commonwealth review undertaken urgently after those terrible events in Martin Place.
Our intelligence agencies, all the arms of government and the community must continue working together to ensure that we stay ahead of this threat. Since the national terrorism threat level was raised on 12 September 2014 to 'probable', we have seen five attacks and 12 disruptions of terrorist plots. This included one of the most substantial in recent years, a plot to cause mass casualties by exploding devices in central Melbourne, near Federation Square, just before Christmas last year. Once again, the combined efforts of our intelligence services and our police prevented a terrorist atrocity.
We must never become complacent. That is why we are investing an additional $321 million in specialist capabilities for the Australian Federal Police—the largest single funding boost to the AFP's domestic policing capabilities in over a decade—and why we continue to address this issue as a bipartisan, national priority.
After I secured the support of the states and territories at the December 2015 COAG, we legislated to enable the continued detention of high-risk terrorist offenders who pose an unacceptable risk to the community after the expiration of their sentences. Last Friday we agreed, at COAG, that states and territories will strengthen their laws to ensure a presumption against bail and parole being granted to those who have demonstrated support for, or have links to, terrorist activity.
The public needs the confidence that their law makers, their governments, will put their safety first. A special COAG will further review the nation's laws and practices directed at protecting Australians from violent extremism.
And we continue to work with the states and territories to develop a truly national strategy for protecting crowded places, including sporting stadiums, major events and civic spaces. In that work, we are working also with local government, who are responsible for many, if not most, of these spaces, and of course property owners—owners of malls, sporting stadiums and so forth.
It is a comprehensive effort to ensure that we have the highest standard of protection in these crowded places of mass gathering. That strategy was recommended in the review I initiated in June last year after a series of overseas vehicle-borne terrorist attacks, and it is one that will constantly evolve and develop in the light of experience, each jurisdiction, each precinct, learning from the other.
Since May last year we have also been reviewing how Defence supports our national counterterrorism arrangements. This review of laws that have not been updated in 16 years will soon be available to government. And I will also soon receive the review of the Australian Intelligence Community that I tasked last year. This is a regular review, and it is a critical look at how our world-class intelligence agencies and structures must adapt to stay ahead of the threat, anticipate evolving challenges and continue to reassure us of our future security, freedom and opportunities. I will report back to the House with the government's response to these initiatives and seek bipartisan support in the knowledge that we should all be united on public safety and national sovereignty.
CT - Middle East
We must continue to fight to cut off terrorism at its source. That is why, complementing our relentless pursuit for domestic security, we are contributing to international efforts to fight terrorism. We have changed the law so the Australian Defence Force is able to target and kill terrorists in the Middle East whether they are fighting on the frontline with a gun in their hand, financing in the back office, or recruiting fighters through the malignant Islamist ideology they disperse online.
In Iraq, we have trained 22,000 Iraqi security forces personnel, and our Air Task Group is providing significant air support to the anti-Daesh operations over Iraq and Syria, including over Mosul. The coalition's efforts are working. Daesh—or ISIL—has lost around 55 per cent of the territory it previously held in Iraq and Syria. Over four million people have been liberated from Daesh control, 1.5 million displaced people have returned home and 250,000 children have returned to school. Daesh's revenue is at its lowest since 2014, following 2,600 strikes on Daesh-held gas and oil targets and 1½ thousand strikes on tanker trucks. In Afghanistan, we are increasing our deployment to 300 ADF personnel to continue to build local capability to hold territory and deny Islamist terrorists a base of operations.
Citizenship
This week we are introducing legislation to change our visa and citizenship requirements to ensure that new members of our society will embrace our values and positively contribute to our Australian society, regardless of background or religious belief. I urge the opposition and all members of this House to support this vital strengthening of our citizenship laws.
We are the most successful multicultural society in the world. We do not define our national identity, as many others do, by reference to religion, race or ethnicity but rather by a commitment to a shared set of political values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, equality of men and women, mutual respect. We must not take that success for granted. There is no more important title in our democracy than 'Australian citizen', and we should make no apology for asking those who seek to join our Australian family to join us as Australian patriots—committed to the values that define us, committed to the values that unite us.
Border Protection
Our success as a multicultural society is built on strong foundations which include the confidence of the Australian people that their government, and it alone, determines who comes to Australia. Uncontrolled irregular migration flows have posed an existential threat to many countries where, as honourable members know, they have fuelled anxiety and political disorder. Our government has secured Australia's borders. There has not been a successful people smuggling expedition to Australia for 1,052 days.
When we accept refugees into Australia—and we have one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world—we take great care with security checks, as we have done with the 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict zone. Those checks are only possible if the government determines which refugees are admitted and if the security of the border is not outsourced to people smugglers.
Cyber/Intel
Adapting to our changing environment has sometimes meant making tough, even controversial, changes. We have not stood aside while criminals and extremists sought to divide us by exploiting technology platforms designed to bring us together. Instead, we have taken the necessary decisions, including establishing a mandatory data retention scheme. As the global outlook has worsened, the value of these changes is becoming more apparent. Other countries are now looking to our reforms. Metadata has proven vital in nearly every serious criminal investigation conducted today, from organised crime and child sex offences to counterespionage, cybersecurity and counterterrorism, including all of the 12 major disruptions of terrorist plots since 2014.
The internet and the digital technologies it has enabled are breaking down national boundaries and distance. Billions of people now have in their pocket a device that potentially connects them to everybody else in the world. Not so long ago only states and large corporations had megaphones powerful enough to address a nation—now a tweet or a YouTube video can reach millions, if not billions, and do so in seconds.
And reflect on the pace of these changes. The first iPhone was launched in 2007. Facebook, with 1½ billion accounts worldwide, began in a Harvard dorm in 2004, and it has 200 million accounts in India and 100 million in Indonesia alone.
But these remarkable technologies are also being used by those who seek to do us harm. We need even stronger cooperation from the big social media and messaging platforms in the fight against terrorism and the extremism which spawns it. Encryption, for example, is a vital piece of security for every user of the internet, protecting all of us as we go about our lives, from shopping to banking to chatting online.
However encrypted messaging applications are also used by criminals and terrorists—at the moment much of this traffic is difficult for our security agencies to decrypt, and indeed for our Five Eyes partners as well. Most of the major platforms of this kind are based in the United States where a strong libertarian tradition resists government access to private communications as the FBI found when Apple would not help unlock the iPhone of the dead San Bernardino terrorist. The privacy of a terrorist can never be more important than public safety. Never.
An online civil society is as achievable as an offline one, and the rights and protections of the vast overwhelming majority of Australians must outweigh the rights of those who will do them harm. And that is truly what balancing the priority of community safety with individual liberties is all about.
My government is committed to this. We will not take an'If it ain't broke we won't fix it' mentality. The government does not simply set and forget. We are at the forefront of efforts to address future threats. With this objective, the Attorney-General will be in Canada later this month to meet with his Five Eyes counterparts and discuss what more can be done among our like-minded nations and with the communications and technology industry to ensure terrorists and organised criminals are not able to operate with impunity within ungoverned digital spaces online.
This is not about creating or exploiting back doors as some privacy advocates continue to say despite constant reassurance from us. It is about collaboration with and assistance from industry in the pursuit of public safety.
In recognition that these threats constantly evolve, the minister assisting me for cybersecurity and I have also set up a task force to drive fast action to improve Australia's capability and response to cybersecurity and cybercrime threats and incidents.
The WannaCry ransomware incident in mid-May was a big wake-up call for everyone. We were fortunate not to have seen the widespread impact experienced in the UK and elsewhere. And so this task force will engage broadly with Commonwealth agencies, the private sector, as well as state and territory governments in bringing forward the new ideas we need to build national capacity and capability.
Foreign interference
While there is currently no higher priority than defeating Islamist terrorism, our interests are also directly threatened by attempts by foreign states to compromise the integrity of our democratic institutions and processes. We should all guard jealously the principles and the values of democracy that we practice here in this place.
Recent events overseas—including influence operations and cyber disinformation campaigns designed to manipulate the US and French elections—have brought the insidious threat of covert foreign interference into very public view. Interference and espionage are global realities which have potential to cause immense harm to the security of our people, our economic prosperity and the integrity of the democratic institutions which sit at the core of our sovereignty.
My government has already embarked on a significant program of legislative and policy reform to ensure that the Australian people and our national interests are protected from these threats. We are implementing our comprehensive cyberstrategy. We have developed telecommunications sector security reforms, which will strengthen our telecommunications networks from threats of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. We aim to pass these reforms in this sitting of parliament.
We have established the government's Critical Infrastructure Centre to identify and manage risks of foreign espionage, sabotage and coercion to power networks, water supplies and other assets and systems that are vital to our national wellbeing. We are ensuring that ASIO and Defence are working closely to ensure that our sensitive Defence technologies, including our unprecedented naval shipbuilding investments, are secure from threats posed by foreign intelligence activity. We have asked the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to examine foreign donations as part of its inquiry into all aspects of the 2016 election.
Importantly, at the beginning of last month I asked the Attorney-General to review our espionage and foreign interference legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose in the current threat environment. This will lead to the most significant counterintelligence reforms since the 1970s.
So, we are strengthening the resilience of our democracy and shoring up vulnerabilities. This is action, not words—constantly improving and upgrading our defences. There is no place for complacency, no place for set and forget.
International/r egional
In addition to these immediate threats, our regional strategic environment is more uncertain than it has been in 75 years. Regional concerns over the South China Sea, the DPRK and terrorism, evident in recent attacks in Indonesia, and developments in the southern Philippines are intensifying. As I said in my address to the Shangri-La Dialogue a week ago, with the bitter memory of the Bali bombing I am keenly alert to the risk that the next mass casualty attack on Australian victims could well be in South-East Asia, where ISIL propaganda has galvanised existing networks of extremists and attracted new recruits.
We have to take responsibility for our own security and prosperity, but we must also recognise that we are stronger when we are sharing the burden of collective leadership with trusted partners and friends. We are helping to build the region's capacity to confront these cross-border challenges by building operational partnerships, by boosting regional capacity and by increasing the flow of information. At the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit next year, all of this will be a top priority.
Conclusion
We do not turn away from the many challenges we face. Our national attributes, our pride in our security, our diversity, our freedom and the prosperity which they enable, mean that we are well-placed to confront these challenges.
But we can never be complacent or avoid hard truths. We must be open to change and lessons from events at home and abroad. We all have a part to play: government, business and the community.
The last four years of coalition government have seen an uninterrupted program of proactive national security reforms that have been designed in response to the growing global threat environment—and not in reaction to catastrophe or criticism. The government has a proven track record of getting the balance right between ensuring the safety and security of our nation and its people and defending the liberties and personal freedoms that are integral to our way of life.
And the success of the government has been underpinned by the success of our agencies—the best in the world—which work tirelessly to keep Australians safe. But there is no room for even a moment's complacent satisfaction.
It is the first duty, the most solemn obligation, of government to keep Australians safe. And I will not rest, the government will not rest, in our relentless efforts constantly to improve our defences, our capabilities, our techniques, our technologies.
We must be faster, smarter and more agile than those who seek to do us harm. Set and forget is not an option. We live in an age of change unprecedented in its scale and pace. And our security, and the threats to it, are no exception. My commitment and that of my government is never to rest as we do all within our power to keep Australians safe, secure and free.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:24): I thank the Prime Minister for his words. There is no greater responsibility for every member of this place than keeping Australians safe. As I have said, and Labor has demonstrated for four years now, when it comes to fighting terrorism and Islamist terrorism we are all in this together. Today we note with grief that terror has again taken the lives of Australians, as far away as London and as close to home as Brighton in Melbourne. Innocent people murdered in the name of a perverted version of Islam. Brave souls cut down by cowards. Free countries, diverse cities and peaceful nations attacked by the enemies of freedom, diversity and peace. In London, 48 were injured, with eight dead from five nations, including two Australians, a South Australian and a Queensland, a nurse and a nanny, darling daughters loved and admired. Kirsty Boden was 28 and Sara Zelenak was 21—young people, free in an old city, living out a rite of passage for so many Australians, in London, in New York, throughout Asia and Europe, propelled by what Kirsty Boden described as a 'constant longing to go where I haven't been'. I think that is who we are and what we do. We produce bold and resilient young people, the kind of people who run towards danger bravely, without a second thought for themselves—people with the courage and character to make lives away from this country and to achieve great things in other lands, while always holding Australia in their heart. And, whether it is years or decades later, they come home. As Clive James has said, 'the same abundance of natural blessings which gave us the energy to leave has every right to call us back'.
But because of a vicious act of violent cowardice, a lightning strike of terror, Kirsty and Sara will never come home. They are not going to walk through those sliding doors of the airport arrivals and embrace the loved ones they have missed and who have missed them. Instead, their families are left with a last conversation, forever unfinished—perhaps a cheery message about the night ahead, a friendly update from home, a routine exchange, an old joke or two, and the things we all say as parents: 'Take care of yourself. Have fun. We love you.' And never truly knowing the weight of those words until they are the last ones that we share with the most precious things in our lives. No matter how much they go up, they are always your daughter, your son, your life.
As Nick Hao's mother said after he was murdered in Brighton last week, 'I feel like my world has ended'. Despite the swift bravery of the Victoria police, Nick, a new husband and loving father, was killed in the name of Islamic State. Nick came to Australia in 2002, thanks to the sacrifices of his parents. He studied at Monash University and dutifully repaid their faith by bringing them to Australia so that they could be cared for in their old age. At his funeral on Saturday he was remembered with heartfelt simplicity as a good man, a good man working hard and doing his best to be a good dad, a good husband and a good son. A good man killed by an evil deed in evil's name. Today, as a parliament and as people we offer our heartfelt condolences to friends and families of all who died in London and Brighton.
I am sure I am not the only one who feels a sense of an uneasy, haunting familiarity about today's proceedings. Terror is random and unpredictable and alien to our values, our faiths and our way of life. Yet we have come to a pattern, a ritual: we light our landmarks and our candles, we share the stories of heroism and survival, we send sympathy and we stand in solidarity. There is value and merit to all of this—absolutely. But unity in grief is not enough. We owe the dead more than mourning. We have a responsibility to see justice done and to ensure that terrorism is prevented, defeated and eliminated. We must defeat terrorism in the open battlefield abroad. Both sides of this parliament support the international coalition mission in Iraq and Syria. Both sides of this parliament support, admire and salute the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who right now are putting their lives on the line in our country's name and for the cause of peace. As the Prime Minister has said, important progress is being made against the so-called Islamic State. Its territory is being eroded and its resources depleted.
Australia is doing its fair share as a good international citizen to deny safe havens for terrorists, restricting their ability to export violence. We must continue to work closely with allies and friends around the world to neutralise the transnational efforts of extremist groups, including choking off their financial and communications capabilities. We need a renewed focus on cyberthreats—from attacks on government institutions to breaches of individual privacy and identity theft, industrial espionage and interference in elections. We must ensure that our agencies and security personnel are properly supported in and equipped, funded and paid for the important work they do for all Australians.
In the fight against terrorism, we must all play a part—governments and oppositions at every level. On this issue more than any other, we should throw the politics out the window. As the Prime Minister said in his very first national security statement, 'This is not a time for gestures or machismo.' We must be 'calm, clinical, professional' and 'effective'. Australians are not interested in a rhetorical arm wrestle. When real violence threatens our nation, there is nothing to be gained from a war of words. The true test of patriotism, of our shared duty as Australian citizens, is how we work together to defeat terrorism, the practical steps we take.
Terrorism has no respect for human life and no regard for our laws, so there is no point in having circular arguments about jurisdiction or terminology. It is critical that we work together, using the combined resources of Commonwealth and state authorities, to protect our communities and to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. I think last week's COAG meeting was encouraging, with federal, state and territory governments all making worthwhile contributions. In Victoria, we are already seeing swift action to protect public spaces of mass gathering. Premier Daniel Andrews has literally overnight set up bollards and barriers to keep landmarks and big events safe. The cooperation displayed at COAG on the issues of bail and parole for those on terrorism offences was common sense. State borders should never stop us from sharing relevant information that can save lives. When you put yourself beyond the law, you belong behind bars.
Labor will ensure that violent extremists who seek to do harm to Australians are rooted out of our society, are dealt with under the full force of the law and are not to be seen on our streets if there is a continuing risk associated with them. We need to recognise this as a 21st century conflict being fought online as well as in the streets. Terrorists are using sophisticated online strategies as well as crude weapons of violence. For a long time, Daesh have used the internet as an instrument of radicalisation. Through Twitter and Facebook, they boast of a propaganda arm that can reach into every home in the world, spreading hate, recruiting followers and encouraging imitators. With encrypted technology like WhatsApp and Telegram, they can securely communicate not just a message of violence but instructions on how to carry it out. I acknowledge that many internet providers and social media platforms already work hard to detect and remove offensive content, such as child pornography and other forms of violent crime. Facebook has created new dedicated teams, employing thousands of people specifically to monitor its Facebook live stream for this purpose.
The big internet companies have very quickly become an essential part of our free, democratic society, but they need to realise this is a two-way relationship. They need to be part of our society in the sense of working with us as well as taking from us. They need to see this fight as their fight, not just our fight—not just a fight where they help when asked but a fight in which they come to us with ideas. We need them to be proactive, not reactive. Terrorism does not self-police, so we cannot rely on a self-policing system. These tech giants must wake up to the fact that they have the position, if not the authority, to tackle the underbelly of terror propaganda. In this context, Facebook are essentially a media company, not just a platform. They are involved in what gets put up online.
Ensuring that terrorism is not enabled online will take more than just a whack-a-mole approach of removing offensive content when spotted. Our law enforcement agencies need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills and resources they need to detect and disrupt terrorism online, whether it is recruitment, organising and financing or the spread of hateful propaganda. The Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre have the technological ability to protect both government and small and medium business from cyberattack. We need the ASD and the cyber centre to be available to support small and medium businesses as they do with government. But in order to do this, they require better support and resources from government, especially when it comes to recruiting and retaining the best personnel.
This is, of course, a difficult and complex area. There are two things we simply do not know enough about to deal with properly—I refer to the use of the digital currency bitcoin and the use of the dark web, a network of untraceable online activities and hidden websites, allowing those who wish to stay in the shadows to remain hidden. Terrorists are increasingly using this network to avoid detection, conduct planning and acquire capability and tools to carry out their evil actions. We must target this threat head on. As terrorists adapt their methods and seek to hide online, we must ensure our agencies have the tools, resources and technology so terrorism has no place to hide. Likewise, we need to track and target terrorists as they seek to hide and obscure their financial dealings through electronic currencies like bitcoin. We can allow them no sanctuary and no place to rest. We must dislodge them from wherever they hide. In doing this, we must always be mindful of the rule of law and of the proper protections of our citizens, but we cannot sit back when our enemies have access to a worldwide system to educate and fund extremists.
The first major review of Australia's national security tactical response framework was the Hope royal commission following the 1978 Hilton bombing. That commission rejected a third paramilitary-style force in Australia and assigned the close quarter assault role to the ADF. Back in 1978, police SWAT-type capabilities were non-existent, and, as a result, officers were not trained or equipped for that kind of role. This meant that the SAS was given the task of training one of its sabre squadrons for counterterrorism. In the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics, the framework for calling out the ADF to assist civil authorities in incidents of terrorism was modernised in part IIIA of the Defence Act to deal with scenarios involving hostage taking and hijacking. The history of the civil policing approach to terrorism in a hostage taking stronghold or hijack scenario has relied on a doctrine that the ADF call-out or police assault would not be initiated unless a hostage was injured or killed and all avenues of negotiation were closed off. But the nature of the terrorist threat has evolved—from 9/11 to the Tokyo subway, to Nice, to Manchester, and to many other parts of the globe. The main aim of most terrorist incidents we see today is to cause instant mass casualties through improvised explosive devices or, indeed, whatever means are at hand. When hostages are taken, such as in the Lindt Cafe siege, it is right that we ask if the doctrine for waiting for a casualty is appropriate, and, more broadly, if the best framework exists for cooperation between the ADF and the civil police. Labor believes our counterterror operators, trainers and enablers should be working as closely as possible with state and territory police forces to ensure that all military and civil responders are as well trained and well equipped as possible to maximise the most timely and effective action.
Just as we continue to do everything in our power to protect Australians, we must do everything in our power to foster cohesion in our society. This is a responsibility we bear as national leaders and also an obligation shared by the leaders of Australia's Muslim community. The recent bombings in Kabul, killing 150, and the suicide bombing in Baghdad that claimed the life of a 12-year-old schoolgirl from Thomastown, Zynab Al Harbiya, both prove yet again that Islamist terrorism does not respect Islam, does not reflect Islam, and claims the lives of good Muslims far too often. The wisdom of the former director of ASIO, David Irvine, from 2014 is always worth repeating in any discussion of national security:
… the tiny number of violent extremists does not represent the Islamic communities of Australia—we are talking about a few hundred aberrant souls in a community of nearly half a million—and it is grossly unfair to blame Muslims, who see themselves as a committed component of Australia’s multi-cultural society …
He went on to say:
Our fight is with terrorism, not with Islam or with our Muslim community … the strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself.
Wise words indeed! We must continue to work with and strengthen the moderate voices and leaders of the Australian Muslim community and to rigorously and relentlessly detect, challenge, contest, deny and defeat any and all sources of the promotion of extreme views that incite violence. The most powerful weapons we can wield against the division and fear of terrorism remain our belief in an equal, inclusive, multicultural Australia. When we surrender these beliefs and values, the agents and message of terror have succeeded. Defeating the scourge of terrorism requires our every effort, our total energy and our complete unity of purpose: unity in this parliament through continued thoughtful, bipartisan cooperation; unity in the nation, working with the Muslim community to identify people at risk of radicalisation and prevent them from heading down a path of no return; unity in the region, where we face the ongoing challenge of returning foreign fighters driven out of the Middle East by the efforts of Australian forces, amongst others; and unity with other free nations standing against terrorism's assault on the rights of their citizens to live in peace and security.
Terrorists are never so strong as they pretend, and people are always more powerful than they know. Our citizens, our values and our way of life remain the best strategy for keeping Australians safe and for defeating terrorism. It is a stern test and a hard fight, but together, united, we shall prevail.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (12:41): by leave—I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (12:42): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Orders of the Day
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (12:42): I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 4, government business, relating to the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, is returned to the House for further consideration.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
COMMITTEES
Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (12:42): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (12:43): by leave—
I move:
That Ms L. M. Chesters, Mr Drum, Mr Jones, Mr Littleproud, Ms McGowan, Dr McVeigh, Mr Pasin, Ms Price, Mr Ramsey and Ms Swanson be appointed members of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:43): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the government business order of the day relating to a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes (Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017) being called on immediately, being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages, the Member for Gorton being called to move that the bill be now read a second time, and, if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 5.30 pm on 13 June 2017, any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.
Leave not granted.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:44): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the government business order of day relating to a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 and for related purposes being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages and the member for Gorton being called on to move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill must be called on because this is an important matter. This is a matter of national importance. If this bill is passed in this place today the penalty rates decision handed down by the Fair Work Commission in February will be quashed, which will mean that 700,000 workers in this country will not lose penalty rates. We have heard a lot from those on the other side talking about fairness. In fact they decided to hand down a budget arguing that it was a fair budget. That budget, of course, imposed taxes on all workers under $87,000 a year and gave a $16,400 tax cut to millionaires. Yet here is a bill that will provide relief for workers in this country by quashing an order of the Fair Work Commission, therefore enabling them to be given decent remuneration.
In the last three months we have seen this Prime Minister, and indeed this government, choosing to support a decision that will cause very difficult hardship for too many workers in this country. Hospitality workers, retail workers and other workers are losing conditions of employment and rates of pay as a result of that decision. We saw only last week the Commission decide to start the cuts on 1 July. In 18 days we are going to see people lose real money. We are going to see the Prime Minister provide support for a decision that will see the cutting of wages of hundreds of thousands of workers across the country.
There is no point in the members opposite saying they support workers in this country when here they have an opportunity, for once in their lives, to defend workers and to support workers' conditions of employment, indeed to support the current rates of pay that are in awards so that they will not be affected by that Fair Work decision. It is a simple bill. By the way, this bill has already passed the Senate. All it will take now is a vote for this bill in this place and we will have legislation that will prevent the cuts to penalty rates for too many of our fellow Australians.
We are at a time when wage growth in this country is lower than at any time in a generation. We have wage growth going backwards. The ABS data came out three weeks ago showing that wages are falling in real terms. Add to that the effect of this decision by the Fair Work Commission, and you will have further erosion of people's conditions of employment, further erosion of rates of pay. The same people, by the way, will have to pay increased taxes as a result of the budget that was announced by the Treasurer a few weeks ago.
This is a choice for the government. It can support the bill that has passed the Senate and has been introduced into this place. It can support a bill that has been supported by Labor from the outset and support those workers, or it can repudiate those workers and turn its back on hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. Every member opposite has thousands of workers in their electorates who will be affected by this decision. It will not end there. One important part of this bill is the fact that this will not allow the Fair Work Commission to make similar decisions that will change awards to cut penalty rates. At the moment we are talking about hospitality workers and retail workers, but of course there are already other matters before the commission. Clubs Australia is looking to vary its award to change the conditions of employment. We have the hairdressers' award being sought for amendment, which would cut the wages of some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. Indeed, there is no protection for other workers in other awards. Nurses, emergency workers, other workers that are regulated by federal awards could find themselves in a position to have their awards up before the Fair Work Commission to have their wages cut.
That can all change. We have a motion, moved by myself and seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business, to bring forward a bill that will prevent the effect of the Fair Work decision and ensure that future decisions of the Fair Work Commission cannot cut the wages of workers in this country.
The Prime Minister likes to talk about fairness. He has had focus groups telling him what to say about fairness. Here is his chance. We have a bill, introduced into this parliament, that has been passed by the Senate. It will take only the passing of this bill to ensure that we have the change of law required to quash the order determined by the Fair Work Commission. They have to decide this. We have had a few members of the government suggest that they want to entertain the thought of supporting this bill. Where is the member for Dawson? Where is the member for Gilmore? They have said they are going to support this. There is no point going to your electorate and saying you are going to support penalty rates if, when you come back into this place and have your first opportunity to support a bill that will do exactly that, you choose not to vote for it. I expect the member for Dawson, the member for Gilmore and other members of the government to cross the floor now, if the Prime Minister does not have the guts to support these workers, and come here and support this bill.
This bill, if passed, will ensure that workers in this country, suffering the lowest wage growth in a generation, suffering tax increases by this government, will get some relief. If government members choose not to support this bill then I think it is fair for everyone to conclude that this government has no regard for workers in this country, has no concern about the cost of living pressures and has no concern that workers cannot afford to pay for petrol, put food on the table, pay the rent or pay the mortgage. If they fail to support this motion today, they will stand condemned as a government totally out of touch with Australian workers, those people they pretend to look after when they go back to their electorates. The time is now. The Prime Minister and the government should support this proposed legislation. In doing so there will be relief for workers. It would show that they might stand up for workers for once in their life, but I have to say, given the history of this government and the callous disregard from the Prime Minister, I will not hold my breath.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:52): It is seconded. I love watching the—
Dr Gillespie interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): You cannot, unless you want to second it.
Mr BURKE: If he wants to second it, I am happy to give way. Has there ever been such confusion from a government as what we just witnessed while the member for Gorton was making that speech? Over there we saw the panic on the face of the member for Lyne—'Do I move that he stop talking or do I let him keep going?'—with advisers showing him mobile phones and telling him what to do, and a little huddle happening over there next to the Speaker's chair, while they work out that, if they bring it on now, move that members be no longer heard and then move that the question be put, there will be a vote before question time. Would they rather do that, or would they rather give themselves a chance to have a few hours to heavy some of the members of their own backbench to try to bring them into line before this comes to a vote?
This vote would give the parliament a chance to stop the pay cut. That is what they are terrified about. That is what they are worried about. The simplicity of this vote is that if the parliament votes in favour of the bill that the member for Gorton is saying should be brought forward then 700,000 Australians will not get a pay cut. There are a couple of members opposite who, if the vote had been brought on quickly, you might have thought, given their public statements, would be willing to join Labor in stopping the pay cut. We have always seen the ritual, when suspensions are moved: they move that the member be no longer heard, the seconder stands, they move that the member be no longer heard, they move that the question be put and we then have a vote.
But no: for the first time those opposite are afraid of the vote and are doing everything they can to prevent the vote from happening, so that they have the chance to heavy members of their backbench. I am sorry to the member opposite. All he needs to read are the two words 'pay cut' and he will know what it is about. And if he is going to speak against the resolution, if he is going to vote against the resolution, he can do so with his eyes wide open, knowing that he is voting in favour of a pay cut.
On this one they cannot hide behind the process. They cannot say, 'Oh, no; it's an independent tribunal.' What was their argument when we were dealing with safe rates of pay for truckies? When an independent tribunal came down with a decision they did not like, not only did they set aside the decision; they abolished the tribunal. It is gone completely! They completely obliterated it. But on this one there is one reason why they want to stand behind the independence of the tribunal. It is because they like the decision. It is because they want the pay cut to go ahead. They understand that a pay cut here will have a knock-on effect for penalty rates for workers in industry after industry after industry. They know that, and that is why they support it.
This is a bill that has already passed the Senate. This is a bill where the Senate has already agreed for this to go forward. We simply need the members of this House to have the courage to care about what a pay cut means for 700,000 workers. The day after a tax cut comes through for millionaires in this country, you will not find them jumping to attention saying, 'We need to do something to prevent there being a tax cut for millionaires.' But you will find them jumping to attention to do everything they can to deliver a pay cut for ordinary workers.
If you have a situation where people rely on these penalty rates to be able to make ends meet, where people are in jobs where they have become completely dependent on these penalty rates for their household budgets, and where award decisions have been made based on the fact that these penalty rates will be paid, you have a situation where, for ordinary workers in retail and hospitality, this is a direct hit on their household budgets. This is a direct hit on their capacity to make ends meet.
It does not matter how many times the minister opposite keeps peering at that piece of paper; it will still say 'pay cut' for 700,000 people. Those opposite cannot hide behind process. They cannot hide behind, 'Oh, well, would it get through the Senate?' It already has. But for 700,000 Australian workers this vote has one meaning: either those opposite are on the side of their take-home pay or those opposite are not. Labor will vote to defend their wages.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:57): Here is a chance. We have regional MPs sitting across from us. Here is a chance for those Nationals MPs, regional MPs, to cross the floor and stand up for regional communities. Seven hundred thousand workers, many of whom live in regional areas, face a pay cut. We have two sitting weeks of parliament, and today those opposite can join with Labor to protect the take-home pay of 700,000 workers, workers who are on the smallest of incomes. We are talking about people working in retail, in hospitality and in pharmacy. We are talking about mums who have told us that the Sunday penalty rate they currently get is how they are paying for their internet or their kids' basketball lessons. Yet all we have from those opposite is a do-nothing attitude when it comes to protecting the take-home pay of some of the lowest-paid workers in this country.
But there is a chance right now for this government, for those opposite—those members who are claiming to stand up for workers—to join Labor in supporting take-home pay. It is really simple: come in here and vote with Labor to allow us to bring this bill on for debate. This is that chance. We have seen the government, time and time again, when it suits them, bring on debates in this House. They abolished the safe rates tribunal. Once upon a time they said that they stood up for truck drivers, and they abolished the safe rates tribunal—rushed legislation through at the end of parliament to scrap the tribunal. They did not just disagree with the decision; they actually scrapped the entire tribunal. We have seen them do it time and time again with legislation, yet on this issue they are dragging their feet; they are refusing to stand with Labor.
But there is a chance—on 1 July, as we have heard from this side, this government is giving millionaires a tax cut; they are giving people on the highest of incomes a tax cut. We are talking about giving people who earn the highest incomes in this country a tax cut. This is the same government that are sitting on their hands and doing nothing, when they have a chance to support Labor help those on the lowest of incomes, including people working in retail, hospitality and pharmacy; 700,000 workers in regional areas, in our suburbs, people who rely on these penalty rates to make ends meet. They are doing nothing. Here is their chance. They can stand with Labor, cross the floor and vote with us to bring on this bill now. I support what is being moved by the member for Gorton to allow this debate to happen. We are calling on the government, on those opposite, to vote with Labor. Let us fix this problem. We support the Fair Work tribunal, we support Fair Work, but when they make decisions that are not based on the best interests of workers we should intervene. We should change bad laws. We need to support take home pay.
Mr Pyne: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I think there has been a misunderstanding, because you called for a seconder when the motion had already been seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business and therefore it could not possibly be seconded again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I did, yes, after he had finished.
Mr Pyne: You called for a second seconder, but it had already been seconded by the Manager of Opposition Business. I think the only fair thing is for the call to now be given to a member of the government rather than to the opposition, because you have called three members of the opposition. My colleagues very reasonably sat back down when they heard you call for a seconder, because obviously they were not going to second it again—they were not going to second a motion from the opposition. It should be the call of the government. We are happy to accept it as a misunderstanding, but we need to have a speaker and move on.
Mr Burke: To the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I believe the Leader of the House's recollection of the events is somewhat different to what happened. There was a long pause before the member for Bendigo jumped. Had she not jumped the question would have been put. That is why she jumped.
Mr Pyne: It would have been deferred.
Mr Burke: The question would have been put. If I can explain the standing orders to the Leader of the House: it would only have been deferred after being put to the vote if there was then a call for a division. We defer divisions; we do not defer the initial vote—and the initial vote would have occurred. It is in the standing orders—we vote on a whole series of things. Check with the Clerk. That said, if a member of the government wants to defend a pay cut for 700,000 Australians, then it is their turn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: To clarify the issue, I asked for the motion to be seconded, following which the minister jumped. I then asked him whether he wanted to second it, and he said no. It was then seconded by the member for Watson. At the end of the member for Watson's speech I asked if the motion had been agreed to. No-one jumped. The opportunity was there—
Mr Laundy: I was at the dispatch box.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you were not at the dispatch box. When the member for Watson had finished the motion that it be agreed to was the question, and you two looked at each other. There was not anything else, and then the member for Bendigo jumped. I would be happy to look at it, but given that this was five minutes ago I am going to call the member for Bendigo in continuation
Mr Pyne: That's ridiculous.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not ridiculous.
Mr Pyne: You have no idea—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is close to a reflection on the chair, and, coming from the government, which seek to have an issue with communication, I do not think that is a fair point. Does the member Bendigo want to continue.
Ms CHESTERS: I will continue, thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. Look at the chaos of those opposite—stand up here and defend your position; stand up here and justify why you will not let us bring this debate on. Stand up here and say why you do not want to support us on this. Seven hundred thousand people are about to have their take-home pay cut. Support the bill. Support the discussion about the bill. Bring on the debate now. Do not let it lapse. Here is your chance as a government to support low-paid workers. Otherwise, stand up and make your statement. Why do you want to stop the House from proceeding with this debate? Why does the government not want to allow this House to have this debate?
This is a chance for the government to do the right thing by 700,000 low-paid workers. This is reform that will strengthen the Fair Work Commission and allow and encourage them to make decisions that will not cut take-home pay. These are people on the smallest of margins—in hospitality, in retail and in pharmacy. And we know it will happen in the rest of the community. We know that other industries also want to cut take-home pay. That is why it is so important that this government allows us to have this debate. That is why it is so important that those opposite cross the floor and support the member for Gorton's motion so that we can fix this and ensure that people's take-home pay is not cut as result of the changes that Fair Work have made in cutting penalty rates. Stop the pay cut. This is your chance to stand with Labor and vote up the member for Gorton's motion so that we can stop the pay cut for 700,000 workers immediately—not to mention those who are also in the firing line. That includes people who work in beauty, hairdressing, clubs and in a number of other industries who are also now facing their industry asking for their penalty rates to be cut. This is a problem that Labor has identified. We have done the hard work and drafted the changes to ensure that we as a parliament can protect take-home pay for our lowest paid workers.
Here is a chance for those opposite to stand up, cross the floor and support the member for Gorton's motion to make sure we protect take-home pay. Here is your chance. Or at least get up and defend why you will not allow us to have the discussion and to have the debate. I urge those opposite to do the right thing, support these low-paid workers and fix the loopholes in Fair Work so we can make sure we protect take-home pay.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (13:07): The whole assumption here is that you are in favour of it and we are against it. Many people on this side have worked in industries where there are shifts, overtime and you work unsocial hours. I spent 30 years doing shiftwork. So the idea that only the opposition understands this is quite faulty. But that is quite different from a situation where someone just gets a job on a weekend because they are at uni or other things and there is an automatic assumption that they have already worked an eight-hour day or a 37-hour week. That sort of mentality means that in my part of the world, where we have a tourism industry that stops operating on Sundays and many Saturdays, it is counterproductive; it means that there are fewer jobs. So, even though the sentiment might be to protect income, it depends on which way you are looking at it. In my part of the world there are plenty of people who would love to run their tourism businesses on a Sunday but cannot because it is uneconomic. There needs to be two sides to the coin in any discussion about this because not everywhere is the same. Most of what was proposed before would mean people would be getting rates of pay that were uneconomic for businesses and businesses would not employ them. What we are trying to do is grow employment opportunities. For employment to happen anywhere, you need to have a business. If you price yourself out of existence, the business folds, and that is the commonsense approach that we are adopting in this whole space.
The issue that you are referring to is not the sole preserve of the opposition. We understand a lot of those arguments, but the arguments fall down. Employment is the driver behind any—
The SPEAKER: The assistant minister will resume his seat.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Gorton to suspend standing orders be agreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:11): I rise to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. I firstly note that Labor supported the establishment of this office and put on the record its support for the commissioner and the important work of her office. However, the bill before us today exemplifies the 'regulate first, think later' mentality of this government as well as its short-sighted and piecemeal approach to online safety for Australians. This bill amends the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 to broaden the functions and the title of the statutory office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner.
Labor broadly supports the bill, although there is not much to the bill, of course, and that is the point. The bill exemplifies the tendency of the government, as I said, to do things without really thinking them through, only to change their minds later or tinker with cosmetic issues, like name changes, in order to be seen to be doing something while actually falling well short of addressing issues properly. Like so many other policy areas, the government are making up their approach to online safety for Australians as they go along. It is one thing to be flexible and adaptable—qualities that can be useful in this day and age—however, it is another thing entirely to be short-sighted and piecemeal, and unfortunately it is the latter set of traits we see exhibited by the government.
The Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner commenced operations only two years ago, on 1 July 2015, and already the Turnbull government have a bill in parliament to change the name of the office they created. It is worth noting a few issues about this. Firstly, the remit of the office has always been, since its inception, broader than children, so it was somewhat short-sighted of the government to focus the name of the office on children in the first place. In addition to administering a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child, the office has, since day 1 of its operations, administered the Online Content Scheme under schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which applies to illegal and offensive content, including content that advocates terrorist acts or which instructs in matters of crime or violence, for example. The government either misunderstood or ignored the experience of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, out of which the Children's eSafety Commissioner was created, as the ACMA had a clear and distinguished track record in promoting online safety for all Australian citizens, not only children. Now, and because of the Liberal-National coalition government's lack of foresight, awareness and understanding about the remit and function of the office they created, taxpayer funds will foot the bill for any rebranding required as the office is renamed. They are making it up as they go along.
Secondly, the government started tinkering with the office early, conferring additional functions upon the commissioner by legislative rule only months after it commenced operations in July 2015. The Enhancing Online Safety (Family and Domestic Violence) Legislative Rules 2015, made under subsection 108(1) of the act, was signed by the communications minister and registered in December 2015. The purpose of this was to confer additional functions upon the commissioner in relation to the online safety of persons at risk of domestic or familial violence of any kind. Specific functions included 'to support, encourage and conduct educational, promotional, training and community awareness programs', for example. Of course, only last month the government again conferred additional functions by legislative rules. The Enhancing Online Safety (Intimate Images and Other Measures) Legislative Rules 2017 were registered on 30 May and specify additional functions for the Children's eSafety Commissioner as described in this bill.
Thirdly, while the government has dressed this bill up as 'expanding the role of the eSafety Commissioner to address online safety issues affecting adults, including to combat non-consensual sharing of intimate images, commonly referred to as revenge porn', this bill does not actually extend the existing cyberbullying scheme to adults or confer any new powers to the commissioner to deal with revenge porn. It really just empowers the office to provide information based initiatives for adults. As the Bills Digest notes, at page 2:
While the Commissioner will not have the ability to receive complaints from adults about cyber-bullying material, the Government seeks to improve and promote online safety for all Australians through education initiatives.
Also, at page 5:
The Government does not intend for the complaints scheme for cyber-bullying material that targets Australian children to be expanded to cover all Australians.
And, at page 3:
This Bill does not introduce offences for non-consensual sharing of images but is a recognition of the Government’s commitment to assist all Australians on online safety, through education and research.
To quote an answer from the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to a question on notice in the recent Senate estimates hearings, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 contains amendments to broaden the general functions of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to cover online safety for all Australians, not just Australian children. The bill will also change the name of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the expanded general functions. It does not confer any additional formal powers on the commissioner.
Meanwhile, serious questions about civil and criminal offences for dealing with non-consensual sharing of intimate images remain unaddressed by this bill. As I said, this government is just making it up as it goes along. It is evident that this government is confused about online safety and that it has created confusion in the community about where to go for information and assistance about e-safety. They have admitted themselves—and to quote the second reading speech by the member for Bradfield—
The bill amendments address feedback received by the government that adult members of the public are not aware that they can go to the Children's eSafety Commissioner for assistance with concerns around illegal or offensive online content, the sharing of intimate images without consent—commonly referred to as 'revenge porn'—or for general advice about how to manage technology risks and online safety.
And in response to a question on notice during Senate estimates recently, the office stated that it 'has noted anecdotal feedback that the current name may deter some segments of the public coming to the office for assistance on a broad range of online safety issues currently within the office's remit'.
Let's be clear: it was an idea of this government to transfer responsibility for online safety away from the ACMA to the newly created Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, which has caused confusion about where adult Australians can turn for assistance on e-safety. At the same time that the government took the decision to create the office, the ACMA had been responsible for a range of initiatives in the online safety space for years. Under the Cybersmart brand, the ACMA offered a suite of tailored cybersafety initiatives, digital media literacy initiatives and education programs to meet the needs of all Australian citizens, not confined to children. The Cybersmart resources and programs were highly regarded. For example, within the education sector, the professional development for educators program was accredited or endorsed in every state and territory, and the ACMA produced film Tagged, dealing with issues of cyberbullying, sexting and digital reputation, achieved a swag of international film and television awards.
Despite this success and despite there being no confusion over the remit of the ACMA with respect to adults or children, the view of government was that the ACMA was not high-profile enough. This was confirmed by the Minister for Communications under scrutiny, again, at Senate estimates. Earlier this year Senator Urquhart put it to the communications minister that there had not been any confusion about the ACMA's remit with respect to adults or children, and the minister agreed:
You are right. Some of the responsibilities that the commissioner has now were previously held by ACMA. No disrespect to ACMA, but I do not think the acronym 'ACMA' is necessarily top of mind for the community … it was not a high-profile office in the way that we wanted the Children's eSafety Commissioner to be and that we now want the eSafety Commissioner to be.
Leaving aside the issue that 'ACMA' may be an initialism rather than an acronym, it is notable that the government already had a regulator with a broad name that did not confuse people. In creating a new office, the government went against the trend of deregulation and of rationalising statutory agencies, giving it the name 'Children's eSafety Commissioner', only to change the name a couple of years later when they realised the remit of e-safety in Australia was indeed broader than for children.
One is reminded of Prime Minister Turnbull's Digital Transformation Office. While the Prime Minister wanted to create the impression that he was tackling service delivery in the Public Service with an innovative approach, the DTO failed to make headway in substance. Then, late last year, the Turnbull government announced a radical idea: to rename the recently created Digital Transformation Office the 'Digital Transformation Agency'. As my colleague the member for Chifley said in a media statement about these issues earlier this year:
If you can't name your own offices what hope have you got with the substantially more complex task of government digital transformation? The answer: not much.
That brings me back to the issue of the Children's eSafety Commissioner. I want to talk about the efficacy of the scheme, and it goes without saying that online safety for all Australians, children as well as adults, is important. Labor supported the government, as I said, in the establishment of the new office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner in 2015, based on the importance Labor places on children's safety online and in recognition of the prevalence of bullying in social media in the lives of too many Australian children. As I said at the time:
Labor are committed to do all that we can to combat online child bullying. Bullying itself is a scourge on our society. It can have devastating impacts on victims and their families, and I am sure many of us, representing our local communities as we do, have been touched in some way by that fact.
At the time, Labor also noted that the statutory review mechanism in the legislation was necessary and appropriate, given the concerns around its practical implementation expressed by a range of industry stakeholders. Again, as I said at the time:
… the opposition has also consulted widely with industry and with a variety of interested groups and individuals on this legislation, and we do acknowledge the concerns that some have expressed with it. There are concerns around the practical implementation of some of the elements of this scheme, and of course parliament should always be cautious when it comes to imposing new regulation in what is an extremely dynamic and evolving technology landscape.
I noted the concerns expressed by the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association Digital Policy Group, which represents some of the better known faces of social medium including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo7. These member bodies already had policies that expressly prohibit bullying and invest in a reporting infrastructure that allows the millions of people who use their services to report bullying content. They also undertake online safety outreach and awareness-raising.
Two years into the operation of the cyberbullying complaints scheme, complaints to the government office are relatively low. In the course of Senate estimates recently, the office confirmed that they had received 186 complaints in the 2015-16 reporting year, and 334 complaints to date in the 2016-17 reporting year. Of these complaints, about a quarter relate to cyberbullying material located on platforms that are actually not participants in the tier scheme or were invalid. Complaint statistics aside, the office should be congratulated on its efforts and interventions to date in assisting young Australians. All of the complaints received by the office about cyberbullying material located on a tiered social media service have been able to be resolved informally, without the need for the office to exercise its formal powers under the act.
I thank the new commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, for her information sessions, even those conducted recently; her accessibility; and her passion for the role. Labor looks forward to working with her in future. However, this government's tinkering with the act and legislative rules suggests Labor's and industry's reservations about the scheme were indeed not misplaced. We will continue to monitor the operation of the act closely in the lead-up to the statutory review that is provided for.
I wish to turn to the issue of revenge porn. Labor welcomes the expansion of the eSafety Commissioner's role to adults as well as children. It is sensible that the eSafety Commissioner's website contains resources on what is known as revenge porn and that the new complaints mechanism be handled by the commissioner's office. Accordingly, the change in title for the position is not controversial.
However, we contend that rebadging this office and creating a complaints mechanism is not enough. Labor is concerned that the bill does nothing to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material. Labor first introduced a bill to criminalise this behaviour in October 2015 and then reintroduced this bill in the current parliament in October 2016. Meanwhile, the Turnbull government talks about the problem of violence against women but fails to take action in this critical area. This bill is just another example of all talk and no action on this very important issue of revenge porn. The government has made no commitment to introduce or support Commonwealth legislation to criminalise this egregious behaviour.
Some states have begun to criminalise this conduct at the state level. Victoria and South Australia have made distributing internet and sexually explicit images without consent a criminal offence. Last year Western Australia passed laws allowing family violence restraining orders to be used in the case of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and New South Wales is reported to be moving on the issue as well. It is clear that this is a piecemeal approach to responding to revenge porn. Each of the provisions is different. What is lacking is a national approach.
We know this government's excuse is COAG. Recently, indeed, the COAG Law, Crime and Community Safety Council released a national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. However, even with this statement, there will still be no overarching Commonwealth law that can provide national consistency and there may still exist inconsistencies from state to state.
Labor went to the 2016 federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise revenge porn within the first 100 days of being elected. I note that the Liberals did not step up and make a similar promise. Instead, their election commitment was a new complaints line. They are now devoting $4.8 million to developing a national online reporting tool to help counter the effects of non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
While the new complaints process about revenge porn is welcome, it is not in and of itself sufficient. There need to be strong criminal laws making clear that are circulating nude pictures or videos of sex acts without someone's consent, or threatening to do so, is not acceptable.
Labor will continue to seek to ensure that revenge porn is criminalised, including by the creation of appropriate Commonwealth offences. Accordingly, I move the second reading amendment in my name in the terms that have been circulated:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that Australian laws have failed to keep up with the new ways that technology is being used to cause harm, particularly to women and in the context of family violence;
(2) notes that law enforcement and experts agree that there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with sharing of intimate images without consent, colloquially referred to as ‘revenge porn’;
(3) notes that the Council of Australian Governments recommended that the Commonwealth government introduce legislation that reinforces perpetrator accountability by removing uncertainty and explicitly making it illegal to use technology to distribute intimate material without consent;
(4) notes that the Turnbull government has failed to criminalise sharing of intimate images without consent; and
(5) calls on the Turnbull government to criminalise sharing of intimate images without consent.”
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Chesters: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway 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.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:28): In light of the hour, I will keep my remarks incredibly short in respect to the legislation, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, and particularly in relation to the changing the name of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the eSafety Commissioner and to the broadening of the general functions of the commission to cover online safety for all Australians.
Obviously this piece of legislation reflects the changing nature of the problems we as a community face dealing with the challenges of content available online, particularly when it is addressed to and targeted towards minors. I regularly have people in my constituency in the good electorate of Goldstein raising concerns with me precisely about the challenges that children and others face on online platforms and the importance of making sure there are proper regulations in place but also government agencies to seek assistance and support from.
We know from the operations of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to date that there have been hundreds of complaints made, and working cooperatively with the social media platforms there have been mechanisms used to assist and to enable content not to be available that would be inappropriate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Goldstein will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his speech.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Chapman, Ms Dixie
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:30): Yesterday was the Australian Football League's Big Freeze day, which raises funding and awareness for research into motor neurone disease. Yesterday, I also attended the funeral of a family friend—a constituent and a person whose active, generous and good life was cut short by motor neurone disease. Dixie Chapman was the eldest daughter of Fay and Dick Winter, who were among my mum and dad's greatest friends. She was also a sister to Margot, a wife to Terry, a mother, a grandmother and an aunt. My heart goes out to Fay, Dixie's sister, Margot, and all Dixie's family and friends. Dick left this world in April last year, and now Dixie has gone to join him. Last time I spoke to Dixie was at the fabulous wake they held for Dick at the Cruising Yacht Club in Rockingham.
I did not know Dixie well, but I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to her and her family, who are truly pioneers of the city of Rockingham. Fay and Dick's parents, Dixie's grandparents, the Robinsons, first had a holiday home in Palm Beach in Rockingham in the 1930s when there was no road along the beachfront and Rockingham was much further away from Perth than the current quick 45-minute drive that it is these days. The Winters moved into this family home many years later, and it is where Dixie and Margot grew up. Dick Winter was truly the fisherman's friend, having established the bait industry in Western Australia and providing reliable sources of bait for amateur fisherman for many years. He was also one of the few fishermen to hold a licence for the BP jetty in Kwinana.
Scott, Mr Bruce
Toohey, Mr John
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (13:31): Yesterday, two deserving Maranoa residents were awarded the prestigious Medal of the Order of Australia. I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate and thank them for their years of service. Firstly, Barcoo Shire Mayor Bruce Scott has spent 23 years advocating for the people of some of the most remote parts of Australia. Put simply, Mayor Scott does not just do a job; he lives and breathes serving people of far west and remote Queensland. His commitment to improving communications in the bush is something I deeply admire and respect. Mayor Scott knows the ins and outs of the communications landscape and was heavily involved in securing optic fibre across multiple shires to provide high-speed internet access to Windorah, Birdsville, Bedourie, Jundah and Stonehenge. On a recent visit to the Windorah State School with Mayor Scott, it was obvious to me that the heart of his drive is absolutely about those children and giving them the very best opportunity in life.
Secondly, I would like to congratulate and thank John Toohey, a Vietnam veteran and RSL life member who has not only dedicated more than 40 years as the Goondiwindi RSL branch president but also volunteered his time to various sporting associations, St Mary's Catholic Parish, the Lions Clubs and the Rotary Club, to name a few. Despite John's struggles over the years, including his skin cancer battle—a constant reminder of his Vietnam War service when troops washed down vehicles with Agent Orange—he has remained passionately dedicated to his local town of Goondiwindi and to advocating for returned servicemen and servicewomen. John quintessentially embodies what it means to be Australian, and I would like to thank him for being a constant source of inspiration. (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:33): The clock is ticking down until 700,000 of our lowest paid workers have their penalty rates cut. It was a decision made by Fair Work. Fair Work decided to cut the Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for some of our lowest paid workers—workers in retail, workers in hospitality and workers in the pharmacy industry. Predominantly, it is women who are working in these industries.
Yet, there is a chance for the government—the members opposite—to cross the floor and join with Labor to stop this cut. This decision by Fair Work was wrong. It is this place in this parliament that sets the rules around fair work, so there is an opportunity for those opposite, after the matter of public importance, to join with Labor, to cross the floor and to bring on the debate so we can have the discussion about how to protect people's penalty rates and their take-home pay.
I call on the member for Dawson, the member for Capricornia, the member for Page, the member for Gilmore and the member for Dunkley to cross the floor and to vote with Labor to bring on this debate so we can protect penalty rates. We can call on Fair Work and we can reset the laws to protect people's take-home pay. I call on the crossbenchers to join with Labor. The clock is ticking, but there is still a chance for this place to do something for our lowest paid workers—people who are about to have a cut in their take-home pay. I urge those opposite to do the right thing. (Time expired)
Edwards, Mr Roger
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:35): Recently we lost one of the South West's great characters and wonderful people in Roger Edwards. In 1941 Roger was drafted into the Australian 10th Light Horse Regiment. Servicemen were asked to take their horse, if possible, and this was no issue for Roger, who lived on a farm in the South West. He served between 1941 and 1944 before being discharged on 23 November 1943.
To commemorate the 50 years since the first regimental camp was held a plaque was unveiled in 1991 by the Bunbury mayor at Hands Oval. This was followed in 2013 by the installation at the Brunswick Memorial Hall of artwork commemorating the 10th Light Horse.
After his discharge Roger returned to work on his father's farm at Waterloo, growing beef, pigs, potatoes and pumpkins and making cream. He later started his own farm at Waterloo. He married Mona Chergwin and built their house. He retired from farming in 1967 and moved into his home of many years in Wellesley near Brunswick Junction.
In addition to serving the country Roger made an enormous contribution as a bushfire control officer, a member of the Brunswick agricultural society and a member of the Bunbury camera club. He published a book in 1993 on the Australian light horse. Sincere condolences to all three of his children, particularly his son, Lyndon, who was a tower of strength and the light of his life.
Broadband
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:36): I rise today to condemn this government for its appalling rollout of the NBN across this nation and, more specifically, in the electorate of Lalor. This government has taken what should have been the biggest infrastructure project in this country's history and turned it into something that is not delivering for the constituents in my community. Not only can many not access the NBN, as the rollout stalls and is slow, many cannot get ADSL1 and ADSL2 in areas in my electorate, and there does not seem to be anything this government is prepared to do to fix this issue.
We are confronted in the outer west of Melbourne with a digital divide—a digital divide that means businesses in my electorate cannot get the infrastructure that they need; they cannot get the speeds, neither upload nor download, that they need. Mr Birch of Point Cook reports to me that he has a download speed of 0.61 Mbps and an upload speed of 0.32 Mbps. Mr Wadsworth of Point Cook reports he has a download speed of 2.36 Mbps and an upload speed of 1.73 Mbps. Mr Boucher of Seabrook has a download speed of 1.2 Mbps and an upload speed of 0.96 Mbps.
These are people in my electorate who need the infrastructure for the 21st century before we get to the 22nd century. It is time this government took its responsibilities for infrastructure seriously and provided for the people in my electorate.
Groom Electorate: Community Spaces
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:38): In Toowoomba last week I opened a new community hub and meeting space established by Credit Union Australia in the Walton Stores precinct. As an Australian first, CUA co-designed this space with local members and community groups within their new premises. CUA selected Toowoomba because our region embraces both innovation and a sense of community.
I also acknowledge the Canvas Coworking space led by David Masefield. This is a not-for-profit association which is passionate about developing a local start-up ecosystem. They have created a space that is developing partnerships between mentors and entrepreneurs to accelerate new businesses that will drive economic growth into the future in our ever-changing digital economy.
Also soon to be unveiled in our city is the renovation of our historic City Hall auditorium. It is set to return bigger and better and will merge into our larger Civic Square and library precinct, which has already established itself as the beating heart of our great city.
In these uncertain times people within our many communities, especially in Toowoomba in the electorate of Groom, are seeking, not shunning, secure community spaces where they can come together to work, to share experiences and celebrations or simply to socially interact. I am very pleased that Toowoomba is leading the way.
Rigney, Dr Alice
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:39): I rise today to pay my respect and homage to Dr Alice (Alitya) Rigney. I had the great honour last week of going to Adelaide and speaking in Alice's memorial state service. I also want to pay tribute to her three children, who made wonderful speeches at the service: Lester-Irabinna, Eileen and Tracey. The Premier was there, as was the Governor and many other very significant people. The hall was packed. There were hundreds and hundreds of people.
Alice Rigney's passing is a loss to South Australia and the community as a whole. If I say anything I want to make it clear that her greatest legacy is her family. I spoke about that a moment ago. Dr Rigney was a giant on a national cause, that is reconciliation, truth-telling and nation-building. She was an educator. She was the first Indigenous principal at Kaurna Plains School and the first Aboriginal person employed by the department of education. Alice's great belief was that all kids deserve a good education. She was a true educator and believed in the dignity of people. It was a great honour for me to be there, and it is a great honour to stand in this parliament and pay respect to Dr Alice (Alitya) Rigney and her family.
Schools
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:41): I rise to speak about the students at Mount Tarcoola Primary School, who under this government's new education reforms will stand to gain an extra $3 million by the year 2027. We have heard a lot about how this government's education reforms will change the lives of children living in regional Australia, but I would like to reaffirm the benefits that those changes will bring. On a sliding scale of need there are few places that are in greater need than country Western Australia. We are constantly under-represented in school completion rates, mean school grades and, unfortunately, federal funding for our schools.
But that great injustice has been rectified. Western Australia's regional schools stand as the big winners in these proposed changes. It is interesting to note, considering we have such great need and there is significant need in my electorate of Durack, that we have received in the past such a small piece of the federal education funding pie, and that the member for Sydney does not deem us important enough to receive one of the special 27 dodgy deals that we see from coast to coast on the east coast, while the $20,000-a-year or semester private schools in Sydney and Melbourne receive generous taxpayer concessions, the schools in remote communities in the wheat belt, the Mid-West, the Gascoyne, the Kimberley and the Pilbara received a pittance. It appears yet again that it is left to us on this side of the chamber, the coalition, to fight for a better deal for regional Australia. I am immensely proud to be doing so.
Parliamentary Education Office
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:42): I love seeing the kids come in here and watch what is going on in parliament, but unfortunately a lot of schools in the Northern Territory cannot get down here. But last week it was great, with the senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and also the shadow minister for schools, Andrew Giles, for us to participate in the great work of the Parliamentary Education Office and, in particular, their Parliament Alive program. I want to acknowledge Anne Kennedy and Marissa Beard from the PEO for the great work that they do in making what we do here in this place interesting and meaningful for young Australians like those young students in my electorate.
I want to share some of what those students had to say. One of their major concerns was for the environment—the need to recycle and look after our scarce natural resources. They also wanted more opportunities when they leave school so that they do not always have to go down south for study or work. And being 14-year-olds, they were pretty keen on some theme park action up in the Top End, so I am going to do my best to help them with that.
I want to thank the teachers who facilitated the programs: D'Elise Keitaanpaa from Moulden Park Primary School, Liam Phillips from Darwin High School, Anita Turnbull of Palmerston Senior College, and Serena Kuhl from Nightcliff Middle School. I thank the students, in particular the various prime ministers, leaders of the opposition and the speakers. I totally enjoyed taking part and I comment the program to the House.
Flynn Electorate: Rolleston Wings, Wheels, Rugby Day
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:44): Last week I attended the inaugural fund-raising event at Rolleston: Wings, Wheels, Rugby. Proceeds from the day are being donated to the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Rolleston Medical Centre. Rolleston is located 90 minutes south of Emerald and 3½ hours west of Gladstone, with a population of about 120. The day kicked off with about 80 light aircraft coming from all over Queensland. During the day, I attended a discussion meeting with rural pilots to hear firsthand their concerns with CASA.
The highlight of the day was the inspection of the locally-based historical aircraft collection of Rolleston locals Ross and Peggy Smith. On display was the Smiths' twin-engine Lockheed 12A Electra, which played a role in World War II. This aircraft arrived in Melbourne in 1937 and was purchased by Broken Hill Associated Smelters Pty Ltd, now known as BHP. Known as the 'Silver City', this plane flew BHP officials, and was later used to carry Australian prime ministers, around the country. In 2003, the aircraft was bought by the Smiths. It made its home in Rolleston. I congratulate the Wings, Wheels and Rugby committee for putting on such a crowd-pleasing event.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:45): For the last couple of months at least, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee has been holding an inquiry into the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and what was the Senate committee's key conclusion when it reported last Friday? It said, 'Stop this madness, and stop this madness now.' The committee also found, in its responses to those who gave evidence to the inquiry, that the policy order being used to relocate the authority is flawed and that the finance minister failed in his responsibility to properly assess and cost the relocation. It also found that this move is unjustifiably costly for the Australian taxpayer. The inquiry demonstrated that the workforce of the APVMA is collapsing, and, therefore, its work output is collapsing. Finally, the Senate committee concluded that the Deputy Prime Minister, in relocating this important authority, is putting his own political interest ahead of the national interest, ahead of the interests of farmers and of every stakeholder that relies on that authority, and, not least, the way it is impacting on the good residents of Canberra. The Prime Minister should intervene and stop this madness. (Time expired)
Queensland Government
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:47): A lot of people say that politics is all about managing expectations. When the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was elected, the expectations were very low. In fact, the Queensland people expected very little of this Queensland Labor government—and this Queensland Labor government have met expectations by delivering absolutely nothing. It is only of late that the Queensland Labor government has started to make some decisions. Their first decision of late was almost killing the Adani deal. Why did they do that? To protect their Deputy Premier, who is a union heavy, from being beaten by the Greens.
In 45 minutes from now, the Queensland Treasurer will stand up and table that government's budget. Let us wait. Will they deliver for the Deputy Premier by committing to the Cross River Rail, or will they deliver for the people of Queensland? Will they only protect their socialist unionist mates, or will they deliver for the people of Queensland who need jobs? I am calling on the Treasurer of Queensland to announce tonight a full commitment to the duplicated rail line all the way up the north coast to Nambour, and to commit 20 per cent of our commitment of $530 million to the Bruce Highway, and of $120 million to Deception Bay. Then, they will deliver for Queensland. (Time expired)
Endometriosis
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:48): I recently had the great honour of becoming an endometriosis ambassador—I made the pledge just recently. One in 10 women in the world suffer from endometriosis. One in 10 women largely suffer in stoic silence. They live with the misdiagnosis, the myths, the endless operations, the hysterectomies, the lost opportunities, the huge cost, the daily struggle to take control of their lives, the fear of infertility, and the dreadful, dreadful pain.
This is an insidious disease, and the problem is that no-one is actually talking about it. It is a disease that occurs when the tissue that is similar to the lining of the womb grows outside it in other parts of the body. This insidious disease costs the health, the careers, the futures, the fertility, the sex lives, the hopes and the dreams of 10 per cent of women in our community. Ten per cent of women out there are suffering from endometriosis. We have to break the taboo about this little-known women's condition that knows no boundaries and shows no mercy. As an endometriosis ambassador, I pledge to work with those one in 10 women in Australia, with those one in 10 women worldwide, to end the silence on endo.
Wide Bay Electorate: Road Safety
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (13:50): After the spate of horror fatalities on the Bruce Highway between Gympie and Maryborough, headlines from my local newspapers The Gympie Times and Fraser Coast Chronicle have called out: 'Queensland's highway of hell,' 'Road deaths must stop,' 'Stop ignoring dozens of road deaths,' and 'We need more lanes'. The reality is that safer roads save lives. We only need to look at the difference that the half-finished Cooroy-to-Curra upgrade has made. The divided four-lane highway protects motorists from head-on collisions. Once the deadliest section of highway, the half-finished upgrade has so far delivered a fatality-free section of new road. But the job is only half done.
With the RACQ and the Australian Automobile Association, I am continuing to fight for more construction funding to finish section D, which is the largest section of the project. Our push for decentralisation needs to be matched with infrastructure that accommodates growth. We cannot leave projects half done. The section D project brings Maryborough, Bundaberg and Gladstone closer to Brisbane. At the same time, we need to invest in projects to increase safety and build capacity between Gympie and Maryborough. Next Wednesday I am leading a delegation of Wide Bay mayors to meet with Minister Chester. We are making a strong case for section D. The government must listen to us.
Wills Electorate: Relay for Life
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:51): I am pleased to inform the House that the Cancer Council's Relay for Life in my electorate of Wills in early April raised a grand total of $36,097.38. The event raised vital funds for the Cancer Council's research, prevention and support services. My team, aptly named 'Walk Like an Egyptian', walked through the night in recognition of the fact that, for cancer sufferers and their loved ones, the disease does not sleep. Staff, volunteers, friends and I walked laps of the Harold Stevens Athletics Track in Coburg from 3.30 pm on the Saturday to 9 am on the Sunday. Because it happened to be on the night daylight saving ended, we walked an extra hour, so it was 18½ hours of walking on behalf of cancer sufferers and patients.
Countless Australian lives have been saved over the last 20 years through improvements in cancer prevention and screening. The money raised at events such as this are critically important, and organisations like the Cancer Council and events like Relay for Life play a critical role in funding research that leads to these life-saving breakthroughs. Advances to cancer treatments allow cancer patients to spend more time with their loved ones. Relay for Life events are held all over the country at all times of the year. I encourage all members to get involved in their local event. It is a lot of fun, it benefits an incredibly important cause and it means a great deal to families of cancer patients. We all know it is difficult for families. With my own mum and my uncle going through lymphoma themselves, I know how important support from family members is to cancer patients.
Tangney Electorate: Mobile Electorate Offices
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (13:53): I am very pleased to be joined in the chamber today by the students from All Saints' College in my electorate. It has been my pleasure to hold mobile electorate offices in my electorate of Tangney to meet with residents close to their homes and businesses and hear directly from them about federal government matters affecting them. It has been really enjoyable setting up at local cafes across the electorate, listening to locals who call or stop in. Over a cup of coffee or two, I have spoken to so many people about their ideas and wishes for our local community and received constructive and frank advice about government policy and national issues.
I want to thank everyone that has visited the Tangney mobile offices. Your thoughts, feedback, advice and stories make me a better MP. If you have not had the chance to visit a Tangney mobile electorate office, there are more to come. In the winter recess of parliament I will be making sure that I have more Tangney mobile electorate office visits. Keep an eye out on Facebook or in the local papers for times and locations. I will make sure there are plenty of opportunities to catch up before work, even on Saturdays. I look forward to more mobile offices in Tangney, a regular feature of my time getting out and about, listening to my community, learning from them what is important to them, sharing with them the plans that this government has for our nation, for our state and for my community. If members opposite spent more time listening to hardworking, aspirational Australians in their electorate, perhaps they would not be debating some of the issues that we debate in this chamber like we do.
Economy
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:54): When he came to the prime ministership, the now Prime Minister said that it was clear that the government was not successful in providing the economic leadership that we need. It appears nothing has changed, with new worst-ever records being set by this government. Total gross debt is at a record nearly half a trillion dollars. The coalition has added over half of that to the debt. Now we have net debt at $317.4 billion and gross borrowings in May were at $7.5 billion—that is $75.3 billion for the year to date; that is an extra $6.8 billion every month. The number of full-time jobs fell in April to 67.99 per cent, dropping below the 68 per cent level. Of course, unemployment is especially high in Western Australia. The best measure for real paid work—that is, hours worked per adult per month—dropped in April to 83.8 per cent, the lowest since February 1994. Unemployment is at record highs at the moment and we are seeing that especially in WA, and of course we have seen that labour force numbers have hit a high of 8.7 per cent. We have seen a 13.5 per cent drop in housing approvals, and that is on top of last year and 13.7 per cent on top of 2015. Meanwhile, housing is getting more and more expensive and we are doing nothing to look after those trying to get into their first home.
Mining
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:56): Last October, like many South Australians and my constituents, I was disappointed when BP announced that they were pulling out of their drive to drill wells in the Great Australian Bight. Their 30 per cent partner, Statoil, announced last week that they would be taking over two of those leases. Statoil is the Norwegian government owned oil company. It is the 11th largest in the world, as it so happens, and I welcome their record. They do, of course, have a long and extensive record of drilling in the North Sea, which is recognised as some of the roughest waters in the world, and they will bring great skills to the Great Australian Bight. Chevron, Murphy and Santos all remain in this space as well. I think that people, particularly those of the Eyre Peninsula, are quite excited by the prospects. It is interesting that the decision by Statoil has come in the period just after the finalisation of the report by the Senate committee into drilling in the Great Australian Bight. The chair of that committee, Senator Hanson Young, could not support the committee's findings in any way and remains implacably opposed, but I would like to congratulate Labor Senator Alex Gallacher for actually standing up for South Australians—for standing up for jobs and standing up for the industry that he knows will support our state. (Time expired)
Broadband
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:58): Under Labor, NBN stood for National Broadband Network, but, under this government, NBN stands for 'no bleeding network'. From one end of the country to the other, people are complaining about the delays and the fact that they are paying more and getting less, including the family of Mr David De Freitas, a constituent of the member for Cunningham who lives in the Illawarra and is complaining that for over 30 days he has been without a phone or an internet service due to the incompetence of the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised us that he was going to have an NBN that was faster, cheaper and sooner. We now know that on each of those counts there has been fail, fail, fail. Our question to the Prime Minister is: when will he apologise to the family of Mr De Freitas and to the businesses all around the country that are at threat of going broke because of his failed National Broadband Network? This is not a laughing matter, Mr Prime Minister. People around the country are after you to step up and take responsibility for the mess of your National Broadband Network. It is time for you to apologise and it is time for you to do something for the households and the small businesses around the country who expected much more and got much less.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:59): In the little time I have, I would like to acknowledge some Queen's Birthday honours from my electorate: Allan Dowdell, John D'Souza, Anne Johnson, Michael Kemp, Peter Magarey, Carla Magarey, Kelvyn Prescott, David Snook, Mayor Erica Vickery, David Warren Ward, Councillor Mervyn Robert White, Senior Sargeant Peter Brown, David Long and Gary Wyld. I thank these people for their service to our community.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment will be absent from the House this week, as he is in the United States conducting trade talks. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Liberal government, wholesale electricity prices have doubled, pollution is up and jobs in renewable energy are down—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment and Energy, on cue, is now warned. I cannot hear the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again.
Mr SHORTEN: My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Liberal government, wholesale electricity prices have doubled, pollution is up and jobs in renewable energy are down, so will the government commit to working with Labor through the Finkel report to address this massive policy failure?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): Well—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Wright and Mackellar will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member's party has more than anyone contributed to the rise in electricity prices across Australia. The Labor Party's recklessness is consistent across every level of government. We have seen the extraordinary state of affairs in South Australia—the home state of the shadow energy minister—where, without any regard for planning, for storage or for backup, and without any regard for economics or engineering but with every regard for ideology and politics, the Labor government has allowed that state to have nearly half of its generation capacity come from wind, capable of generating all of the state's electricity one minute and none the next. The consequence has been the least reliable and the most expensive electricity in Australia. My government is setting out one step after another to ensure that it delivers secure and reliable and affordable electricity. What is Labor's plan? Unrealistic targets, 50 per cent reductions in emissions—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: They are cheering! They cheer that, Mr Speaker. They have no idea of how to get there, no idea of how to pay for it, no idea of how to design it. The Labor Party left the engineering and the economics at the door and attacked Australia's energy system armed with only politics and partisanship. They have no plan at all.
The honourable member asked about gas prices. Since I announced our plan, our determination, our commitment, to limit exports from the east coast until domestic supply was assured—since I announced that policy, that commitment—we have seen a fall in wholesale gas prices on the east coast. We have already arrested the rapid rise in prices on the east coast which was being driven by a shortage of supply. We took a tough decision quickly, responding to the problem. What is the long-term answer? It is more gas. Who stands in the way of more gas? The Labor government of Victoria, and none more so. There are masses of gas. They are sitting on a huge amount of gas in Victoria but are refusing to do anything to exploit it. We have a plan founded on economics and engineering. Ideology and politics, Labor's way, have got us to the state of affairs we are in now. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. The member for Parramatta is now warned.
Citizenship
Mr CREWTHER ( Dunkley ) ( 14:05 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is strengthening our citizenship laws to enable Australia to remain a secure and a harmonious nation?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I have often said, and as we reflected today in the debate on national security, Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. There is no more-honoured title in our democracy than that of 'Australian citizen'. Australian citizenship should be respected, honoured and valued, and it should be offered to those who respect our laws and institutions and share our values.
We are a remarkable country. Unlike many others, we define our national identity by reference to shared values, not by reference to ethnicity, religion or race. They are shared political values: democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equality between men and women and mutual respect. These are fundamental political values that are available to all. That is the key element in the success of our democracy. We are a beacon of harmony around the world, in the midst of our own diversity. We must not take this for granted.
A Productivity Commission report from 2016 showed that integration and English language skills are key ingredients for our success as a multicultural society, and indeed our safety, so strengthening those requirements is fundamentally important. Equally, I would have thought all honourable members would agree—but I fear that many on the other side of the House do not agree with this proposition—that those who seek to be Australian citizens should clearly demonstrate that they share our values and are integrating in our community. Australian citizenship should not be the end-product of a political administrative process that does not seek to establish that a person who wants to be part of the Australian political family, one of our citizens, a citizen in our nation, shares our values.
I was very disappointed to see today that the member for Watson said that a strong position on citizenship—the reforms that we have described—have nothing to do with national security. The member for Watson should understand, as well as anyone in this House, that the harmony in our society is based on shared values and a strong commitment to integration. If he thinks that a strongly integrated society, one based on commitment and sharing the values that make us the nation we are, has nothing to do with national security then he totally misunderstands the nature of the threats we face. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Modelling in the Finkel report assumes no new coal-fired power stations will be built under a clean energy target. The Chief Scientist said about new coal-fired power stations: 'it would be surprising if government's were to endorse a scheme that incentivised them'. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chief Scientist?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:08): The Finkel report is a report to governments, to COAG. We thank Dr Finkel for his work, and the members of his panel who contributed to it. The honourable member should understand that what Dr Finkel proposes as a clean energy target does not penalise coal. It does not prohibit the construction of a coal-fired power station or indeed a gas-fired power station. What he seeks to do is to provide incentives for lower-emissions technologies, including, but not exclusively, renewables.
The fundamental challenge that the honourable member faces is that he hails from the state of South Australia. He comes from a state where a complete failure of planning has resulted in the most expensive and least secure electricity in Australia. He comes from a state which has seen the closure of base-load power, with not a unit of storage or backup to put in its place. So the honourable member's fellow South Australians know full well what happens when energy policy is driven by ideology and politics, as opposed to engineering and economics.
We face a real challenge in energy policy in this country. We are about to become the largest exporter of LNG, yet we have had a shortage of gas on the east coast of Australia. My government is taking decisive action to address it. We face that challenge. What has caused it? Politics—state governments refusing to allow the exploration of gas and the development of gas resources.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: We have seen in South Australia a complete failure to consider that various sources of electricity, such as wind and solar, need backup, need storage. What did Labor do about it? Nothing. What are we doing about it? Snowy Hydro 2.0—the largest addition of storage in our history. We as an Australian government are for the first time recognising that we need to change the design of our energy system to give Australians the affordability and security they need and meet emissions reduction targets. Labor's addiction to ideology and politics has brought us to the situation where prices are too high, energy is not reliable enough and we are not achieving enough progress towards those emissions reduction targets. We can solve this trial, but it needs planning, engineering and economics. That is what my government delivers and that is where Labor has failed.
National Security
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on how the government is putting Australia's national interests first on matters of foreign policy and international security? Is the minister aware of any other approaches?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:12): I thank the member for North Sydney for his question on a very serious issue. Australia's national interest is best achieved by working with our allies and partners to defend and strengthen the rules based order that has underpinned our national prosperity, security and stability for nigh on seven decades. And a key to ensuring that our national interest is served is clarity and consistency in our foreign policy—because this preserves the government's integrity when it comes to policymaking and decision-making. So when confronted by challenges such as the differing positions on the South China Sea our government is able to point to a clear, consistent policy decision. We enhance our relationships with all countries in the region no matter what our disagreements are, and that is because the government have integrity when it comes to our foreign policy positions—clarity, consistency and coherency.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all members of the Labor Party. In fact, we now know that Senator Sam Dastyari's about-face on the South China Sea had a price tag attached to it.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Indeed, a reported $400,000 was all it took for Senator Dastyari to trash Labor's official foreign policy position. We know the spectacle during the 2016 election when Labor's then defence spokesman Senator Conroy stood at the National Press Club and outlined Labor's official foreign policy on freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, only to be publicly contradicted just hours later by the then Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Sam Dastyari.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned. The member for Solomon is warned.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Members will recall how Senator Dastyari called a press conference at the Commonwealth Parliament Offices in Sydney and stood there before the Australian flag, before a lectern with the Australian Commonwealth coat of arms, next to his Chinese benefactor, who also stood at a lectern with an Australian coat of arms, and he publicly contradicted Labor's official foreign policy, for a reported $400,000. What did the Leader of the Opposition do, in the face of the most extraordinary public admission of foreign interference and influence? He slapped him on the wrist, sent him to the backbench for a couple of months, and Senator Sam Dastyari is now back in a leadership position in the Labor Party. This Leader of the Opposition sold out our national interest. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides. The member for Griffith has been warned. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I say to the Leader of the House: some people have lost their voice with the cold going around.
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Chief Scientist has said about new coal-fired power stations:
… it would be surprising if governments were to endorse a … scheme that incentivised them.
I give the Prime Minister another opportunity: does he agree?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:16): I can tell the honourable member precisely what the government's position is on energy policy, and that is this: ours is based on economics and engineering. The honourable member's position is based on politics and ideology, and it has failed. It has failed Australia manifestly. It has failed Australian consumers. The reality is simply this—that the clean energy target proposed by Dr Finkel would provide an incentive to forms of generation that are lower than the benchmark of so many kilograms per tonne or per megawatt hour. That is how it would work. That would benefit any generation, whether it is coal, whether it is gas, whether it is renewable, as long as it was below the benchmark, but it does not penalise forms of generation higher than that. That is the simple fact. The honourable member can have whatever views he likes about the economics of the electricity industry, but the reality is this: the time for politics and ideology is over. Australians want solutions. They want a plan.
The honourable member can write me lovely letters. He likes writing me letters, and he is always so sanctimonious in his letters. This is good Bill. This is the goody-two-shoes. He always appeals to bipartisanship, he sends the letter round and I am sure he feels really good about it. He writes that letter and I think what he really says is, 'Now I've got that bipartisanship off my chest, I'll get back to the old Bill,' and of course we get the same ideological and political attacks that we have always had.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr TURNBULL: What we have is a challenge in our energy sector. Energy is too expensive, it is not reliable enough, and we need to have a plan to meet our emissions commitments: 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. That is our commitment. Labor wants to do double that. They want to have 50 per cent—
An honourable member: Forty-five per cent.
Mr TURNBULL: Forty-five per cent, I am corrected, by 2030. They have no plan for that. They were not even aware—so dimwitted is this bunch of left-wing ideologues opposite, so utterly untutored in anything to do with engineering or science; these fools were happy to have lots of renewable energy, but it did not occur to them—that sometimes the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and they forgot to do anything about it The member for Port Adelaide, better than anyone, knows what that means: the most expensive, least reliable power in Australia. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Falinski interjecting —
The SPEAKER: I am just going to say to members, who I have asked to stop interjecting—many of whom have been warned—that I will have no choice but to start ejecting them from now on. The level of noise is far too high. The member for Mackellar is warned.
Dental Health
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Health. In the past, cuts threatened the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, a program which provides $1,000 of free basic dental care for low-income families, because the government claimed the program was underutilised. In March 2016, a review of the program made four recommendations to increase uptake, including targeted promotion, making letters more recognisable as a dental voucher and providing follow-up notification to families. Would the minister advise which of these recommendations have been implemented in the 15 months since the review?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:20): I thank the member for Mayo. Let me be absolutely clear: we made a decision—one of the first decisions after the Prime Minister gave me the opportunity to be in this role—to lift the child dental benefit scheme. This side of parliament lifted the child dental benefit scheme from $700 to $1,000. That was a decision which the Prime Minister took. We were able to work with him and others—the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer. It injected a significant amount, as was recorded in the budget figures only a month ago, of $160 million over the forward estimates to the child dental benefit scheme. It could not have been a stronger commitment, it could not have been a clearer commitment and it could not have been a better funded commitment. This is an important thing.
More than that, we have also been in contact in writing to families throughout Australia. There could not be a stronger statement. In addition to that, we have worked with the Australian Dental Association in spreading the message through dental practices. When you look at all of the different things that we have done, we have added $160 million and we have lifted the child dental benefit scheme from $700 to $1,000.
And let me say this: the Labor Party should be the last people to talk. They ripped billion dollars out of dental benefits by abolishing the chronic dental scheme—care for those Australians with chronic dental conditions. What a bunch of policy frauds. What a bunch of heartless folk on that side. They rip a billion dollars out of the chronic dental scheme and then they look pious.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The minister has indicated he has concluded his answer. Members cease interjecting, please. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:22): I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon Joy Burch, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the ACT, together with Mr Tom Duncan, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the House, we extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Citizenship
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to strengthen the integrity of Australian citizenship, and is he aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank all of my colleagues on this side of the House, who are absolutely determined to make sure that we get the settings right when it comes to Australian citizenship. Now more than ever we need to make sure that we are accepting the right people as Australian citizens. Since 1949, we have accepted five million people to become Australian citizens. They have done a great job in working hard, taking the opportunity afforded them, educating their children, amassing wealth and becoming a great part of the modern Australia. But we want to make sure that the small minority of people who do the wrong thing do not become Australian citizens, which is why it is odd to follow the Leader of the Opposition and those on his front bench and back bench and their contributions to this debate in opposing our changes to strengthen Australian citizenship. This is quite odd.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: I think they protest a little bit too much.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is now warned. The minister has the call.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: Hear, hear! Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; that will lift the IQ of the place. Well done, Mr Speaker; that is a great outcome.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! I will hear the point of order from the member for Moreton. He is also warned, by the way. It was for that bellowing about five minutes ago. But I am always happy to hear my friend from the gym, the member for Moreton—on a point of order?
Mr Perrett: The point of order is unparliamentary behaviour on the part of the minister. That slur against the member for Wakefield should be withdrawn.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Can all members stop interjecting for a second.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is not assisting. I say to members: if they wish me to hear these things they should not carry on like a soccer crowd. I did not hear what the minister said. I am finding it very difficult to hear what the minister said.
Mr DUTTON: As I said, it is not matter who you look at—the opposition frontbench or backbench—they are completely and utterly divided when it comes to what is a very important issue. You had one of the frontbenchers from the Labor Party out in the press today on this very issue. As it turns out, some of the measures that he was talking about have already been before this parliament, in 2014. He claimed that he had not had a briefing, or had no understanding or no comprehension of what was being put forward. But he had dealt with some of these matters only a couple of years ago. I say to members in this place: would you trust anything that comes from the member for Watson when it comes to national security issues? No. Do you know why? Because his actions speak louder than his words. There was a time when he was immigration minister. They were not glory days. They were not the best days of the Rudd-Gillard years. He was not the worst, to be fair; he was not the worst among them. We can go to others, including the member for McMahon. But we do know that on the member for Watson's watch there were 83 boat arrivals. He nods, approvingly, proud of the fact. Eighty-three is not bad, compared to double that number—in fact, 400 for the member for McMahon. The member for McMahon is very quiet in this debate. When you have a look, 6,600 people came during the member for Watson's watch, when he was immigration minister. If you do not mind, Mr Speaker, I will not be taking advice from him. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting —
Mr Joyce interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House will not conduct a conversation with me. I am telling you—you will not.
National Rail Program
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:28): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that under the so-called National Rail Program not a single dollar is available in this entire term of parliament? There is nothing this year, nothing next year and nothing the year after that. Isn't the National Rail Program in fact the new NAIF—the 'No Actual Infrastructure Fund'?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am honoured to be asked a question by him. I do not know how he managed to break through the tactics meeting this morning and get a guernsey. And, of course, we reflect on the fact that he has laid claim to every piece of infrastructure in Australia and beyond, including the pyramids and the Appian Way!
My government is investing a record $75 billion over the next decade for roads, rail and airports. We are getting on with the job. We are committed to providing the infrastructure, the sinews, for the 21st century economy that Australia needs. We are finding that there are major projects that the Labor Party is opposing or seeking to frustrate, not least of which is the Inland Rail. The Inland Rail as an idea has been around for a long time. It was discussed at the federal convention debate in the 1890s.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: It was a very specific question about the National Rail Program, which has zero dollars this year, zero next year and zero the year after that—not a single dollar this decade.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: I am advised by the minister there is $600 million for that alone over the forwards in the $10 billion plan. So that contradicts what the honourable member has said. But the honourable member would be well aware that rail projects in the time we are talking about take a long time in the planning and so it is important that the commitment is made well in advance, which it has been, and that the money is available as and when it is required.
The coalition government are absolutely committed to investing $75 billion in national infrastructure over the next decade, and we are getting on with infrastructure investment right across the board. I mentioned the Inland Rail, which the Labor Party does not seem to have very much passion for. I have noted that the Queensland Premier wants to hold it hostage until there is commitment to the Cross River Rail in Brisbane. So a vital piece of nation-building infrastructure across regional Australia is to be held hostage until there is a commitment to an urban rail project in the middle of Brisbane. That hardly seems to be a commitment to the national interest. Right across the board, whether it is in rail or road, there is a $75 billion commitment over the next decade. One of the honourable members opposite was speaking before question time about the National Broadband Network—that absolute train wreck we inherited from the Labor Party. We are connecting more paying customers every two weeks than Labor did in six years, so Labor cannot lecture us about infrastructure. (Time expired)
Mr Albanese: I seek leave to table a document for the benefit of the Prime Minister—page 49 of Budget Paper No. 3. It states zero, zero, zero—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I am not even going to seek leave for that because it is part of the papers of the parliament. I understand you are disappointed.
Defence Industry
Mr FALINSKI ( Mackellar ) ( 14:33 ): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline for the House how the government's investment in defence industry will generate thousands of jobs for hardworking Australians, create a stronger economy and ensure our nation's security? How will New South Wales benefit from the largest military build-up in our peacetime?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:33): I am so glad that the member for Grayndler got a question, because I was thinking of giving him one of our dorothy dixers if he did not get one very soon! That would have meant that I would have missed out on a question, which would have been very disappointing. So I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition finally relented and gave one of the member for Rankin's questions to the member for Grayndler. But I digress.
I would like to thank the member for Mackellar for his question. I was not long ago in his electorate where I was marking the millionth part created for the Collins Class submarine by H.I. Fraser, a manufacturer in his electorate. Not long after that I went and visited Rockwell Collins in the member for North Sydney's electorate to witness the production of the 100th optical assembly for the Joint Strike Fighter to provide battlefield awareness for Joint Strike Fighter pilots. They join businesses such as Birdon boats in the member for Lyne's electorate, which recently won a contract to upgrade the Army's 24 bridge construction propulsion boats and importantly recently won a $400 million export contract to provide those same boats to the US Army from his electorate. Also, recently the Prime Minister and I launched Northrop Grumman's $50 million Electronic Sustainment Centre of Excellence at what will be the defence industry precinct that the Minister for Urban Infrastructure is helping to build at the Western Sydney Airport.
All of these projects, whether in Lyne, in North Sydney, in Mackellar or in Western Sydney—and there are many other projects just like them—are using the defence industry budget to drive jobs, to drive investment, to drive high-value jobs in high technology and in advanced manufacturing, helping to make real our largest military build-up in our peacetime history. This of course stands in very stark contrast to what we saw on the Labor side of the House when they were in government and managed to reduce spending on defence to 1.56 per cent of GDP.
But people are entitled to ask why we do this, and the reason is that the capacity for a sovereign capability in defence industry is as much a part of our national security as is the work of our armed forces—our men and women in uniform. They are a pillar in the defence of our nation. And, as the Prime Minister said today in his statement on national security, the safety of Australians at home and abroad is the No. 1 priority of any successful, sensible and serious government, and that is what this government is delivering.
Rail
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:36): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Brisbane's Cross River Rail project was approved by Infrastructure Australia in 2012, was the subject of a detailed agreement between the federal and Queensland governments in 2013 and was funded in the 2013 budget? Why is the Prime Minister purporting to support public transport in our cities while pretending that this essential project is not ready to go?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:37): The Cross River Rail project is being considered by Infrastructure Australia now. The honourable member is mistaken, I am afraid: it is being considered by Infrastructure now, and we are awaiting IA's assessment of the project. I will ask the Minister for Urban Infrastructure to add to that answer.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (14:37): I thank the shadow minister for his question. Let me start by clearing up an inaccuracy in the previous information he provided to the parliament. Page 133 of the budget papers contains the allocation of $600 million for the Infrastructure Investment Program. It is disappointing to see these kinds of misleading statements being made.
Now, I am asked about Cross River Rail. I note that the Queensland Coordinator General's report on Cross River Rail contains half a page describing the differences between the version that was approved in 2012 and the version that has now been lodged. This is not the same project. It has changed materially. And what is important is that we have a proper process for assessing this business case. That is the process we are working through with Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia is a body that was set up by indeed the shadow minister when he was the minister. This government is committed to a proper allocation of taxpayers' funds and to properly and carefully assessing projects before there is a commitment of Commonwealth funding. That is a proper process. We have already committed $10 million for planning, and there is a careful and thorough process underway. So, it is very important that the parliament be provided with the facts with a series of, regrettably, misleading statements.
National Innovation and Science Agenda
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:39): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is ensuring that the National Innovation and Science Agenda helps drive investment and jobs for hardworking Australians?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:40): I thank the member for Bowman for his question, because he is, like all members of this side of the House, absolutely committed to implementing the national economic plan that we outlined again in this year's budget, and in the previous year's budget, which included, amongst many things, the defence industry plan that the Minister for Defence Industry has just been outlining to the parliament again today; expanding the trade frontiers, as the government have done since we were first elected; making sure we put in place our $75 billion infrastructure plan over the next 10 years; and, of course, ensuring that our tax system for companies is competitive around the world and that we do not export jobs and investment offshore.
I am pleased to report today some good results as a result of the work being done by the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which members will recall included putting in place tax incentives for angel investors, a 20 per cent tax offset, a 10 per cent capital gains tax discount for investment in those new start-up companies of 12 months or more and a 10 per cent offset for the early stage venture capital limited partnerships. Today, a report by Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Limited will be launched by the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. In that report, they will highlight that, over the last 12 months, our venture capital markets raised around $1 billion, including sizeable investments by institutional investors. On top of that, Australian venture capital funds raised a record $568 million last financial year, and venture capital firms invested $347 million. That is up 50 per cent on the previous year. This is part of our national plan to drive the jobs that are needed in our economy to support the wages and the wages growth that are needed to support Australian households.
Today, Fran Kelly had Mr El-Ansary, who is the head of Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Limited, on her program. She said, 'The report you're releasing into the impact of venture capital on the economy is good news. It shows strong growth in venture capital.' She asked, 'Is that linked to the Prime Minister's innovation statement?' He responded: 'It is. In fact, more than that, Fran, it is linked to jobs and growth, to put it simply. It's linked to jobs and growth because funding the future of the Australian economy is really what venture capital is all about. It's funding great businesses that are new to market and doing novel things.' He went on to say that, because there is a pipeline of dynamic start-ups emerging and more funding entering the market, there is huge potential for Australian venture capital to back the next Apple or Cochlear. The Turnbull government's plan to drive our economy forward is being implemented, and it is getting results.
Economy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:42): My question is to the Prime Minister. On Friday, for the first time in Australia's history, gross debt will crash through half a trillion dollars. With debt at record highs under this government, how can the country possibly afford to give millionaires a tax cut in 18 days?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member is the leader who went to the last election with a policy that involved $16½ billion of more debt and, indeed, involved higher taxes. More debt, higher taxes: that was their policy. Of course, they did not want to give any tax cuts to business. The Leader of the Opposition used to believe, before he did his backflip, one of many—he is adept at that, I will give you that; he is a backflipper of Olympic proportions—that cutting company taxes and business taxes would deliver more investment, more productivity and higher employment. That is not an original insight—I have to give him that. That is standard, commonsense conventional economics. That is what he used to say. However, he has backflipped on that, and he opposes it. He says you cannot give tax cuts to business. He wants to roll back the tax cuts to small and medium businesses that have already been passed by this parliament. What is that going to do for jobs? Does he really think that making small and medium businesses, which employ half of the Australians in the private sector workforce, pay less tax is going to make them employ more people?
No, it will not. Just as we are giving them this incentive to employ and invest, he wants to put the handbrake on. But the money he claims he has saved from not having those tax cuts, he has already spent. He has spent it and was still $16½ billion more in the red.
Of course, this is the same Leader of the Opposition who in previous times used to boast about the great surpluses that the member for Lilley had achieved. He sent out a newsletter in 2012 claiming the credit for the great economic management of the Labor Party. He did that, and, of course, we have seen that with the member for Rankin at the member for Lilley's side in those days. There they were claiming surpluses that never existed. If the Leader of the Opposition was fair dinkum for one minute, he would recognise that it is the government's plan that will deliver us a surplus. It will deliver us the investment and the incentives for business. It will deliver us the growth that we need. There is not one element in the Labor Party's policy which would encourage one business to invest or employ a person—nothing! All they have is a recipe for higher taxes, and yet they still want to run up more debt. Whether it was in government or in opposition, the Labor Party is the party of low growth and high debt.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the benefits the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will bring to people with disability, their families and their carers? How will these reforms be fully funded, and are there any alternatives?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:46): I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. As the member is so very well aware, when the NDIS is fully operational it is going to provide coverage to each and every Australian, all of our own families, whether you have acquired a disability through the course of your life or were born with a disability. One example that was briefed to me earlier was the example of a 40-year-old participant who may have suffered a brain injury due to a physical assault at an earlier age when insurance support was not available. If that person enters the NDIS at age 40 and has 30 years inside the NDIS, the estimate is that they will be supported to the amount of about $110,000 a year. That is $3.3 million in care and support. That is available to each and every Australian and to our families, should we need it. That is why we say that, given everyone benefits, it is fair that everyone with a reasonable capacity to pay does pay a little bit.
I am asked about alternatives by the honourable member. That is a slightly tricky question, because there have been so many alternatives from members opposite that it is hard to keep count. I recall six so far, and counting. The sixth comes from the shadow Treasurer, and it is probably the most recent and bizarre. Alternative 1: Labor says they do not leave a funding gap, so there is no problem, nothing to see here. Alternative 2: Labor says that the funding gap that they say does not actually exist does need to be filled, but just not by the mechanism that they used to say was the only fair way to fund the NDIS. Alternative 3: all of Labor in 2013 said that the 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy was the fair way to fund the NDIS. Alternative 4 is that, in 2017, 75 per cent of the shadow cabinet say it is still the fairest way to fund the NDIS. Alternative 5 is that the notable exception to the 75 per cent is the Leader of the Opposition, who said in 2013 that it was completely dumb to oppose the 0.5 per cent increase and now says that it is completely dumb to support the 0.5 per cent increase.
That brings us to alternative 6. Some theoretical physicists believe in multiverses: infinite universes in space, time, matter, energy and public policy. Maybe the proof is here with us. The shadow Treasurer, when asked a direct question on the Medicare levy, slipped up on radio, because he actually said what he really thought. He thought we should accept the Medicare levy but just not use it to fund the NDIS. This is what he said:
The changes before us, the proposals before us are that every Australian over an income of $21,000 should have a tax rise. Now, we accept the need for that.
That is right! The shadow Treasurer said:
… we accept the need for that. We don't accept the rationale of the NDIS link …
So alternative universe 6 is that they want the Medicare levy increase but not to spend on the NDIS. (Time expired)
Energy
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that wholesale electricity prices have more than doubled under his government?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:50): I cannot give the honourable member confirmation about the exact percentage, but there is no doubt that wholesale electricity prices have considerably increased in very recent times. There is no doubt about that, and the major cause of that has been the increase in the price of gas. The wholesale price of gas has risen dramatically. That has been in large part because of the policy decisions taken by state governments, in particular the state government of Victoria, which has banned the exploration and development of gas.
Mr Hammond interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Perth is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: We are taking decisive action, including the potential restriction on exports of gas—very stern measures—to ensure that the east coast domestic gas market is fully supplied. We are taking those actions to do that, and that is our response to ensure that we bring gas prices down. As I said earlier in response to a question, I think from the member for Port Adelaide, the measures already announced have had a response, but in the time available I will ask the minister to add to my answer.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:51): The Prime Minister is right: wholesale prices have gone up. But, do you know, they are only a third of the bill. When you look at the total bill under the Labor Party, do you know what happened? It doubled. It went up over 100 per cent. Do you remember cash for clunkers? Do you remember pink batts? Do you remember the citizens' assembly? Do you remember the greatest moral challenge of our time? They were the policies that you delivered.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce is warned!
Mr FRYDENBERG: And now it is the Labor government in the Northern Territory, who are sitting on 180 years worth of reserves of gas, and it is the Andrews government in Victoria, that is sitting on 40 years worth of reserves of gas, that are putting restrictions not only on unconventional gas extraction but also on conventional gas extraction onshore. So, if you want to get electricity prices down, pick up the phone to Spring Street, ring 'Dan the Man' and say, 'Lift your moratoriums and bans.' Do not always blame someone else. Ring up the Northern Territory—go on, ring up the Northern Territory. I tell you what, Bill—I tell you what, Leader of the Opposition—your 45 per cent emissions reduction target has been described as reckless and risky. Your 50 per cent renewable energy target is like that too. Only we can be trusted with electricity prices.
Schools
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister inform the House how the government's needs based funding model will provide funding growth for schools in my electorate of Canning? Is the minister aware of expert support for the Australian Education Amendment Bill?
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:53): I thank the member for Canning for his question and acknowledge his deep commitment to the Turnbull government's extra funding for schools throughout his own electorate and across the country—$18.6 billion in additional funding, a 75 per cent increase. Nine thousand plus schools will benefit.
In the seat of Canning there are 23,000 school students in 53 different schools, and, as a result of the Turnbull government's plan, there will be $1.5 billion worth of school funding for those schools in the electorate of Canning—37 government schools, nine independent schools and seven Catholic schools. There is Pinjarra Primary School, with 620 students, which will get a $6.2 million increase. There is St Joseph's Primary School, with 130 students, which will get a $3.6 million increase. Across Western Australia, under one of Labor's 27 secret dodgy deals, the school students of Western Australia got the worst possible deal across Australia when it came to the schooling resource standard. They got only 14 per cent, but under the Turnbull government they will get 20 per cent.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor!
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor is warned.
Mr FRYDENBERG: No wonder the Turnbull government's plan has been welcomed by the Grattan Institute. No wonder it has been welcomed by the state schools association. No wonder it has been welcomed by Christian Schools Australia. No wonder it has been welcomed by the Brisbane Catholic Education office.
I was asked if there were any other views of particular note. Today, Dr Ken Boston, one of the original members of the Gonski panel, a former head of the education departments of New South Wales and South Australia, said:
There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle, and every reason to work collaboratively towards its successful implementation and further refinement in the years ahead.
It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate.
So, ultimately, it is up to the Leader of the Opposition. He is standing alone in opposition to an additional $18.6 billion in funding. He is showing why his former dictum, his famous line, 'If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there,' is starting to work, because he does not know where he is going. If he were supportive of more school student funding, if he were in favour of a more transparent and fair system, he would get behind the Turnbull government's education plan, with an extra $18.6 billion for more than 9,000 schools across the country.
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that in just 18 days time, on 1 July, AGL power prices in New South Wales will go up by 16 per cent, penalty rates will be cut for nearly 700,000 Australians and millionaires will get a tax cut? When household budgets for low- and middle-income Australians are getting even tighter, why is the Prime Minister's only priority to give people who earn $1 million a tax cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:57): I think it is clear that the Leader of the Opposition's only priority is to try to whip up, in his characteristically feeble matter, a politics-of-envy campaign. That is what he tries to do, posing yet again as the champion of the poor and oppressed, bleating about millionaires in Canberra and sucking up to them in Melbourne. We all know his form. He sold out the members of the AWU again and again. There was not a big company that he was not prepared to cut a deal with to sell out their penalty rates.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: He did it with CleanEvent, he did it with Chiquita Mushrooms and he did it with so many others. The workers, the members of his union, know that. He can turn his back on the government benches, but he cannot turn his back on his past—a serial sellout, a man who has flipped back and forward and temporised at every turn. There is no consistency in his political lines or in his lines as an industrial leader. He is constantly letting down his own team.
He talks about tax. He is opposing tax cuts for Australian businesses. He wants to roll back—remember that another Labor leader was keen on roll backs—the tax cuts that have already been delivered to Australia's small and medium businesses, which employ half the Australian workforce. Yet, only a few the years ago, he stood right where I am standing and said, with the air of a man who spent his life learning about economics—the great economist the Leader of the Opposition—that we all know that reducing company tax increases investment, productivity and employment, and the benefits go to workers. He said all that. Someone had put that in his talking points. Do you know what? They were correct. That was absolutely orthodox economic analysis. But, now, it suits him to campaign against tax cuts to business. He wants to pretend that the deficit levy is being abolished. It is not being abolished. It is expiring on exactly the terms that the Labor Party voted for. This was a tax increase three years ago which the Labor Party described as a 'deceit tax'. They condemned it. The member for McMahon was particularly eloquent. He said the Labor Party does not agree with increasing the top marginal rate. He said it was bad policy. But then, reluctantly, they voted for it but on the express condition that it expire after three years. The deficit levy is expiring in precisely the terms Labor voted for. This is just another example of the Leader of the Opposition's backflips and hypocrisy.
Agriculture Industry
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (15:00): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the steps the government is taking to support employment in the agriculture sector in Queensland? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to existing and future jobs in regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Capricornia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for her question. During question time I have been listening quite closely to the Queensland budget and exactly what is going on up there. As far as the Queensland Labor Party's budget is going, nothing is going to happen for Central Queensland. It is hopeless. It is pathetic. We have given them a project. We have put $130 million on the table for it and we put $2 million on the table for the business case. And what do they give? Nothing. So I thought they might have had something in the budget for Hells Gate. No, there is nothing for Hells Gate. I thought they might have had something for Nathan. There is nothing for Nathan. I thought they might have had something for Emu Swamp down at Stanthorpe. But there is nothing there. I thought they might have had something for Urannah, but there is nothing there. At the very least, you would think they would have something for Rookwood—which would underpin the fact that more water is required from that project than we actually have. It is oversubscribed. We know that it has an incredible return. We hear that the return on equity is around three times.
But what we did hear in the Queensland budget was a lot about Cross River Rail. For the Labor Party, it was always a budget for inner suburban Brisbane. The shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, had a chance today to come to the dispatch box and say that he supported Inland Rail and Labor had money on the table for Inland Rail. But not only do they not allow him to have a question except once every six months or so; he does not have money for Inland Rail. There is no money for Inland Rail from the Labor Party. There is no money for Rookwood from the Labor Party. They do not have a belief in the working men and women of Central Queensland anymore. They have given up on the working men and women of Central Queensland. They have given up on the coalminers at Carmichael. They have given up on the steelworkers at Whyalla. And they have given up on Central Queensland.
The Queensland Labor Party today, in the budget they have just brought down, had a chance to show their belief in Central Queensland. But, once more, they have shown themselves to be completely lacking. So I can say to the member for Flynn that, if he thinks the Labor Party are going to look after Central Queensland, he has no worries—because the Labor Party are doing nothing for Central Queensland. And I say to the member for Capricornia that you do not have to worry about the Labor Party coming in and showering Rockhampton with gifts—because they are doing nothing. They never did Rookwood Weir. I say to all members in Central Queensland that it is a shame the Labor Party have lost sight of labourers, lost sight of water infrastructure and lost sight of the Inland Rail. They have no vision for Queensland. They have no vision for Australia. They have no vision—except for the Cross River Rail!
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (15:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the emissions intensity threshold under a clean energy target be at, higher or lower than 0.6 tonnes?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (15:04): The member for Port Adelaide should know very well why we commissioned, through the COAG Energy Council, the report from the Chief Scientist—because in South Australia the big experiment went wrong. The member for Port Adelaide described it as a hiccup—and 1.7 million people lost power!
So, we have from the Chief Scientist a detailed report, more than 200 pages in length, with a series of recommendations from an expert panel. And we have said publicly that we will give his report the due consideration that it deserves, because there are a whole series of recommendations—a clean energy target, which, as the Leader of the Opposition should know, was the preferred recommendation over his emissions intensity scheme. And why? Because his emissions intensity scheme was punishing coal.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: And the member for Shortland opens his mouth—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will cease interjecting.
Mr FRYDENBERG: but has he told them that there will be hundreds of people in his own electorate who will lose their jobs as a result of his own policy? And has the member for Hunter opened his mouth? No. He is looking at his phone, because he knows that hundreds of people in his electorate will lose their jobs.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Mr Burke: It is on direct relevance: you do not get a question more specific than this. It refers to the emissions intensity threshold and asks whether the target will be higher or lower than 0.6 tonnes. There is no preamble, no rhetoric attached, and the answer has to be directly relevant.
The SPEAKER: In addressing the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business, I allow, as he knows, ministers to have a preamble. The minister is now nearing halfway through the answer to the question. The Manager of Opposition Business is right to point out that it was a very specific question, and the minister needs to either address himself to the specifics of the question or wind his answer up.
Mr FRYDENBERG: There is a very specific answer, which is that the clean energy target was one of the recommendations out of the Finkel review, and we will give it due consideration—absolutely. So, will the Leader of the Opposition come to the despatch box, dump his emissions intensity scheme, front up to the member for Hunter and tell him he has sold out hundreds of workers and stand up to the member for Shortland and tell him that he going to lose hundreds of jobs there? We will give this report its due consideration, but there are a series of important recommendations in the Finkel review, and the clean energy target is one. But I do note that there is a broad chorus of support—
The SPEAKER: Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a point of order—other than on relevance?
Mr Burke: Yes, other than on relevance—simply on the minister defying the ruling you gave. He has given an answer that is quite specific, where he said that they will continue to consider the matter, and then he has acknowledged that in the remaining time he will talk about other things. It is a time limit, not a time target. He does not have to make the three minutes.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is correct at one level: it is a limit, not a target, and I have made that point myself. But having raised the point of order and the minister having directly addressed the point of the question, which is acknowledged, that does not then mean that the person asking the question gets to eliminate the three minutes. The requirement is that he is on the policy topic. He has answered the question, as the Manager of Opposition Business has noted, and there are 50 seconds to go. He will not stray onto any other policy topics. If he needs the next 50 seconds, he has them.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The energy issue is an absolutely vital economic and environmental issue for the future of our country. The Prime Minister has outlined the trilemma that we are seeking to solve and how our focus is on the engineering and the economics. The Labor Party is focused on ideology, on reckless targets and on costing jobs. We will not trade out the hundreds of thousands of people across the country whose jobs rely on affordable and stable power. That is the coalition's objective, and the Finkel review provides a lot of food for thought.
Infrastructure
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on the government's record $75 billion Infrastructure Investment Program? How is this investment program delivering major projects right across the country, including in my state of Queensland? And are there any alternatives?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:09): I thank the member for Forde, who is of course a very strong champion of infrastructure for Queensland and for his electorate of Forde. Indeed, it was just recently that there was an announcement of a $500 million package, comprising the Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes section of the M1 being widened, a major upgrade of the M1 at the Gateway Motorway merge point at Eight Mile Plains, a major upgrade of Walkerston Bypass near Mackay and the widening of the Mount Lindesay Highway. The member for Forde was central to the advocacy for that, as were the members for McPherson, Moncrieff, Fadden, Wright, Dawson and Capricornia—a team effort for Queensland, the Turnbull government delivering for Queensland, as we are continuing to do. The facts are these: in this budget there is a commitment of $7.65 billion between 2017-18 and 2020-21—indeed, $2.1 billion just in 2017-18. Let us focus on the Bruce Highway for a moment, always a topic of great interest to the Queensland team in the Turnbull government. There is $844 million for new upgrades to the Bruce Highway in this budget. I commend the work of my friend, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in delivering this: $530 million for Pine River to Caloundra and $120 million for an upgrade to the Deception Bay interchange.
Deception Bay is a very appropriate point to turn to the shadow minister's approach to the question of infrastructure, because he claims, incorrectly, that there has been a cut in infrastructure spending. In fact the average numbers 2013-14 to 2020-21 are $8 billion; under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, $6 billion. What is the difference? He has just tried to assume away equity investment. Now I am after their alternative approaches. It turns out there are actually two alternative approaches, and they are both on that side of the chamber. The shadow minister claims that we are cutting infrastructure investment, because he deliberately ignores billions of dollars in equity investments. The Leader of the Opposition, in his recent CEDA speech, had this to say:
… we need a new approach to infrastructure, clearing the way for superannuation funds and others to invest in good projects …
So it seems the shadow minister says, 'Grants are good and equity is bad.' It seems the opposition leader says, 'Grants are good and equity is better.' We have seen this kind of Orwellian approach before. It takes a special kind of talent to bring this doctrinaire Orwellianism to infrastructure, but this lot, unfortunately, has it.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:12): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
DOCUMENTS
Questions without notice
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:12): I seek leave to table a document from Scott Emerson MP, Minister for Transport and Main Roads in the Queensland government of 2013, detailing the agreement on the Cross River Rail project.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I am just asking. I am just being polite.
Mr Pyne: Question time is over.
Leave not granted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:13): Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BURKE: I do. Today in question time the minister for immigration made assertions about the number of people who put their lives at risk on the high seas during my time as immigration minister. During my time as minister for immigration, the number of people arriving by boat had previously spiked following the Liberals' rejection of the Malaysia agreement. It then dropped by 86 per cent in the 10 weeks I held office.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Energy
The SPEAKER (15:14): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Indi proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for a national energy policy that supports a strong economy, vibrant communities and sensible environmental outcomes.
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—
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (15:14): I rise here today to speak on a matter of great public importance—the urgent need for a national energy policy that supports a strong economy, vibrant communities and sensible environmental outcomes. For too long, energy policy in Australia has been at the whim of policy indecision, and the lack of certainty has resulted in low industry confidence and, according to many, is one of the main contributors to rising energy costs and increasing unreliability. This is a matter of great public importance. While I understand the complexity of the issue and that there is no single solution, there is an absolute need for a nationally coordinated approach across jurisdictions with bipartisan support. I welcome the words of the opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten, and his commitment for Labor to work with the government to end the climate wars. This parliament has an opportunity to set the path of energy policy for the next generation, and I know that my colleagues the member for Denison, Mr Wilkie, the member for Melbourne, Mr Bandt, the member for Mayo, Ms Sharkie, and the member for Kennedy, Mr Katter, will provide valuable insights into the views of their communities in addressing this problem.
Today, I want to raise the profile of community energy and the community energy sector and recognise the integral role it can play in the national conversation. I will outline the actions taken in my electorate and the call to the government to be much more active in supporting community and grassroots activity. To date, the community energy sector has not been represented in the national debate—it sits on the fringe of mainstream discussion. It is a sector that has been described, at best, as an industry in its infancy. At worst, the communities working to reduce their own energy costs and secure supply have been described as living in fantasy land. But today I want to acknowledge the contribution of the community energy sector and welcome the opportunity to ensure that they continue to play an integral part in the government's energy policy.
Community owned energy projects allow communities to develop, produce and benefit from locally produced energy. They include supply based projects such as renewable energy installations and storage as well as demand-side projects like energy efficiency, demand management and community education. But, most importantly, community energy projects ensure ownership and decision-making involves local decision-making and stakeholders. In his address to the National Press Club in February, the Prime Minister said:
Australia should be able to achieve the policy trifecta of energy that is affordable, reliable and secure.
The strong view of my community is that it also needs to be sustainable.
It is in the sustainable area that community energy plays a particularly significant role. My electorate is not alone here, and there is national support for renewable energy. In March 2017, the Australia Institute reported in a national poll that 67 per cent of people in Australia think that we, as a nation, are moving into renewable energy too slowly, and 73 per cent supported setting a new RET for 2030. In releasing his report on Friday, Dr Alan Finkel said:
Our electricity system is entering an era where it must deal with changing priorities and evolving technologies. If the world around us is changing, we have to change with it. More of the same is not an option, we need to aim higher.
If we adopt a strategic approach, we will have fewer local and regional problems, and can ensure that consumers pay the lowest possible prices over the long term.
I agree with him.
Today, I want to talk about the communities in my electorate that are aiming high and who are establishing strategic relationships with local and state governments and industry to develop their own solutions, to reduce their energy costs and secure their own energy futures. It is an approach that has been supported even by the White House, with Candace Vahlsing, former adviser for climate change, saying:
… community solar in particular is a way where folks can invest together, share a solar system and it has strong economic benefits …
Across Australia, there are more than 60 groups developing community energy projects as well as solar powered breweries and dairy farms, bioenergy hubs, farmer wind co-ops and energy efficiency programs. There is great diversity in community driven energy activities across the nation and even in my electorate. I am proud to support my communities working together for a renewable energy future.
The projects, right across Australia, have many benefits—obviously finance, but they also include increased energy literacy, opportunities for local economic development and resilience and, really importantly, community development and empowerment. For example, the community of Yackandandah continue to drive change at a grassroots level with their project, Totally Renewable Yackandandah. This project is a staged community mini-grid solution, with the community aiming to achieve their vision of 100 per cent renewable energy by 2022. Working with the Indigo Shire Council and AusNet Services—and hopefully, in the very near future, with the Victorian government—this project is a clear demonstration of how community energy allows communities to reduce their costs, maybe make income from power production and enable these benefits to be felt across the broader community, addressing the government's energy policy priority for security and affordability.
Another example is the Benalla Sustainability Future Group, which, in partnership with the Benalla Rural City Council, is conducting a feasibility study in preparation for the Benalla Future Energy Plan. This project will deliver two feasibility studies for renewable energy, which will be replicated in additional areas, both small and large scale. There is also Winton Wetlands, the largest-scale wetlands restoration project in the Southern Hemisphere. Its committee of management is leading the development of a feasibility study to deliver the McKeown power project, a 10-megawatt solar park. Once completed, this project will enable all generated power to be sold to local consumers through a relationship with an energy provider, and profits will be reinvested in the regeneration and scientific advancement of the Winton Wetlands. Additionally, Wodonga council, in conjunction with Renewable Albury Wodonga Energy, has appointed Moreland Energy Foundation to conduct a feasibility study and develop a plan for a solar farm within Wodonga that benefits the whole community.
There are many other community projects, and I would like to acknowledge the work of the Goulburn Broken Greenhouse Alliance and their partnership with local government; the Murrindindi Climate Network; the Wangaratta Sustainability Network and the terrific forum that they led last Friday showcasing business case studies of when local businesses make money doing work on waste and renewable energy; North East Water—the terrific leadership role they are playing at the grassroots and the impact that their work is having right across Indi; and businesses such as Wilson Transformer Company and Mars Petcare—you really are leading the way.
These projects have set standards and other communities are following. In my closing comments, I would like to note that in my electorate, but also right across Australia, we are seeing the results of what happens when industry and community expectations run ahead of government legislation and regulation. In this parliament we have an opportunity to plan for the future, to ensure that we consider community energy as a legitimate mechanism in this debate that we are having. The community energy sector has grown since 2010, when there were only two or three groups, to more than 60 groups today. It is a great indication that this sector will continue to play a significant role in the future of energy. The question for us, as a parliament, is: how can we best support this really amazing innovation?
Australians are saying loudly and clearly: we want to invest in renewable energy and we want to invest in our communities. This means that jobs and investments stay local and communities have ownership over their own power. To us, as members of parliament, and to the minister sitting at the desk, I say: can you please give serious consideration to the work of communities like Indi, Yackandandah, Benalla, Wangaratta, Murrindindi and Mansfield. Communities are saying: 'We're leading the way; government, come on board.' I call on the government not only to support these communities but to put some money behind it—provide dedicated funding for community-specific integrated plans and projects to show the communities of Australia that the government is behind them, and, even though we might lag in legislation and regulation, we will be at the front in funding.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (15:24): I thank the member for Indi and acknowledge her constructive contribution to this debate about energy policy in this country. As you know, it has been a political football for more than a decade now. It really has been two opposing sides taking their positions, and there has not been a lot of meeting in the middle. Now, with the Finkel review, I think we have a real opportunity to consider the recommendations of an expert panel across a whole series of areas when it comes to properly integrating energy and climate policy in the hope that we can deal effectively with that trilemma we face: energy security and energy affordability as we transition to a lower-emissions future.
The National Electricity Market, which has been the foundation of our energy system everywhere except Western Australia and the Northern Territory, has its origins in the late 1990s. It is more than 5,000 kilometres in length from Port Douglas in the north through to Port Lincoln and across the Bass Strait to Tasmania. It is a very powerful network and one of the longest interconnected networks in the world. But what we have seen in our electricity market over the last decade is retail prices, the bills that households have to meet, double. When it comes to the public's energy bill, there are a lot of different components and therefore lots of different reasons for this increase in price. Fifty per cent of the bill is made up of network costs: transmission and distribution. We have seen, particularly under the time of the Labor government, the infamous gold plating, which saw network companies make a lot of money as the network was built out in the expectation of higher demand which never eventuated.
The coalition government under Malcolm Turnbull is trying to rein in network costs by removing the rights of limited-merits review from original decisions of the Australian Energy Regulator. Just recently we saw the public in New South Wales short-changed by $3 billion as a result of the successful appeal to the Australian Competition Tribunal and then to the Federal Court on behalf of the networks against an original determination of the AER. We say that is not good enough.
Another component of the electricity bill, about 12 per cent, is retail. The Turnbull government has announced an ACCC review into the retailers, their margins and the way they operate. A recent report of the Grattan Institute said that in Victoria alone consumers could be more than $250 million better off if there were a more competitive sector in retail. In fact they found that the margins in Australia, or across Victoria, were some three times what they were for comparable businesses in the United Kingdom; or, indeed, that these margins in this retail sector of electricity were significantly higher than in the motor vehicle sector, the fuel sector or the food sector. We are determined to rein that in.
Generation costs are about a third of the bill. They have gone up dramatically over the last four to five years. There are three reasons why wholesale costs have gone up. They have gone up because gas prices have nearly tripled in the past five to six years. We are now seeing gas customers being quoted $8 to $10, or indeed $12 a gigajoule, whereas historically, in 2013-14, it was about $3 to $4 a gigajoule. As a result of coal-fired power stations closing—we have seen nine coal-fired power stations close in the last five years—we have seen gas play a much greater role in setting the price of electricity. In 2017, gas hit the price of electricity about 24 per cent of the time, which is more than double what it did back in 2004. With higher gas prices, and secondly with coal-fired power stations closing, we are also seeing higher electricity bills.
The third reason why we are seeing higher wholesale prices is because of the market uncertainty. The last coal-fired power station that was built in Australia was Kogan Creek in Queensland, in 2007. The last gas-fired power station was in Victoria, at Mortlake, in 2010. One of the factors that comes up constantly when you speak to generators is the lack of regulatory certainty, and that, they say, is making them reconsider or abandon investment decisions. That is why Dr Finkel has talked about a clean energy target as a possible solution.
When it comes to gas we have announced that we will be introducing export controls. We are also encouraging the state governments to lift their moratoriums and bans in order to get more gas out of the ground. If we can get more gas supply then that will of course lower the price. So we are dealing with generation; we are dealing with retail; we are dealing with the network costs—they are part of our plan.
At the same time we recognise there is a very significant transformation taking place in the energy system, with a greater penetration of renewables, particularly intermittent power, namely solar and wind. But, where a wind farm may generate power 35 to 40 per cent of the time and a solar farm about 20 to 25 per cent of the time, you need battery storage. You need backup power. That is why one of the recommendations out of the Finkel review is so significant: it is going to encourage the renewable players to provide their own storage. That storage could be gas, pumped hydro, batteries or, dare I say to the Greens, diesel generation.
A point about pumped hydro is it has been a real focus for Malcolm Turnbull and his team. For the first time we have a prime minister who is putting storage at the top of the energy agenda, and I think that cannot be understated.
We understand that the public are facing high electricity bills. Indeed it is the most vulnerable consumers in our economy who are doing it the toughest. As a proportion of their disposable income they spend up to five times more on energy than higher income earners. That is why what has happened in South Australia, with the whole system going black and South Australians facing the highest electricity prices across the NEM, is such a tragedy—simply because a Labor government under Jay Weatherill did not put in place sufficient planning for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. He welcomed particularly wind but also solar to his state without understanding the need to provide the frequency control and ancillary services, the inertia and the storage that is required to stabilise the system.
In Queensland we have been very critical of the Palaszczuk government because their generators, Stanwell and CS Energy, have not provided sufficient power into the system consistent with the amount of capacity that they have. There has been gaming of the system, and as a result it is the consumer who has been short-changed. Even though the balance sheets of the state Labor government have improved as a result, it has been at the consumer's expense.
We call upon the Queensland government to do more to ensure that electricity prices can be lowered in Queensland. We call on the Weatherill government to do the same. I would say to all the Labor governments that have adopted these reckless renewable energy targets: join up to a federal plan to see a consistent, national approach—a holistic approach—as opposed to lots of different schemes in lots of different states pursuing an ideological purpose.
This is where Dr Finkel I think has made a real breakthrough. He has emphasised that the focus should be not so much on the inputs but on the outputs: how do we get to a point of lower emissions consistent with our Paris target of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030 while at the same time ensure a more stable system—not a repeat of what we saw in South Australia—and of course more affordable power?
The people of Australia were short-changed by Bill Shorten, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd when they saw electricity prices double under the Labor Party when they were last in office from 2007 to 2013. We are determined to right the wrongs of the past and to ensure that we focus, as the Prime Minister has said, on engineering and economics to get a better, fairer, affordable and secure power system for all Australians. (Time expired)
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (15:34): Frankly, it beggars belief that in 2017, in a country as clever as Australia, we still do not have what I would call a genuine comprehensive energy policy. Frankly, it beggars belief that, at a time when members of parliament are tripping over each other to come in here and talk about national security, we would not have a plan for our national energy security. Yes, in recent times—and here again today—there has been discussion about electricity and about gas. But the truth is we are only having discussions about these forms of energy as a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis. The only reason we are talking about electricity, and the only reason Dr Finkel did his review, is the blackouts in South Australia. It is not some visionary politicians thinking some time ago that we need to address this issue. The pathway that has come out of those blackouts is entirely unacceptable. This government, supported by the opposition, really should be talking about putting this country on a pathway to 100 per cent renewable energy and net zero carbon emissions.
It is the same with gas—again, a knee-jerk reaction to the predictions of gas shortages and of big spikes in the price of gas because we are exporting so much of our gas overseas. We are not having a conversation about gas because of visionary politicians years ago seeing a problem in the future and seeing that we needed to put a plan in place to avert it—it is a knee-jerk reaction. And, again, it is putting us on the wrong pathway. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to call in a couple of CEOs and have a cup of tea, and have a couple of photos and a headline in the newspaper the next day. What we should be doing is coming in here and discussing how we reserve enough gas for our country for the future. That is what we should be talking about. I do worry that this whole talk about gas is just a clever plan to open the country up to more fracking. What we should be doing is stopping the exporting of so much of our precious gas and keeping it for our own uses for as long as we think we are going to need it.
The trouble with the reactionary and fragmented approach to energy policy in this country is we are not even starting to talk about the one glaring gap, and that is oil. The fact is that this country is importing most of our oil needs. Eventually, that problem will go away as we move to a reliance on renewable energy and as we move down to that ultimate goal—hopefully sooner rather than later—of net zero carbon emissions. But for now, at least, we are needing to import a lot of oil. Do you think that we have visionary politicians talking about energy security in this space? No, not at all. Bizarrely, we are signatories to an International Energy Agency agreement that we will keep 90 days of our import requirements. The most recent figures that I can get a hold of show that we are holding 55 days of our import requirements. In fact, we are the only OECD country not meeting our IEA treaty requirement to be holding 90 days. Frankly, I find this just bizarre.
And what sort of holdings are we holding? This is going to horrify people who are listening to this short speech and to this short debate: we are holding 31 days of our national LPG requirement. We are holding 23 days of our petrol requirement. We are holding 21 days of our aviation turbine fuel requirement and 17 days of our diesel fuel requirement. My godfather, Deputy Speaker! At a time of unprecedented international instability, and when most of our imports come from Korea and Korean refineries, we are not even meeting the 90-day requirement of the treaty that we have signed up to with the International Energy Agency.
And what about pricing? I have made the point in this place before, and I will make it again: no government has yet taken any effective action against the oil companies to make sure that consumers can actually afford to buy the LPG and petrol for their cars. No state is being hammered more viciously in this space in this regard than my home state of Tasmania. It is simply not good enough. I commend the member for Indi for driving this project to have a crossbench MPI, and I thank the opposition for supporting us in this. What we need is a government to stand up and develop a comprehensive energy policy and a comprehensive plan for our energy security. We need to do it cooperatively and collegiately, and we need to do it as soon as possible.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:39): I am pleased to contribute to this debate, and I welcome the crossbenchers putting this forward. I have just one thing to start with. We hear that government needs a plan to fix the crisis we are in, but the very reason we are in a crisis is because of government interference in the very first place. Let's just go through how we got into this mess. If we go back to those glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regime and if we look to the ABS figures—
Mr Champion: You're going back a long way!
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Do not worry, member for Wakefield, I will get to South Australia very soon. Do not worry about that. According to the ABS figures, under those glory years we had a 118 per cent increase in the price of electricity in this nation. In a little over five years, the Labor Party with their policies managed to see electricity prices increase by 118 per cent.
Mr Champion: What's it up under you?
Mr CRAIG KELLY: It takes some special incompetence to get that increase. The member for Wakefield asked, 'How much have electricity prices increased under the coalition government?' I am very happy to inform the member for Wakefield—and I will refer him to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, if he would care to look at them—that, from the time this coalition government was elected to the last release, the increase is three per cent.
Mr Champion: Really?
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Yes, member for Wakefield, that is correct. Under the coalition, electricity prices have increased three per cent. Under the previous government that the member for Wakefield was a member of—the brilliant work of the member for Wakefield—it was an increase of 118 per cent. He carps there from the dispatch box.
We also have to actually look at and talk about the mess we are in. Nowhere is the mess worse than in the member for Wakefield's own home state of South Australia. If you want to look at how not to do it, look at the member for Wakefield's state. The policies they have there have not only caused blackouts but also given South Australia not only the highest electricity prices in the nation but also some of the highest electricity prices in the world. That is as of today, and we know that as of 1 July electricity prices in Adelaide are going to go up by a further 18 per cent. Why are they going up? At least, thankfully, they have done something down there in Adelaide. They have spent another $500 million of South Australia's taxpayers' money, thankfully, to put in a bank of diesel generators so hopefully the lights will not go out again this summertime.
We have to admit that there are big price increases coming through in electricity. But why is this happening? It is happening because of the 20 per cent renewable energy target set by Kevin Rudd. Why was there a 20 per cent renewable energy target? Was it because of a good analysis of the economics? Was it because of a good analysis of the engineering? No. It was simply because it rhymed. We had an energy policy put forward by the previous Labor government for no other reason—it was 20 per cent by 2020—than it rhymed. And we wonder why we are in this absolute, complete mess. Even Dr Finkel, in his report, actually notes that the renewable energy target has caused this mess. I will quote from his report. He says:
Security and reliability have been compromised by poorly integrated variable renewable electricity generators, including wind and solar.
That is a direct quote from the Finkel report.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Would you like to say that you disagree with the Finkel report? Dear oh dear, we hear the member for Wakefield already dismissing the Finkel report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Hughes will address his remarks through the chair, and the member for Wakefield will be silent.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: It is also worth noting that the problem that we have in this nation at the moment is we simply do not have enough quantity of dispatchable electricity. The Finkel report notes that this coming summer there is a large risk of blackouts in South Australia and Victoria simply because there is a shortage of dispatchable electricity. That is the first issue that we need to address because it may be something the Labor Party do not understand—that when the wind does not blow the power does not flow. We have seen a situation in this country where last month the thousand wind turbines spread from South Australia to Tasmania, to Victoria, to New South Wales and up to Queensland were delivering zero electricity—not enough to run one 25-watt— (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:44): We could be the world's renewable energy superpower. Australia could be the place that industry come to from all around the world, and from around the region, if they want clean, cheap, reliable renewable energy. Look at the sun we have. Look at the wind. Look at the waves around us. We could be world leaders in this stuff. Instead, we have a government that treats 'plan' as another four-letter word.
The Minister for the Environment and Energy got up and gave a long contribution. He seemed to want to win the climate wars by attrition by just soporifically running through what he considered to be fact after fact. Buried in none of that was any vision at all for how Australia could take its place as a world-leading renewable energy superpower. What we need to know about the mess that we are in at the moment is: when this government abolished the carbon price, and they patted themselves on the back and stood in a group hug on the floor of the chamber, what did that do? In the four years after that, the wholesale price of electricity doubled.
The minister and other members like to come in and lecture state governments about their renewable energy targets. The one thing that they do not mention is that in the state of New South Wales—where we have had Liberals in power at the state level while we have had Liberals in power at the federal level for the past few years—the wholesale price has increased the most. The highest wholesale price increase has been in New South Wales, where they are predominantly reliant on coal and where the Liberals have been in power.
What happened? This government came in and tore down the good work that was done in the previous government when Greens, Labor and Independents—people who worked across political differences and across the aisle—put in place a strong and durable plan. The government came in and tore it down, and as a result we are in chaos. We do not have guaranteed supply. Power prices are going up, and pollution is going up as well. It takes a special government to hit that trifecta of not being able to keep the lights on, pushing up pollution and pushing up power prices, but that is what has happened under this federal Liberal government.
What are we going to do? One thing that we need to do is be realistic. We need to get to zero emissions as quickly as possible in this country. The good news is that it is now cheaper to build renewable energy than it is to build coal or even gas. It is now cheaper to build renewable energy potentially with storage than it is to build some forms of gas, and certainly some forms of coal—and that is even without a carbon price, which we are going to get back one day. We have all the tools laid out in front of us, and we need to assemble those tools to make sure we have a national energy plan that sees our pollution coming down, prices coming down—because we know renewable energy is cheaper—and that keeps the lights on. Instead, we are on the verge of going back and making the mistakes of the past because the government seems more intent on developing a plan to satisfy the Trumps on the government backbench and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott than on satisfying the climate scientists. The minister and the Prime Minister seem to be spending day after day wandering around trying to convince their colleagues to support a plan, and everything seems to be about rushing to the lowest common denominator—let's make sure we have a plan that gets Tony Abbott on board so that we can get that through!
If we are going to rewrite the law to define gas and even coal as clean energy, we might as well all pack up and go home now. If we are about to introduce a piece of legislation, simply to keep the Trumps on the backbench happy, that says consumers need to not only pay higher prices for gas but also dip into their pockets to give big gas companies a subsidy—because now, all of a sudden, gas counts as a clean energy—then we are not going to fix the problem. We are simply shunting the affordability problem, as well as the emissions and pollution problem and the security problem, down to the next generation.
What needs to be understood by all of those who advocate fracking and are saying, 'Let's open up more of our farmland'—and saying pollute our water table so that we can get more gas out of the ground because somehow that will fix things—is that you could frack the whole country and it would not bring power bills down by one dollar, because all of the gas is going to go in a pipeline to be processed in Queensland and sold offshore. If you were running a gas company, why wouldn't you? Why keep any of it for domestic use when you can sell it offshore for two or three times the price? You are giving false hope to industry and false hope to consumers if you think gas is going to do anything. We need to get to 100 per cent renewables as quickly as possible. A strong government authority, which will grab this issue by the scruff of the neck and take it out of the hands of politicians and state and federal warfare, will do that. Do not end the climate wars by surrendering. (Time expired)
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:49): I thank the member for Indi for bringing forward this topic for the matter of public importance today. It is very important, and with the delivery of the report from Alan Finkel it would appear that we are very close to having that plan that you wish for.
One of the things that has been touched on a couple of times in this debate is South Australia. Recently I was in a meeting and it peeved me to have to say that the rest of Australia is very lucky that they have South Australia: it is the smallest mainland economy, and if you are going to stuff up the electricity anywhere, it should be in the smallest economy. We have a disaster in South Australia at the moment. If it happened in New South Wales it would drag the whole of Australia down with it. That is just how bad it has been. I have been closely watching this situation for quite some time. In 2016, for instance—things have changed a bit now, and I might get to that—South Australia had a wholesale price that was more than double Victoria's. For the first four months of 2016 we still had the Northern Power Station. All the discrepancy, all the change, happened after that time.
South Australia currently hosts about 50 per cent of Australia's wind generation capacity. About 60 per cent of that 50 per cent was in my electorate of Grey. Last year that huge bevy of wind farms delivered about 47 per cent of South Australia's electricity—47 per cent from renewables. One would think that is very admirable, but the problem is that the overabundance of renewable electricity has actually destroyed the business case for the power generators that keep the lights on when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining. The more of these wind farms that you put in place, in more diverse parts of the region, the less likely it is that you get these blackouts. But unfortunately the fewer days of the year that are required, the fewer days of the year that the base load generators can actually make a dollar. So, the more that fills in, the more it undermines the base load generator—as it did in the case of Alinta, to the point that they could not operate. And then of course we find that the wind does not blow 365 days a year.
In 2012 I had a meeting with the Australian Energy Market Commissioner, and I said: 'If Port Augusta goes offline, if the Alinta power station at Port Augusta is allowed to close before its use-by date'—and it had about another 15 years of useable life left in it—'the lights will go off in South Australia. We'll be in big trouble.' I was assured by the commissioner at the time, 'No, Mr Ramsey; we're just in the final touches of upgrading the interconnector to Victoria, and we are absolutely confident that once that's done South Australia can operate well with the Norther Power Station.' Boy, how was that? That was just completely wrong, and now we have been left in this unenviable position where we are the demonstration plant for the rest of Australia on how not to do it.
We are doing some good things there. I am very pleased that in the budget and leading up to the election I was able to announce that the government would be supporting a solar-thermal storage plant in Port Augusta. The Prime Minister has announced that we are backing a $450,000 feasibility study into pumped hydro, also in the Port Augusta region. And, interestingly enough—and I think I will bring this topic in; last week I spoke in Adelaide at an international uranium miners conference—Australia exports around 7½ thousand tonnes of uranium a year; it is one third of our energy exports, just in 7½ thousand tonnes. It replaces 140 million tonnes of coal on a worldwide basis, which is about 380 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. We do not get much credit for that now, do we? And it is interesting that this technology that actually has the ability to deliver large reductions of CO2—right around the world, or in our own country—we do not even discuss in this country. We cannot even get it on the agenda. It has become such a poisonous political tool—of those of the far Left, in particular—that the lies and deception are so deep that we cannot even speak intelligently about it, and that is a great shame for the nation. (Time expired)
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (15:54): Australia is suffering badly from its uncoordinated and ever-changing energy policies. Governments of both persuasions have been unable to create policy certainty. Without certainty, investors will not risk making the large-scale investments necessary to drive down prices and end market volatility. Future generations will look back with disdain on this extended period of inaction. They will look back on the vision of a frontbench passing around a piece of coal and shake their heads at all of us. I remind the government that coal is not good for humanity. In the absence of governments setting the framework in the national interest, the private interests of corporates are filling the vacuum. The result has been a growing concentration of market power and ever-rising prices. In South Australia, we are the canary in the coalmine in this new era. South Australia faces the highest and most volatile energy prices in the country.
I would like to devote my time today to talking about our gas supply. This is an integral part of the mix for base-load power as we transition to a renewable energy future. I commend the member for Melbourne on his vision for Australia being the lead renewable energy country. We can do this. Industrial gas is a critical input into most of Australia's manufacturing base, including steelmaking and the food production sector, which is important in my electorate. Australia has one of the largest proven gas reserves in the world, and yet we are exporting the bulk of it overseas. As a result, the price of industrial gas at home has increased dramatically. Companies are now being offered gas between $15 to $18 per gigajoule, as much as three times the previous price. This is such a big market failure that AGL is considering setting up a $300 million hub to import some of that exported gas—it is Australian gas that we sent overseas and yet after a return journey they still think they can make money off Australian customers.
A gas crisis is not imminent—it is already here. Unless we can bring prices back down to between $5 and $7 a gigajoule, we will lose tens of thousands of jobs in this country in the coming months and years. I echo Senator Xenophon's statements exactly when he said:
If we don’t deal with the gas crisis, Australia will see its living standards decline substantially and it will plunge us into very high levels of unemployment …
The Finkel review was not asked to look at gas prices—and yet that is the immediate energy crisis that we are facing in this country. We need to tackle the gas crisis head on before it tips our country into an avoidable recession. This is the recession we don't have to have. This is the recession we have to dodge.
The Nick Xenophon Team is working hard towards that aim. Earlier this year, we negotiated and obtained an energy package with the federal government. A major focus of that package was to begin reforms in Australia's industrial gas markets to set Australia on the path towards sustainable long-term prices and keep our advanced manufacturers internationally competitive. The measures that NXT have been able to achieve include: a commitment from the federal government to use its powers to ensure Australian gas is directed to the domestic market if voluntary agreement is not reached with gas companies by 1 July 2017, and a further commitment that longer term public interest requirements will be applied upon all future gas export contracts; an agreement by government to implement gas pricing and capacity transparency recommendations of the ACCC gas and Vertigan inquiries by 1 July 2017 to ensure that businesses negotiating gas supply contracts are not negotiating in the dark; and a 'use it or lose it' policy that will force gas companies that are sitting on huge gas reserves to bring cheap gas to market or hand their tenements over to companies that will.
To conclude, in Australia we are paying three times the spot price of gas in the US and double the long-term contract price in Japan. Why is it that the gas we are exporting to Japan costs twice as much here as it does there? There is serious dysfunction in our gas markets, and we need to deal with this absurdity head on. The Nick Xenophon Team has worked hard to obtain measures from the federal government that will bring more gas onto the domestic market and help to bring down gas prices. But much more needs to be done, and urgently. We are running out of time for Australian businesses and tens of thousands of jobs. I urge the Australian government in the strongest terms to take action on reforming our gas markets before it is too late. Stop playing with coal and see renewable energy for the future that it is. We need to do this—we cannot just keep sitting in here for years and years with one side debating the other
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (15:59): It is good that the House is talking about energy policy. I have the great privilege of chairing the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and long before there was a blackout in South Australia we had identified that we should have an inquiry into the electricity grid. It is funny how it has suddenly become the political topic of the day when it really should have been something that was discussed and determined a long time ago. My involvement with the issue of how we ensure we have reliable electricity goes all the way back to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, when I was in the Victorian Farmers Federation. I remember having a discussion with Tony Windsor at the time—this was when the Independents held the balance of power—about trying to ensure we kept the carbon price off transport fuels, which was of course so relevant to regional Australia.
I want to touch on a few things that our inquiry has found, because they do feed into this discussion and into some of the findings of Professor Finkel in his recent report. There are three components to electricity. There is electrical energy; there is stability, or inertia; and there is reliability. Those three components have to exist if we are going to have a grid that people will invest in in the future. My fear, of course, is that the South Australian experiment largely has not tackled those three components, and we therefore are seeing a great deal of unreliability in the South Australian electrical grid. Talk to the CSIRO and they will tell you that once you get above 40 per cent renewable, if you have not addressed stability and reliability, you will see the grid become largely unstable. That is the case in South Australia, where it is now up to 47 per cent. It is quite aspirational—full marks to them—but it has not worked because they have not addressed the other parts of the grid, which are essential. They have a vision of addressing those concerns through battery technology, but our findings are telling us that batteries do not work once you get above 40 degrees Celsius. That is a concern for us, because the time when you are going to need to draw down to get the additional power will be those hot days when the wind is not blowing, and then you have a battery reserve that is not going to work.
In contrast, the battery that does work is pumped hydro, and I commend the Prime Minister for his commitment to expanding Snowy Hydro mark 2. What I would say is that if they are going to look at how you can use wind and solar within the mix then they should have an MOU with pumped hydro so that when it is windy they can pump water up a hill and when it is not windy they can turn the tap on and run water down. It is a natural mix. One of the things our inquiry will probably lean towards is the realistic discussion going on about a second Basslink on the west coast of Tasmania, which could feed in with the winds of the roaring forties and also pumped hydro.
I think we need to be very careful not to demonise coal. I know some here will disagree with me, but if you stood behind the exhaust of a 1960s car you would see a very dirty exhaust stream coming out the back, and that was the issue with Hazelwood, a 1960s power station, still burning coal. If you look at a modern coal-fired power station—one still burning the same fuel—you will see you can have substantially reduced emissions for fairly efficient generation.
An opposition member: That is like saying you could look at a modern steam locomotive.
Mr BROAD: Well, you might have driven one of those. You probably have one of those 1960s cars. Coal is still going be part of our mix, and we are denying reality if we are not tackling it as part of our mix. Coal-fired power stations will continue for quite a while.
Could I add that the thing driving electricity prices in the short term is the substantial increase in gas. Gas is our quick turn-on, turn-off power generation source. We do need to reduce the export of gas whilst we are waiting to bring more supply into the gas market. The magic figure is $8, and that will then bring our power prices down to $75. These things are not addressed in the Finkel review. They need to be quite interventionist policy rather quickly, in my opinion. The Finkel review provides a discussion for two, three and four years from now, but this requires an interventionist policy that addresses our concerns in the next months.
Mr KATTER ( Kennedy ) ( 16:04 ): I speak with some authority on this matter. When I was Minister for Mines and Energy in Queensland, we had the cheapest electricity in the world. Proof positive was that we got the aluminium industry of Australia on an aggressive footing that has never looked back, until we ran into the electricity prices. For my colleagues on the crossbenches here, I won the Australian prize for science in the year because I put in the first stand-alone solar system in the world in the Torres Strait, on Coconut Island. The world boss of GE came for the opening ceremony. The socialists who followed me put in diesel generators and I said, 'Polluting paradise!' So I speak with authority.
I really have been amazed that there is not one single person in this place who has addressed the issue of why electricity prices have gone through the roof. It is not the fault of the Greens, as much as I would like to put it upon my Greens friends. They only put it up 30 per cent, but I do not think they should be proud of that. It was put up 70 per cent by the free marketeers. Almost everybody in this place seems to be a free marketeer. A famous comment by Paul Keating was that I was the last socialist left in this place. I used it as a term of abuse for most of my life.
Monopoly rent. If you play the famous game of Monopoly, you would know that, if you owned all of the utilities, you could charge seven times as much and, if you owned half of them, you could charge four times as much. Of course, there are two people in Australia who own 40 per cent of the electricity in this nation and its delivery systems, and they have enjoyed the Monopoly rent, which is 70 per cent—the increase. So we have gone from $700 for 15 years and suddenly, when we deregulated it, privatised it and corporatised it, it went straight through the roof—from $700 for 15 years, in nine years it went to $2,400.
If we had the remotest scintilla of interest, genuinely—not class warfare against my coalmining brothers, whom I am proud to say are my brothers—and if you were in any way fair dinkum, there is the great gospel, the greenie gospel, but it is also a good book in my opinion: An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. His first solution is ethanol. It is so simple to do. As the honourable member for Hobart pointed out, you are quite happy that your nation has no supply of petrol whatsoever and you are quite happy that your nation spends $23 billion a year to buy oil for petrol from the Middle East. Is that what you consider a good outcome? If you switch to 22 per cent ethanol, the same as in Brazil, the market will drive it because it is cheaper than petrol. Brazil now has 60 per cent ethanol in petrol tanks. That cuts your transport CO2 emissions by 30 per cent or 40 per cent—in one hit in your electricity if you go ahead with Hell's Gate in Kennedy. It is one of the prime wind locations in Australia, north of Hughenden. And there is the Kidston pumped storage. We could give you 1,000 megawatts, one-fortieth of the entire output of this nation, in renewables. If there were a scintilla of intelligence in this place—or in the Queensland parliament, more relevantly—they would say to Mr Adani and Mr China Stone and Mr Link, and all the other people who are on the Galilee Basin, 'If you want to produce the coal and send it to a power station overseas, then you will use advanced ultra-supercritical technology,' which cuts the output by 40 per cent—in the case of Indian coal, it is by 50 per cent—and you would say, 'You will plant some trees.' We have seven million hectares of beautiful lands completely destroyed by an introduced species—seven million hectares. Force them to take that out and put in spotted gums, Australian and our most common tree in North Queensland, and you will solve the CO2 problems of this nation— (Time expired)
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (16:09): We on this side of the House know the absolute importance of a responsible national energy policy. We are responsible for fixing the mess that those opposite and their state counterparts have made of energy and electricity in our nation. No-one knows the devastating impact of failed Labor policies more than a member like me, because I lived through the disastrous and dangerous blackout in September of last year. Clearly, those opposite do not quite understand what it means to lose energy security and reliability. I really do not think they do, from that response.
When we lost our power last September in South Australia, it meant people's lives were put at risk—like each and every police officer who was standing in the middle of an intersection in peak-hour traffic, in the rain and the wind, directing traffic because every single traffic light was out across metropolitan Adelaide. It meant that patients in Flinders Medical Centre who were in intensive care had to be transferred to Flinders Private Hospital because the backup generator failed at Flinders Medical Centre—not particularly funny, I say to those opposite. It also meant that families, elderly people and people living alone had to endure a long night of darkness.
This was the result of Premier Weatherill's great experiment. As he said:
We are running a big international experiment right now …
We have got a long, skinny transmission system and we will soon have 50 per cent renewable energy, including a lot of wind and … solar.
He also said:
We want to get as close to 100 per cent renewable power as possible …
We know there are challenges here … But with big risks, go big opportunities.
Well, we now know the result of this big experiment: it was an absolute disaster for my state and it put people's lives at risks. It was a disaster for my residents and a disaster for my businesses. So I call on those opposite to abandon their 50 per cent renewable energy target, which is going to put my residents and businesses in even more danger. I note that the member for Port Adelaide described the blackout last September and the blackouts that followed as 'hiccups'. They clearly were not hiccups.
In my home state and in my electorate of Boothby, residents, households and businesses are paying more than 40 per cent more for their power than the rest of the nation. In my home state, residents and businesses do not have secure or reliable power, and they live in fear of further blackouts and paying their next energy bill. We have had blackout after blackout, starting last September.
Our government, the Turnbull Liberal government, on the other hand, are entirely focused on delivering reliable and affordable power for hardworking Australians, families, older Australians, pensioners and those who most need our support. We are also doing this for our hardworking business owners, who keep this country going and keep Australians in jobs. What are we doing? We commissioned Dr Finkel to review the National Energy Market, and we are now considering his report; we are increasing the capacity of the Snowy hydro scheme by 50 per cent, which will generate enough energy to power an additional half a million homes; we are investing in storage for renewable energy, including investigating pumped hydro in the upper Spencer Gulf, in my home state of South Australia; we are investing in carbon capture and storage; we are introducing the Australian domestic gas security mechanism, which will enable us to impose export controls on gas when we have a shortfall in supply in Australia; and we are reviewing retail energy prices.
We are doing all of this because we believe in responsible government, as opposed to those opposite, who are willing to do big experiments, 'big international experiments', that involve, as we know, not big opportunities but big risks for families, for businesses, for our older Australians and for people who are just trying to go about their day-to-day lives, getting to and from work, taking their kids to and from school, and employing Australians.
I am looking forward to being part of the process of considering the Finkel report, and we are looking at it very carefully because we have to get this right. We have to get this right for the future of the nation but particularly for the future of my home state of South Australia. Nothing is more important than reliable power, secure power and, also, affordable power. Cost-of-living pressures are one of the issues that people raise with me when I am out and about in the electorate, and none more so than the cost of electricity at the moment, which, under the state Labor government in South Australia, is completely out of control.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for the matter of public importance debate has 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 Gorton to suspend standing orders on which a division was called for but deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.
The House divided. [16:19]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Data Spill of Phone Numbers for Members of Parliament
The SPEAKER (16:24): I have a quick housekeeping statement. On Thursday 25 May the member for Chifley asked me several questions about the data spill of phone numbers MPs and senators which occurred on Monday 20 March. The member for Chifley asked for an update on the review into the data spill, to be advised on the remedial action which has been taken, whether the Department of Parliamentary Services is subject to the Australian Privacy Principles, and if a breach of these principles by DPS or its contractors occurred. I understand the member for Chifley also met with the secretary of the department on 24 May and posed similar questions to the department. Rather than detain the House with a lengthy statement, I wish to now table my responses to the member for Chifley's questions. The information provided should be viewed as a response to both those questions addressed to me in the House as well as those questions addressed to DPS. In tabling the statement, I hope to allay any concerns that members may still have about this issue. I can assure members that this data spill has been taken extremely seriously by both me and the President of the Senate, and all necessary steps are being taken to ensure, where possible, this does not occur again. I thank the House.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:27): On behalf or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report on the 2015-16 annual reports of the bodies established under the ASIC Act.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
BILLS
Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that Australian laws have failed to keep up with the new ways that technology is being used to cause harm, particularly to women and in the context of family violence;
(2) notes that law enforcement and experts agree that there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with sharing of intimate images without consent, colloquially referred to as 'revenge porn';
(3) notes that the Council of Australian Governments recommended that the Commonwealth government introduce legislation that reinforces perpetrator accountability by removing uncertainty and explicitly making it illegal to use technology to distribute intimate material without consent;
(4) notes that the Turnbull government has failed to criminalise sharing of intimate images without consent; and
(5) calls on the Turnbull government to criminalise sharing of intimate images without consent."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (16:28): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:28): I rise to note Labor's support for the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, and, in doing so, clarify the role of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to promote and enforce online safety for all Australians, including children. It expands the functions of the eSafety Commissioner to broadly complement existing Australian legislation to combat cyber bullying, cyber hate, trolling and other malicious and offensive behaviour. This bill will make it easier for the public to identify where they can seek assistance and advice in relation to a range of online safety measures, irrespective of age. The bill recognises and addresses the extensive public feedback that adults, previously, had not been aware that they could also seek assistance from what was previously known as the Children's eSafety Commissioner for general advice about online safety or when they have concerns about illegal or offensive online content or the sharing of private images without consent.
This amendment is required mostly due to the Turnbull government realising that online safety is a problem facing Australians of all ages, not just children. I say it is okay to admit when you are wrong. It was the Turnbull government that decided to transfer responsibility for online safety from the Australian Communications and Media Authority to a new office, the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, two years ago. While Labor supported the introduction of the act in 2015, we noted at the time that it was out of line with the Turnbull government's 'breathless' deregulation agenda. It was clearly a case of 'regulate first, think later' by the Turnbull government.
The Labor Party supports measures that improve public access to information and advice on cyberbullying, revenge porn, image based abuse, sexting and e-safety in general, including the safe use of the internet by older Australians. Labor is firmly committed to improving cybersafety. As a mother of three children, I welcome this. The previous Labor government delivered $125.8 million towards the National Cyber Safety Plan to combat the online risks to children and to help parents and educators protect our children from inappropriate online material and malicious contact. In 2010, Labor established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety as part of its commitment to investigate and improve online safety measures. The committee released a report with 32 recommendations, each of which was endorsed by the previous Labor government.
In 2015, my colleagues the member for Gellibrand and the member for Griffiths introduced a private member's bill criminalising the non-consensual sharing of nude or sexual images. So called revenge porn is widely understood as the spiteful actions of a jilted ex-partner. However, as the term has gained popularity, so has the realisation that the non-consensual sharing of nude or sexual images is increasingly being used as a tool of abuse and control by the perpetrators of domestic violence.
More than a year after my colleagues introduced their bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private images, the Turnbull government continues to delay its passage through the parliament. This is just another example of the Prime Minister's great capacity to 'talk the talk'—and he certainly can talk the talk about the problem of violence against women, but his government has been much slower in actually taking any action. Australian law has failed to keep pace with the ways emerging technologies are being used to cause harm, particularly to women.
Experts agree that we need to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private images. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions said that making so-called revenge porn a criminal offence would fill a gap within the existing law. The Australian Federal Police said that 'uniformity in legislation would be most helpful for police, allowing them to investigate and charge perpetrators and abusers'. The Turnbull government has had plenty of time to act, and it has plenty of support from our national law enforcement agencies to ensure that the non-consensual sharing a private images is not tolerated.
As I have noted, Labor supported the introduction of the act in 2015, acknowledging the widespread problem of online bullying, which can have serious impacts, including depression, anxiety and, in rare cases, child suicide. Two years later, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 amends the act and the title of the statutory Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to reflect the broader role for online safety that the commissioner has for all Australians, not just Australian children. A statutory review mechanism in the legislation was necessary and appropriate given the practical concerns around implementation that were expressed by the Australian Interactive Media Association, representing Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo7. This bill, amending the remit of the office from 'children' to 'Australians', suggests that the creation of the office was not particularly well conceived at the time and that the ongoing stakeholder and parliamentary scrutiny is welcome. As more and more of our daily lives—both work and private matters—happen online the issue of online safety continues to grow and demand the attention of both lawmakers and law enforcement.
We acknowledge the prevalence of bullying online and we acknowledge the very significant and lasting harm it can have on people. In a recent RMIT survey of more than 4,000 Australians aged 16 to 45, 23 per cent reported having been a victim of image based abuse. The most common problem, affecting 20 per cent of those surveyed—an astonishing one in five people—was sexual or nude images being taken of them without their consent. Eleven per cent of those surveyed reported having sexual or nude images of them sent or distributed to others without their consent. Nine per cent of survey responders reported experiencing threats that a sexual or nude image would be sent or distributed to others without their consent. This is an alarming problem facing young people. The survey found that some groups were more likely than others to be affected. One in two Indigenous Australians, one in two Australians with a disability, and one in three lesbian, gay and bisexual Australians reported suffering from image based abuse or victimisation.
The RMIT survey concedes an important limitation to the information they collected. Victims can only self-report if they become aware that a sexual or nude image of them was either taken or distributed without their consent. The authors of the RMIT survey report acknowledge that addressing image based harms requires a combination of approaches. This would take into consideration coordinating with social media and website providers to better detect and remove material; two, introducing measures to increase legal protections; three, providing information and support services for victims. Information and support should cater for the different experiences of the diverse Australian community.
This government likes to come in here and tell us that we have done things wrong. I think it is time for them to own up, fess up and face up to the fact that they have done nothing about this. Now, finally, after four years, they are sorting out the issue.
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (16:36): The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 is recognition that online safety is a fundamental right for all Australians, no matter what their age, gender, race, sexuality, ability or occupation. Since it was established two years ago, the Children's eSafety Commissioner has carried out more than 15,000 investigations into online content, including 9,000 cases of online sexual abuse. This shows the scope of the problem with cyberbullying, trolls, threats, intimidation and personal attacks carried out online. More than 92,000 students and teachers have been reached through the e-safety virtual classrooms. Further to that, more than 1,200 frontline professionals have received training in how to help women who are experiencing abuse and harassment online as part of the Women's Safety Package.
This has been a hugely successful start. Now it is time to expand the program to ensure that every person in Australia can access the internet without fear of ongoing harassment or vilification. These efforts need to be wide reaching, diverse and, importantly, they must evolve as quickly as technology does. The keyboard is now mightier than the sword, and cruel words typed onto the internet can have tremendous power. Adults may have a thicker skin and greater perspective than children, but relentless attacks from online trolls can and do wear down our defences.
No-one is truly immune from the threat of cyberbullies. This is particularly true in the case where these personal attacks are shared rapidly among peers online, where they can be seen by many others. This is humiliating enough when it is a derogatory statement or criticism, but it is utterly devastating in cases such as revenge porn, when intimate images are circulated widely. In many cases the victims suffer in silence, as they do not know how to stop the onslaught or where they can get help. This can lead to serious mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, and can even be so serious that it causes people to become suicidal.
Whether it is online trolling, hacking, impersonation or degrading remarks, the actions of bullies can have a lasting and significant impact, no matter what the victim's age. That is why the federal government is seeking to expand the role of the eSafety Commissioner to help a broader range of Australians, including the elderly, victims of domestic and family violence and people who have had private or personal images shared without consent.
The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill will change the name of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the broader role in online safety. The new name and role will make it clear to members of the public that all Australians can go to the commissioner for assistance if they have concerns about illegal or offensive content posted online—if they have faced the so-called revenge porn posts or if they need general advice on how to stay safe online. While the commissioner will not have the ability to receive complaints from adults about cyberbullying material, the bill is recognition of the government's commitment to improve and promote online safety for all Australians through education initiatives and research.
The bill amendment will allow the commissioner to carry out work on the federal government's election commitment relating to women's safety and the safety of older Australians online, ensuring that they have the skills to participate in our modern digital economy. These changes will complement the existing work the commissioner and the Department of Social Services are doing to develop a digital inclusion and online safety strategy for older Australians. The federal government recognises the important role technology plays in keeping Australians connected. Eighty per cent of people own smartphones and tablets to help them stay in touch with family and friends, but only one in five aged people in Australia use smartphone technology, because many fear that they do not have the skills needed and are hesitant to take part in today's digital world. The federal government is investing $50 million to improve the digital literacy of older Australians, keep them connected with their loved ones and give them the confidence to participate online.
In relation to the safety of women and children online, as part of its commitment to reducing violence against women and their children, including online abuse, the government has agreed to develop principles for national and consistent criminal offences relating to the sharing of revenge porn images and a public consultation process to impose civil penalties against perpetrators and websites that host intimate images or videos that are shared without consent.
On 19 May a meeting of the COAG Law, Crime and Community Safety Council released a National Statement of Principles Relating to the Criminalisation of the Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images. The national statement of principles will give state and territory governments a shared framework to develop and review criminal laws relating to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Additionally, on 20 May the government released a discussion paper and called for substantial submissions on a proposed civil penalty regime that will target both perpetrators and sites that host intimate images and videos that have been shared without consent. Civil penalties could complement an online complaints portal currently being developed which will allow victims to report instances of image based abuse and access support. The portal is expected to be launched by the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner in the second half of 2017.
These changes acknowledge that attacks online are often conducted as part of a sustained campaign of victimisation in the real world and must be tackled within the broader framework of preventing family violence. By expanding the function of the eSafety Commissioner, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill will complement existing legislation arrangements for Australian adults to address cyberbullying, cyberhate, trolling and other malicious and offensive online behaviour and promote the online safety of all Australians. The bill will help bridge the great digital divide faced by our older generations and ensure that those Australians who are most vulnerable online, including victims of violence, children and the elderly, are given the skills and support to participate with confidence in an increasingly technological world. I commend this bill and the work being carried out by the federal government to allow all Australians to enjoy safe use of the internet.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:44): As shadow assistant minister for cyber security and defence personnel I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017, because there are many competing voices in the cybersecurity and cybersafety space, and it makes it difficult for people to know where to go to for advice, tools and assistance when the online world gets particularly scary.
We had a very good example of that recently with the WannaCry incident which occurred just a few weeks ago. We heard about it overnight hitting the NHS and 200,000 other individuals and organisations in more than 100 countries throughout the world. We heard that this possible wave was coming to Australia, and my concern was the fact that there was no single voice here in Australia sending a message out to Australians, saying: 'WannaCry is on its way. This is what you need to do: you need to patch your systems; you need to back up your systems; you need to do an IT health check.'
We had the Prime Minister's cybersecurity adviser out there doing some media conferences and a few media interviews here in Canberra to a few media outlets that are not really communicators to the wider Australian community. We also had occasional communications from the minister, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Cyber Security Centre, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Stay Smart Online. They are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head; I am sure that there were other government agencies.
That is six that I can count already that were communicating different messages at different times out to the broader Australian community and—this is the big concern—to small business. How did it work in the UK? There was one government agency, the National Cyber Security Centre, sending messages about WannaCry out to the broader community, to the small business community and to government agencies. We had at least six.
This very recent example of the government's mismanagement, in my view, of communication on WannaCry potentially could have been a major disaster for hundreds and thousands of businesses and individuals here in Australia. It was just by chance that we did not experience what happened throughout the world in those 100-plus countries to those 200,000 individuals and businesses who fell prey to WannaCry. As I mentioned, we had 18 instances of reports of WannaCry victims; 12 of those that we know of were small businesses.
I have made this point to a recent Australian Strategic Policy Institute panel that I was on; I make this point again to the government: first-up, you need to get the crisis communication on cybersecurity in this nation sorted. We need one voice, we need consistent messages and we need a coordinated approach to communication, because from what I could gather there was no guiding hand on the communication that took place over the weekend of the WannaCry incident.
We also need to ensure that small businesses are aware they have a go-to place to find out, 'Okay, I'm hearing about WannaCry. I am hearing about this on a Friday night. I need to make sure that my business is okay,'—because we know that small businesses operate around the clock; it is not just a case of nine to five, Monday to Friday. Of the 2.1 million small businesses that operate here in Australia, 60 per cent operate from their kitchen table or from their home office. They do not have a shingle out in the high street; they do not have a shop on the main street. They operate from their home office, from their kitchen table. Sixty per cent of the 2.1 million small businesses in Australia are one person; there is no staff. There is no ICT department, no human resources department and no marketing department. It is just one individual trying to run the business, market the business, administer the business and secure the business online—one individual.
I have been one of those individuals. I was one of those individuals for 10 years. I had my own small business before I came into politics. I have been there. I know the importance of getting my IT security right, because that is my business. That is my reputation. If something is compromised there then the business is closed. The business is over. It is vitally important that small businesses understand, have the confidence and feel empowered to operate in the online environment. And it is vital that, when incidents like WannaCry occur, they know where to go. It is vital that those poor 12 business people—four of them were in the Northern Territory—that fell victim to WannaCry, and any other small business person or microbusiness person, can go to one site, one location, to work out what to do. They hear the news overnight; they wake up on Saturday morning and hear that WannaCry has hit like a wave, like a tsunami—200,000 individuals and businesses in more than 100 countries throughout the world. What do they think? 'I need to work out what to do. Where do I go to get advice?'
In the UK you go to the National Cyber Security Centre's Twitter page or Facebook page. In Australia you have to be very conversant with the bureaucracy. My recommendation is, if you are business wanting to secure your online environment, you need to get a big organisational chart of the Australian government bureaucracy. Because, if you are operating a small business, and you wake up Saturday morning and hear about WannaCry, you need to go to the Attorney-General's Department website, then you need to go to the minister's website, Twitter page and Facebook page and then you need to go to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website, Twitter page and Facebook page. You also need to go to the Australian Cyber Security Centre website, Twitter page and Facebook page and, just in case you have forgotten, you need to go to Stay Smart Online. Although, from memory, their first Facebook post was done about four days after we first heard about WannaCry—four days.
This is the real challenge that we have in Australia. The government needs to get serious about cybersecurity communications. It needs to get serious about establishing behavioural and cultural change in government agencies and it needs to drive that through a communications strategy. It also needs to get serious about crisis communications strategies, because what we saw on WannaCry was a complete and utter joke. I could not believe it, after what we saw with census fail last year, when people had no idea what was going on. They were compelled to take part because it was the census, but they had no idea what was going on. There was a great deal of review over census fail. Everyone realised that communication was probably one of the major issues. The Prime Minister's adviser on cybersecurity made it clear that communication had to be improved and that there had to be significant improvement in crisis communications and also in terms of behavioural change, attitudinal change and cultural change.
So you would have thought, after that significant failure, that with WannaCry they would have just gone to the one government agency and rolled out that communications strategy. You would have thought it would have been a really slick operation, given the lessons that were supposedly learnt after census fail. Given that everyone acknowledged that communication was one of the major failures of the census, you would have thought that with WannaCry there would have been an award-winning communication strategy rolled out.
As someone who had my own communication business, who is a fellow of the Public Relations Institute of Australia and who is an active member of the executive of the Australian Association of Business Communicators, I know when a communication strategy is working. I know, by looking at it from outside, whether the communication is being guided, or whether it is just mad and ad hoc, with one organisation running off with one message and another organisation running off with another message.
That was definitely what we saw with WannaCry. There was obviously no guiding hand managing the communication on WannaCry. There was no crisis communication. There was no general communication. There was no behavioural change, no attitudinal change, no call to action, no cultural change—nothing. There were just six government agencies sending out all their different messages at different times, except on Mother's Day. WannaCry happened on Saturday morning. We found out about it on Saturday morning. There was, from memory, no communication on the Sunday from government agencies about what people needed to do.
That is all you want to know. When you are a small business you just want to know what to do: 'Give me advice on what I need to do right now to save my business, to save my data, to save my intellectual property, to save my reputation. Just tell me what to do, and I will do it.' It was just a case of patching. It was a case of doing backups. It was a case of basically making a commitment to do regular IT health checks.
As I said, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill, because there are so many different voices in the cybersecurity and cybersafety space. Labor supported the introduction of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act in 2015 as part of our commitment to combating online child bullying and its impacts, including child suicide. Since then we have seen that age is no longer a barrier, and adults are also frequently the target of online harassment and bullying, with similar consequences for their mental and physical health. I often wonder whether, at its creation in 2015, the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner recognised then that its scope was simply not going to be wide or broad enough.
I am pleased Labor is supporting the amendments to the bill that will make it easier for all members of the public to identify where they can seek assistance. That is what is so vitally important: one place to go to seek assistance; one place to go to seek advice—somewhere they can seek assistance and advice in relation to a range of online safety issues, irrespective of their age.
This bill, as we have heard from so many of my colleagues today, amends the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 to reflect the broader role of the Children's eSafety Commissioner in relation to online safety for, as I said, all Australians, not just children. It will amend the commissioner's title, and it will make a number of other amendments that are welcome.
Revenge porn and the online safety of young Canberrans has been a significant issue here. We had an incident last year at St Mary MacKillop College where images were released, causing significant consternation and concern amongst the St Mary MacKillop College and also other colleges throughout Canberra. This is a significant issue in not just my community but all our communities. Revenge porn is a whole different issue. We need to ensure that mechanisms are in place to address that and to ensure that the victims are not targeted. We also need to provide an environment where support and assistance is provided to both children and adults. (Time expired)
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:59): I rise to speak in support of the bill before the House today, which has the primary function of changing the name of Children's eSafety Commissioner to eSafety Commissioner, to reflect its broader remit. The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017 primarily broadens the general functions of the existing Children's eSafety Commissioner to cover the online safety of all Australians, not just that of Australian children. This is a worthy agenda. When the Children's eSafety Commissioner was first established, I did ask the House why our commitment to dealing with abusive behaviour towards Australian women stopped when they turned 18. Recognising the breadth of this issue is worthwhile.
Before I tackle the specifics of the bill, it is important to recognise that this represents a broader trend in our society. You do not need to be paying too much attention to what is going on in the online space to appreciate that women, particularly those with a significant public profile, are currently the targets of enormous abuse and threats and intimidation online. Unfortunately, these threats are not mere words. They are words that go to very specific threats of physical violence against women, words that amount to the new, noxious practice of doxing—that is, publicly revealing the identity and physical location of the women being threatened. It is very, very intimidating behaviour that has a significant impact on women. The reality is that, to date, this kind of behaviour has not been taken seriously by law enforcement or by policymakers in general. What happens if you are a woman going into a police station to complain about online threats, abuse and intimidation can be a bit of a lottery. There is a lot of research that shows that the experience of women in these situations varies enormously, depending on which station you make the complaint at or depending on who the officer on watch was.
In this respect, changing to an eSafety Commissioner with a general remit is valuable, because we have an important culture-change task in front of us. We need to really get the message through to law enforcement and to policymakers that this kind of online behaviour can have significant impacts—impacts that can be just as significant as if these threats, abuse and intimidation were happening in real life, physically.
Labor welcome this name change to the eSafety Commissioner, and the expansion of the role to cover adults as well as children. The change in title is sensible, as it is not just children but also adults that are at risk. This bill will expand the role of the office to deal with issues broader than children's issues, which is also sensible. This includes expanded responsibility to take a leading role in combating the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, commonly referred to as 'revenge porn'.
Whilst we support this expansion, we believe that the most appropriate approach, the best approach, to dealing with revenge porn would have been to criminalise these acts some time ago, at the Commonwealth level. Australian laws have failed to keep pace with the new ways that technology is being used to cause harm, particularly to women, and the law should have been brought up to date and must be brought up to date as a matter of urgency. Revenge porn is one of the ugliest manifestations of the trend towards online abuse of women that I was talking about earlier, and it is important that the parliament as policymakers send a strong message to the community that the sharing of private sexual images without consent is wrong, and wrong in the clearest terms. The easiest way to send this message would be to enact Commonwealth legislation to criminalise this behaviour.
While, historically, we have considered family violence and abuse to be physical, psychological and emotional, in the 21st century family violence has also gone digital, and it has serious impacts on victims' mental health. There are a wide range of methods that revenge porn can be distributed: texting private images to friends, colleagues or family members; publishing images on social media sites; even uploading images to commercial pornographic websites. Indeed, it takes just four clicks on a computer to upload a photo to Facebook. That is how quick and simple it is to share an explicit photo of someone without his or her consent—four clicks to maliciously rob a person of their privacy, of their human dignity, and to inflict a digital form of sexual assault on them.
The mental and emotional toll of revenge porn is staggeringly high. Victims experience increased anxiety, and the research suggests they experience this anxiety acutely when they are doing activities that will subject to them to online scrutiny—for example, applying for a job, with the stress that potential employers might come across this material, which is frequently published with the names and contact details of the victims.
Private sexual images, and the threat to share them, are often used to control, humiliate and abuse individuals. While this practice is commonly referred to as revenge porn, it is clear that the sharing of these images without consent, or threats to share them, occurs in a much wider range of scenarios than a simple desire to inflict revenge. As the Sexual Assault Support Service recognises:
Revenge is not the only motive to consider. Perpetrators of the behaviour may seek notoriety or financial gain, or believe that they are providing entertainment for others. Some perpetrators may intend to cause emotional harm to their targets and humiliate them, while others will give little or no thought to potential impacts.
The problem of revenge porn is complex and not only limited to the publishing of sexually explicit material intending to intimidate or humiliate people in the context of a relationship breakdown.
Laws criminalising revenge porn have been slow to emerge. A leading expert in the field, Dr Nicola Henry, said: 'image-based abuse has emerged so rapidly as an issue that inevitably our laws and policies are struggling to catch up'. The law can often lag behind advances in technology, but in this instance it is causing real harm in the community.
Labor has been working on a solution to this issue since 2015. In October 2015 the member for Griffith and I introduced into parliament a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of private sexual images. Shortly after we introduced this bill, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee established an inquiry into this issue. During the inquiry the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concerns regarding the limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with revenge porn. As part of the Commonwealth DPP's submission they acknowledged that existing Commonwealth laws capture only part of the conduct that is encompassed by the sharing, or the threats to share, revenge porn. The submission confirmed that 'there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with 'revenge porn' conduct'.
The status of revenge porn legislation in Australia is strictly drafted at the state level and it is patchwork at best. Currently there is no federal legislation that criminalises revenge porn. Most states do not currently have legislative mechanisms in place to protect victims from cyber-abuse of this kind. South Australia and Victoria are the only two states that have passed revenge-porn-specific legislation. Victoria passed the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Bill in August 2014, which criminalises non-consensual sharing and also provides protection to young people who take and share images of themselves consensually. Between August 2014 and July 2016 174 offences had been recorded and around 29 per cent involved young people aged between 10 and 17. Western Australia passed the Restraining Orders and Related Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Act 2016 to criminalise cyber-stalking and revenge porn. The act received royal assent on 29 November 2016. Queensland has no specific revenge porn laws; however, Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath said the state government was working with other jurisdictions on this matter.
The general point here is that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions said that a Commonwealth offence targeting revenge porn would 'fill a gap within the existing law'. The Australian Federal Police said that 'uniformity in legislation would be most helpful for police' so that they can investigate and charge perpetrators. However, the Turnbull government has delayed and delayed on this issue. In early 2016, before the Senate inquiry had even released its report, the Minister for Women wrote to the opposition to indicate the government would not be supporting Labor's bill and that instead they would be pursuing the COAG process. In February 2016 the committee published its detailed report, which called for Commonwealth legislation that created offences relating to revenge porn. This was still not enough for the government and they continued to refuse to act. With the passage of time, the COAG Advisory Panel released its report, in April 2016, which stated:
Existing laws that govern such offences do not adequately capture the scope or nature of these offences. To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so.
The COAG panel explicitly recommended criminalising revenge porn:
All Commonwealth, state and territory governments should introduce legislation that reinforces perpetrator accountability by removing uncertainty and explicitly making it illegal to use technology to distribute intimate material without consent.
Governments should:
• introduce and enforce strong and consistent penalties for adults who distribute intimate material without consent
• improve community understanding of the impacts and consequences of distributing intimate material.
Despite the government saying it would wait until the COAG panel produced its report before making its decision, the government has still not legislated 12 months on. As a result, Labor re-introduced our private member's bill in October 2016.
There remains an urgent need for criminal penalties for offenders nationwide. Indeed, in the week that this bill was introduced into this parliament, research was released on the prominence and severity of this issue. RMIT and Monash University surveyed close to 4½ thousand people about their experiences with image based abuse. Their findings document the 'mass scale of victimisation' and the impact it has on victims' lives. According to this research, one in five people who were surveyed had been victims of some kind of revenge porn. Young people--aged 16 to 19—were the most vulnerable, with one in three reporting some form of image based abuse. Minority groups were also found to be much more vulnerable, with one in two Indigenous Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in three LGBTIQ Australians reporting having suffered victimisation of this kind. Even the researchers themselves were surprised at the number of people who had their private sexual images distributed or taken without their consent or used against them in other ways. There is a clear need for parliament to send a very clear message to the general community that this behaviour not only is wrong but should attract a criminal sanction.
The study also found that women are more likely than men to be victims of image based abuse by a former partner or intimate partner. Importantly, they are also more likely to fear for their safety as a result. Dr Anastasia Powell from RMIT, one of the lead researchers, noted:
Victims do report experiencing this as a form of sexual violation or sexual violence.
The researchers found that upon discovering that their private images were publicised victims felt that it had 'constituted a violation of their sexual autonomy and dignity'. This has obvious and difficult long-term repercussions, and overall those who had suffered image based abuse were almost twice as likely as nonvictims to report experiencing high levels of psychological distress. This report, the first of its kind in Australia, recommends criminalising revenge porn at the federal level to provide cover for existing piecemeal state laws It found overwhelming support for criminalising the distribution of private or invasive images without consent. Four in five of those surveyed agreed that it should be a crime.
The statistics in this report reflect what is occurring overseas. More than 200 people have been prosecuted in the UK since revenge porn laws were enacted in 2015. According to UK police forces there were around 1,200 reported incidents of revenge porn from April 2015 to December 2015. And these are just the numbers we know publicly. Actions of this kind are deeply personal and often go unreported or underreported. Without strong laws that send a very clear message, revenge porn will continue to be underreported or unreported. It is unacceptable that victims currently do not feel protected by the existing law.
We must as a parliament treat this issue seriously. By challenging the blame that is often directed at victims we can direct cultural change in the broader community. We can move away from a culture that tells women to police their own behaviour and move away from comments about a woman's conduct when she is a victim of a violation of this kind. It is never a victim's fault when they are the subject of a sexual attack or sexual abuse of this kind. A woman who has had her private sexual images distributed without her consent has done nothing wrong. The perpetrator here—the person responsible, the wrongdoer—is the person who is acting without consent.
Criminalising these acts would send a clear message that this behaviour will not be tolerated by this parliament or in this country. If we change the law, this can be a first step in changing community perceptions of this conduct. The law can shape social norms and affect community attitudes, but it is up to parliamentarians like us to send the message that this behaviour is not accepted in the community. Commonwealth legislation on this matter will send a clear signal to young men and women in Australia that this behaviour is not on.
So, I do call on the Turnbull government to act now to send this clear message that non-consensual sharing of private sexual material will not be tolerated. The experts agree that we need to criminalise this behaviour now, and I call on the parliament to act. In the interim, in the meantime, I support the passage of this bill and commend the work of the former Children's eSafety Commissioner, soon to be the eSafety Commissioner, in driving cultural change and the general powers of that body in the community. I do, however, note that the financial impact of this significant broadening of the responsibility of the eSafety Commissioner is listed by the government as zero, so I do wonder whether we are providing adequate ammunition to the eSafety Commissioner to perform these much broader functions. But I am sure that time will tell as we see the operation of the commissioner. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:14): I rise to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. As stated by the member for Gellibrand, Labor supports this bill, and I would like to particularly thank the member for Gellibrand, in working with the member for Griffith, I think, for the great work that they are doing in making people aware of the challenges in this area. This bill before the chamber amends the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 and amends the title of the statutory Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to reflect the broadening of that role to an e-safety commissioner for all Australians, not just Australian children.
This bill adds to the legislative regime supported by Labor in 2015 to address the serious problem of online safety affecting a very large proportion of our population. Sadly, it is a proportion which is growing. It is easy to forget that the World Wide Web was only invented in 1989—not even 30 years ago. Obviously, over this time, the internet's interconnectedness has exploded. By 2005, there were one billion users of the internet worldwide and, by 2016, there were 3.4 billion and rising. Already, 47 per cent of the worldwide population is interconnected or able to make connections and see material that is distributed. Facebook was first launched in 2005 for American university students to connect with each other. The next year, it was expanded to all people who had an email address. Since then, people across the world have taken to Facebook in droves. By 2012, Facebook was being used by one billion people a month. In 2017, there are more than 16 million Australians using Facebook.
Social media has become an important platform for communication. It has incredible benefits. It allows friends and families spread across the world to continue to share their lives in an immediate way. Who has not been connected to an old school friend or a family member who you do not see but still have an idea of what is going on in their life? It allows a connectedness that we would otherwise never be able to have. Sadly, these days, writing letters is a skill that is being lost. Now we have more people than ever to have face-to-face conversations with, especially online.
However, obviously, with this level of connectedness comes also a vulnerability. It leaves us exposed to the darker side of human nature—the side that most of us never encounter in person-to-person contact. Social media is the haven for cowards wielding keyboards as their weapon of choice. These gutless keyboard warriors do not care about the harm they inflict, often, sadly, I would suggest, because they are sad losers themselves.
As Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Committee, we did an inquiry, as I am sure you well know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, into freedom of speech. We heard much evidence about online abuse during that inquiry. In particular, I note the professors from the Cyber Racism and Community Resilience research group who gave evidence about the extent of online racism. From a survey they conducted, 35 per cent of the people they surveyed had witnessed racism online. Evidence shows that cyberbullying, including online racism, is becoming much more common on social media. While schoolyard or workplace bullying can be devastating for the target—back when I was at school as it is now—when that bullying occurs online, the reach of the audience is magnified, as is the harm caused to the victim. Obviously, the difference between when I was in primary school and now is that back then at least home was a sanctuary. Now there is no sanctuary. Kids and adults drag the horror home into their own bedrooms, sadly.
Online bullying is serious. It can cause the victim to suffer from mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, and, in some cases, tragically, it can result in suicide. Obviously, as you as a member of parliament would know, Deputy Speaker, the victims of online bullying are not all children. Adults also are often the targets. That is why it is important that the role of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner be broadened to include adults as well as children. Now the commission will be responsible for the online safety of all Australians.
I have young children who are eight and 12. I know how difficult it is for me to keep up with the changes to social media—the different platforms, the different terms, the different dangers, the different things that they are told and the games that they wish to play. So the role of the e-safety commission is crucial in assisting all Australians but particularly parents so they understand the possible dangers of using social media and how to avoid them. Maybe we should add grandparents to that because often they are caring for their grandchildren and are not aware of the technology challenges.
Of course, there was no such thing as Facebook when I was growing up. The dangers we faced as children were many, but they did not include online bullying. As a parent, it is difficult to keep abreast of changes in the technology that my children and their friends are using. Just keeping up with the terms used for the various platforms can be a challenge. For instance, I have only recently learned that the sinister-sounding term 'dark social' refers to the private features of a social networking service. Facebook Messenger, Twitter Direct Messages and apps such as WhatsApp and Snapchat are all dark social. These messaging services can be a valuable tool—I acknowledge that. They allow communication between two people or within a private group without sharing on a public platform. But the very nature of dark social does pose potential dangers. Because the platforms are hidden, it is not as easy for service providers to monitor or regulate the content that is being shared. It is also much harder for parents to monitor this type of content sharing. Inappropriate content can be sent direct to a child's phone through an app without much, if any, monitoring. There is also a danger that children or young adults may be more easily lured into communicating with someone they do not know very well, or with someone who they are misinformed about, when these types of direct messaging platforms are used. A text message or a phone call from a number they do not recognise might seem suspicious to a child and they may ignore it or tell a parent, but a direct message through an app can seem deceivingly benign.
Unfortunately, this is not mere scaremongering; this is a real and present danger that is a threat to Australian children, and children around the world, right now. As a case in point, it was reported recently that a 16-year-old Australian girl was lured to America by a career criminal. He had befriended the girl on Snapchat. It is important that parents are aware, are vigilant and make sure they know their children's activities on social media platforms are age-appropriate and appropriate to their sensibilities. We need to balance freedom, independence and respect with the vigilance that is required. A good place for parents to start educating themselves about online activity is the website of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner.
Of course, children are not the only ones who are vulnerable to the dangers of social media. Labor support this bill that will ensure the title of the commission reflects the need for all Australians to be aware of online safety. Revenge porn, sexting, cyberbullying and other issues that compromise the safe use of the internet are, sadly, on the rise. For young adults who are the victims of revenge porn, life is seriously impacted by this form of abuse. While Labor support this bill, we are disappointed that the government has not supported the criminalising of revenge porn. Labor introduced a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images in 2015. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquired into this issue. Evidence from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions at that inquiry revealed that he had concerns about the 'limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with "revenge porn" conduct'. Before the Senate inquiry report was released, the Minister for Women wrote to the opposition indicating that the government would not support the bill. When the Senate inquiry report was released, it recommended that the provisions of Labor's bill be enacted, but the government has still failed to support Labor's bill to make the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or videos a criminal offence.
The COAG advisory panel released a report in April 2016 which recommended that the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions criminalise revenge porn. The panel acknowledged that existing laws do not adequately capture the scope or nature of the offence. Still the Turnbull government failed to act. There was a brief glimmer of hope in October last year with the announcement of the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. On that occasion, the coalition government promised $10 million to respond to revenge porn and online abuse. Of that, $4.8 million is to go to developing a national online reporting tool to help counter the effects of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The remaining $5.2 million is to go to research and to developing educational resources to shift attitudes and behaviours about pornography.
Unfortunately, this seems to suggest that, rather than calling out the wrongdoing of the person sharing the images, the government is almost blaming the behaviour of the victim. It also reveals a lack of understanding of the nature of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The images that are shared are not pornography. They are usually created with the consent of the subject—we might question the wisdom of it; nevertheless it is with the consent of the subject—but the sharing of those images without consent, or threatening to share those images without consent, is an abuse of trust or worse. The victims should not bear any blame for the abuse of that trust. It is past time for the Turnbull government to protect women, and men I guess, from online abuse in the form of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. We need strong criminal laws to make it clear that sending nude pictures or videos of sex acts without the consent of the people involved is not acceptable and threatening to share such images is also not acceptable. The making of laws would send a message to the community about what is acceptable behaviour. I want my children to grow up in a community where everyone is aware that it is not acceptable to share such images without consent and that doing so will invoke the wrath of the law and the consequences that flow.
I repeat: Labor supports this legislation before the chamber. It is a good thing that the public will more easily be able to identify where they can seek assistance and advice in relation to online safety measures. However, the fact that the Turnbull government has introduced this bill to make amendments to the eSafety Commission just two years after its inception might indicate that the original bill was not thought out by the government at the time. I want to make it clear that this bill does not create any new offences or civil penalties; this bill does not provide any new regulatory powers; this bill does not impose any taxes; this bill does not set any amounts to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is an example of the Turnbull government having to correct a piece of legislation because of their 'regulate first, think later' approach to government. And, as far as the Turnbull government's record on tackling violence against women is concerned, this bill is simply window-dressing. The Turnbull government talks about the importance of tackling violence against women, but they have failed to take any fair dinkum or meaningful action. If they were serious about protecting women, they would support Labor's private member's bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or they would introduce their own bill to make that abusive behaviour a criminal offence, because, after all, caring is doing. Because the Liberal-National Party government do not do that, they really do not care.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:27): I wish to briefly speak and show my support for this legislation. The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill makes a simple but very significant change to support Australians who are victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. I wish to express my deep thanks to my Nick Xenophon Team colleague Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore whose questions during Senate estimates last year were the genesis for this bill. Sadly, the frequency of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, more commonly known as revenge porn, is increasing in Australia. According to a study recently published by RMIT University's Dr Nicola Henry, Dr Anastasia Power and Dr Asher Flynn, a whopping one in five Australians have experienced image based abuse. For Australians with disabilities, one in two report being a victim of image based abuse. One in two Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people have reported image based abuse victimisation. Although young people aged 16 to 29 years of age are more likely to be victims, it is not just young people who are victims but people of all ages. Although women and men are equally likely to report being a victim, women are more likely than men to fear for their safety due to image based abuse. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images causes real harm, not only to women but predominantly to women. It stigmatises victims, it destroys social relationships, it causes great anxiety and distress, and it leads to serious mental health issues and, despairingly and tragically, in some cases these acts have led to self-harm and suicide.
Although revenge pornography has been the focus of most of the attention, there are other more malicious ways in which non-consensual sharing of intimate images is used by perpetrators. Here I quote the RMIT study at length. For example:
... perpetrators use threats to share nude or sexual images in order to force the victim to engage in an unwanted sexual act, or prevent them from leaving the relationship or obtaining an intervention order, or to blackmail them for monetary payment, sexual favours or other related acts.
… … …
Threats to distribute nude or sexual images might also be made possible through the actions of thieves or computer hackers who gain access to a victim’s computer or personal device, and who are then able to download their files and use intimate images as a form of blackmail and extortion. A further example relates to the non-consensual creation of nude or sexual images, which include covert ‘upskirting’ or ‘downblousing’ in public spaces; secret recordings of the victim in private spaces engaged in a sexual act, bathing, toileting, dressing or undressing ...
The government's eSafety Women website has resources and support for women to manage the risks around technology and abuse. However, these resources are currently hosted within the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner's website and, quite understandably, adults seeking help around illegal or offensive online content and sharing of intimate images without consent would not ordinarily think to seek out the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner for assistance. That was the point made by my colleague Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore, who stated in Senate estimates in October last year that:
… it is not just children who are victims of revenge porn. Increasingly it will be young women in their 20s, 30s and 40s that may see the name Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner and say, 'I can't find help there,' because of the name.
That was a simple but very astute observation.
Sometimes I hear people say that if you do not want your intimate images shared then you should never take videos or photographs in the first place. I would certainly urge all Australians to be prudent. However, I also recognise that when you trust someone, usually a partner, you do not expect them to break that trust in the future. Also, as I have outlined, there are examples where there are images shared not only without the victim's consent but also without their knowledge. The perpetration of the abuse goes well beyond the cliched example of the jilted ex-lover. No-one should confuse the victims with the perpetrators, not even for a moment.
There is another statistic from the RMIT University study on image based abuse that I would like to draw to the government's attention. Four in five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission. It should be no surprise that the level of support for criminalisation is so high. I understand that the Labor Party has an amendment and calls on the government to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of images. I want to voice the Nick Xenophon Team's support for this amendment and strongly urge the government to consider criminalising these acts. The non-consensual sharing of images causes serious harm and is not socially acceptable by any mainstream social standard. There needs to be a strong deterrent against committing such atrocious acts. These acts are not trivial. They have changed lives and, sadly for some, they have ended lives.
I also want to highlight that this bill complements another bill in the House—the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017 or 'Carly's law'—that the Nick Xenophon Team and Sonya Ryan of the Carly Ryan Foundation have worked so hard to advance. This is about doing everything we can to keep us all safe online.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:33): I rise today to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. I acknowledge my colleague from the Nick Xenophon Team who spoke earlier and will refer also to the other bill that she spoke of.
I want to start by saying that it was only two years ago in 2015 that this government created the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner. Under this bill it is now seeking to expand the remit of the commissioner to include all Australians just two years after it was first established. Of course, this is a very welcome move. Labor has always supported better measures for online safety for everyone. But it also highlights the fact that, like much of what we have seen from the other side, particularly when it comes to online safety and cybersecurity, the legislation was ill conceived, not thought out and lacked understanding of the issues and the practical implementation of the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act.
We hear a lot about governments needing to be agile and not just responsive but also proactive when it comes to online safety. So it is rather disappointing that two years after establishing the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner we are now looking at that again and realising that e-safety is for everyone, not just children.
The Turnbull government created the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, thereby transferring responsibility for online safety away from the ACMA and now leading to this necessary change as the government has finally realised that online safety, as I said earlier, is for all Australians, not just children—although protecting our children is of course always at the front of our minds. This also highlights the government's unwillingness to do anything about criminalising revenge porn—because the amendments proposed only go so far as to amend the title of the act and the title of the statutory office. There is no expansion of the role or existing functions of the commissioner in relation to persons at risk of family violence; victims of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, otherwise known as revenge porn; or the safe use of the internet by older Australians. We know that many older Australians are getting duped by online romance scams, for example. We need to have something in place for them as well. But there is nothing in that regard either.
The amendments, though welcomed, do not go far enough in terms of creating any new offences or civil offences or providing any new regulatory powers. In government, Labor was committed to cybersafety. We delivered $125.8 million towards a Cyber Safety Plan to combat online risks to children and help parents and educators protect children. I have spoken previously in the Federation Chamber on the fact that, in 2010, I presented a paper at the International Cyber Resilience Conference following the release of the Labor government's 2009 Cyber Security Strategy. The paper that I presented at that conference was entitled 'Building resilient cyber communities'. In that paper, I spoke about the need to raise awareness and educate people about the importance of maintaining strong and robust cybersafety habits ranging from ensuring our passwords are safe to logging off when leaving the office and being aware of suspicious messages. That may seem small, but the impact of not having a resilient cyberculture can actually be quite devastating.
Again, Labor has taken the lead on this issue. We first introduced a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images in 2015. This then led to a Senate inquiry and the expression of concerns that there were limitations within existing legislation to adequately deal with revenge porn or image-based abuse. And yet this government refuses to support Labor's bill. As with everything else they have offered to the Australian people, this government likes to tinker at the fringes, put a bit of lipstick on it, wrap it up in a whole lot of nothing, in bright baubles and ribbon, and roll it out. But they have of course leave out the very heart of what is needed here. They do not give thought to the effectiveness or impact of any of their measures—whether it is cybersafety, housing affordability, needs-based education or banking reform. This is a government that has, time and time and time again, proven its incapacity to think things through. Often I have thought to myself that this is a government that is way out of its depth.
It can sometimes be difficult for those of my generation—I stand here proudly as a member of the generation officially known as 'old codgers'—to understand just how hardwired the lives of young Australians are. I remember when my son was 15 he came running down the steps of our house yelling, 'I've got 100 friends!' I looked around and said, 'Where are these friends? I do not see any friends here.' He was of course talking about Facebook friends. Our generation tends to separate the offline and online worlds. Our social reality is offline—the people we go out for dinner with, the people we have over to our house, the people we have barbies with and those kinds of things. We tend to separate that from the online world, the things we use the internet for—our uses and gratifications, to use a technical academic term. But my sons' generation do not make that separation. For them the online world is a social reality, whereas we define our social reality as tangible things, things around us, things we can touch, so it can be quite difficult for us to understand just how hardwired they are, but understand it we must.
It is not enough to tell young people about the dangers of posting personal information or explicit photos online. It is not enough to tell them of the dangers of putting up things that are far from photos of what they had for breakfast, their smashed avocado on toast: personal details about where they live, where they are staying or why they are home alone—or even explicit photos, as I mentioned. The leaking of explicit photos involving Perth schoolgirls underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the risks involved in posting private and intimate information online, particularly in an age where the so-called 'selfie culture' has infiltrated traditional boundaries of privacy and confidentiality. Perhaps it is time we have a discussion about what privacy and confidentiality mean. I know that in academic circles, at least, those discussions are happening, looking at the separation between privacy and confidentiality and what that means in a digital age, where those boundaries seem to be a lot less rigid and much more fluid.
That is what Labor did by introducing a bill to criminalise revenge porn. We hoped that those opposite would support it, but of course they refused to. Instead, those opposite decided to fund research and develop resources to shift attitudes and behaviours around pornography. This shows a complete lack of understanding of image based abuse, because image based abuse is about sharing of images without consent. 'Without consent' is the key there. It is not about young people willingly partaking in the sharing of intimate images but about the sharing of them without consent, with malicious intent. That malicious intent is a form of abuse and a form of violence.
It is difficult to have control over the internet space—I would even venture to say it is impossible to regulate the internet—but it is possible to raise awareness, to equip people with the tools to protect themselves and their children, and to legislate against harmful behaviour that involves the use of the internet. As a society we are still to come to grips with this. Technology has advanced so fast, particularly information and communications technologies, and it seems like we are unable to keep pace, because very little consideration is given to the interface between human behaviour and the internet. Since it is very difficult for us to fully regulate internet content, particularly as nation-state boundaries do not exist on the internet and different countries have different rules around what they allow—different rules around freedom of speech, for example—we need to shift our attention to understanding what those online behaviours are and how we can regulate them.
Part of that is through legislation, but we cannot discount the value of education. Children and young people these days are exposed to an online world with unregulated hate, abuse, racism, harassment and bullying. What are we doing to prepare them for this? It is a serious question that the old codger generation might need to ask ourselves. How are we equipping young people of the ages of 11 of 12, who are about to get onto Facebook or Instagram for the first time, for that internet world that is so unregulated, where people can sit behind a keyboard, say whatever and pretend to be whoever they want, and quite a sizeable proportion of them mean to harm our young people?
What can we do to equip our young people for that onslaught? The Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner has had 370 reports of image based abuse alone. These include images that are shared without consent and images that are shared through phone hacking. They have had a 60 per cent increase in reports of cyberbullying—60 per cent is pretty huge. They are dealing with 8,200 child exploitation cases and 37,000 images and videos. They are quite startling statistics. This is an absolute tsunami of reports and it is likely to increase with the expansion of the commissioner's remit implicit in this bill. In that regard we also need to give thought to how we can better resource this office in order to enable it to carry out the extent of work it has been charged with and in order to equip it to be both proactive as well as reactive, when necessary.
I now come back to where I started: the necessity of ensuring that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is not just about children, though children are always at the forefront of our minds because they are so vulnerable to all kinds of exploitation, whether that is sexual exploitation or exploitation for other purposes, including radicalisation. There is a need to ensure that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner is well equipped to undertake the expanded role that is included in this bill. It is not enough just change the name of the bill or to change the name of the e-safety commissioner, expanding its remit from children's e-safety commissioner to e-safety commissioner all round. We also need to recognise that e-safety is the responsibility of every single person, because it affects every single person, regardless of whether you are a child or an elderly person who may be vulnerable to romance scams online.
In closing, I reiterate my support and Labor's support for this change but also ask those opposite to consider what else we are doing. How much further do we need to go in order to be those things that we talk about: in order to be agile; in order to be proactive; and in order to ensure that our children grow up safe from predators online, safe from the sharing of images without consent, and understand that the online world is a world where privacy and confidentiality are just as important as they are offline.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:47): I would like to thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill 2017. I am pleased to see that this bill has received support from members on both sides of the chamber.
The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill contains important amendments to implement the government's announcement of 23 November 2016 to broaden the children's e-safety commissioner's general functions to cover online safety for all Australians, not just for Australian children. The bill will also change the name of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to reflect the expanded general functions. Expanding the commissioner's role and changing the name of the children's e-safety commissioner to e-safety commissioner will make it easier for the public to identify where they can seek assistance and advice in relation to a range of online safety issues, irrespective of their age.
I want to make it clear that the statutory scheme for complaints about cyberbullying material on social media sites will continue to relate only to material that is harmful to an Australian child and the commission's responsibilities for administering the online content scheme under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 will remain unchanged by the bill.
The amendments do not create any offences or civil penalties, provide any new regulatory powers, impose any taxes, or set any amounts to be appropriated from consolidated revenue, because appropriate arrangements for these matters are already in place, or, in the case of civil penalties for the sharing of intimate images without consent, will be sought under future legislation.
The statutory Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner is established by the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015 and has been in place since 1 July 2015. To date, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has been a considerable success. The government is now looking to build upon this success with a view to improving the online experiences of all Australians. The office's role has already expanded since its establishment, with the government recognising that there are other groups within the community that can benefit from the expertise of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.
The commissioner's staff have a wealth of expertise in all areas of online safety. For example, in December 2015 the functions of the commissioner were expanded to include online safety for women at risk of domestic violence. The commissioner also manages the existing eSafety Women website, established with a $2.1 million funding commitment from the government's Women's Safety package announced in September 2015; eSafety Women offers a range of resources to help women manage technology risks and abuse by giving them the tools and information they need to encourage confidence and safety online.
The bill before the House today provides for an important evolution of the eSafety Commissioner's role. It is unfortunate that the contribution of the member for Greenway revealed a lack of understanding of how the criminal law operates today. In particular, section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code makes it an offence to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence'. There have been a number of prosecutions under these existing Commonwealth criminal laws. For example, a successful prosecution in 2015 resulted in a seven-year prison sentence for a man who encouraged teenage girls on social media to send intimate photos of themselves and then threatened to disclose the photos to the victims' family and school.
These laws were also used in the successful prosecution of a member of the Defence linked so-called Jedi Council, which resulted in a 15-month prison sentence. More recently, in February 2017, a Brisbane man was sentenced to 4½ years in jail for a range of offences, including superimposing a picture of his ex-girlfriend's head on images of naked women and posting information online, including her phone number and address, and inviting men to rape and torture her. Additionally, when a representative of the Australian Federal Police appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into the phenomenon colloquially known as revenge porn, he noted that section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code says it is 'a broadly drafted offence which encompasses a range of misconduct sufficient to plead the transmission of explicit material without being prescriptive as to the detail of the content'.
The point therefore is that there are already criminal laws in place, and law enforcement agencies are using these laws to prosecute cases of image based abuse. The further point is that, notwithstanding these existing criminal provisions at the Commonwealth level, in most cases victims go to state based police for help. That is why, in parallel, the Turnbull government has worked with states and territories through COAG to develop a national statement of principles for the criminalisation of a non-consensual sharing of intimate images. On 19 May 2017 the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council agreed a national statement of principles relating to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These principles will provide a framework for states and territories to consider when reviewing or developing laws, with a view to achieving a consistent approach to the criminalisation of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, whether in specific offences or offences of general application.
The government is also conducting a public consultation process on a proposed civil penalty regime targeted at both perpetrators and sites that host intimate images and videos shared without consent. A discussion paper was released on 20 May this year, with feedback being sought from the eSafety Commissioner, federal and state police, women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, the Online Safety Consultative Working Group and others. I look forward to seeing the work progressed.
The amendment moved by the member for Greenway asks the House to note 'that Australian laws have failed to keep up with the new ways technology is being used to cause harm, particularly to women and in the context of family violence.' This is a statement that is wholly at odds with the extensive legislative and policy track record of the Turnbull government in dealing with these critical issues. The establishment of the Children's eSafety Commissioner has been an overwhelmingly positive development, and, of course, the government will continue to make enhancements to assist the eSafety Commissioner in its work.
I would like to remind the House of some of the things that have been done by the eSafety Commissioner since the office was established. Since that occurred, the commissioner has: received 370 complaints, since October 2016, regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images; finalised over 379 complaints about serious cyberbullying that targeted Australian children; worked with 11 major social media service providers to counter cyberbullying; certified 23 online safety program providers with over 115 presenters delivering programs in Australian schools; conducted over 19,000 investigations into illegal or offensive online content; educated over 194,000 people via virtual classrooms and face-to-face presentations; had over 3.3 million website page views; made the iParent portal available to parents, providing advice on a range of online safety and digital content issues; launched the eSafety Women site, with resources and advice for women; and provided training for more than 1,900 frontline professionals across every state and territory to help women experiencing technology-facilitated abuse.
In the 2013 federal election, the coalition promised to establish the Children's eSafety Commissioner, and we delivered. At the 2016 election we promised $4.8 million over three years for the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to develop a national online complaints portal to help counter the effects of the non-consensual sharing of internet images. We also promised $16.9 million over four years for the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner to develop an online seniors portal and outreach programs to support, coach and teach older Australians to improve their skills and confidence in using digital technology.
With the progression of this bill and the changes to the functions performed by the commissioner, we will again deliver for Australians on online safety. The claim that the government is failing to keep up is simply not right. In fact, the government is continually monitoring the changes in the communications and online landscape and, as the amendments before the House this afternoon demonstrate, continuing to update legislation and broaden the powers of the eSafety Commissioner as necessary.
The Children's eSafety Commissioner has been a considerable success in enhancing online safety for Australian children and for other Australians. I believe that this bill and the amendments contained within it, if passed into law, will allow the commissioner to have a broader and even more positive impact, extending across a wider range of vulnerable Australians, including older Australians, victims of domestic and family violence and people who have had their intimate images shared without their consent. I call on all members to support this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) (17:58): The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Greenway has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:59): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (18:00): In the time I have left to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill, in continuation, I would like to reiterate some of the points I made when I first spoke. The first point is that Labor are committed to ensuring that children are safe online and elsewhere, but we also recognise the hard work of the Xenophon Team in bringing this bill to the House and progressing it. We also recognise the work of Sonya Ryan and the Carly Ryan Foundation for their tireless campaign over a decade to bring in this legislation.
This Criminal Code amendment—or Carly's law, as it is termed—will introduce an offence to criminalise acts done using a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm, procure, or engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. This expressly includes a person misrepresenting their age online as part of a plan to cause harm to another person under 16 years of age. We believe that the police should be allowed to intervene earlier in suspected grooming cases by broadening the range of preparatory conduct that is covered by offences in the Criminal Code. Law enforcement agencies can only be most effective if they are given the power to apply for a warrant to intercept communications to support their investigations—and I think we are in agreement on that. We are also becoming tougher on adults who use carriage services by introducing this as a new offence. The maximum penalty will now be increased to 10 years, and these harsher penalties are, sadly, required to reduce the 11,000 alarming child exploitation referrals received by the Australian Federal Police in 2015.
I came across some very disturbing and frightening statistics, and those statistics are that there are around 750,000 child sex predators online at any one time. That is absolutely frightening to any parent, and indeed any decent Australian citizen. One study found that 24 per cent of minors who agreed to meet with someone who they thought was a child actually turned out to be an adult. These are scary statistics. As I mentioned previously in the debate, it is difficult for those of our generation—I say 'our generation' fondly—to really understand the online world and just how hard-wired young people are. In fact, it was a Microsoft executive who referred to young people as AORTAs—always online and real-time available. That encapsulates just how hard-wired young people are and how important the online world is for them. But it also underscores the need for us to grow and develop our understanding of the online world and of human interaction with the online world, and particularly of young people's interaction with the online world in order to keep our laws up to date and in order to ensure that we are not just reactionary but proactive in ensuring that we protect minors online. That it is actually what Carly's law does.
As I mentioned before, it is difficult if not impossible to regulate the internet. For that reason I argued that we need to turn our attention to regulating behaviour, because that is what we can control—we cannot control what goes on the internet. We can play an endless came of a whack-a-mole, where we can call on internet and social media companies to remove offending material online as soon as it occurs, we can put in filters and do all sorts of things, but we simply cannot, with the depth and breadth of the internet and whatever goes on it, including on the dark web, regulate that. We need to turn our attention to regulating human behaviour at that online interface as much as we can, not just for predators who are there for the purposes of child sex abuse but predators who are there for a range of abusive behaviours, including preying on young vulnerable people to radicalise them into violent extremism.
I come back to the point of education and what we are doing to educate our young people about how to protect themselves online. It is all very well to talk to parents and have resources for parents, but there is a lot of work to be done in preparing young children for the online world that they will inevitably come face-to-face with. I watch the young child of one of my dear friends. Little Anastacia is almost two, but she can get onto an iPad, she can find Peppa Pig and she can watch Peppa Pig on that iPad. I watch young children and their hand-eye coordination skills. The way they can flick through an iPad and the way they can manipulate media technologies is quite startling to me, as somebody of our generation, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholtz.
We can legislate as much as possible, and legislate we must. It is absolutely necessary that we have laws in place that adequately punish and serve as a deterrent to the people who would seek to do our children harm and who would seek to sexually exploit our children online. That is absolutely necessary. But it is only one part of the puzzle. The other part of the parcel is the responsibility that we all have as parents, members of the community, and educators—that we pass on to our children behaviours that also keep them safe online. We need to ensure that our children are protected, not just from those who would seek to do them harm but also so that they have, inbuilt within them, resilience and protective behaviours when online as much as they have protective behaviours when offline. I remember a time when there used to be something called 'stranger danger'. Remember when we used to say to our kids, 'Stranger danger' and there were ads on television about stranger danger? We used to tell young people, 'Don't take lollies from strangers,' and 'Don't talk to strangers,' and 'If a stranger does this, run to the nearest safe adult you can find.' Perhaps we need to start thinking about stranger danger online and really educate our young people, particularly in the vulnerable teenage years, about stranger danger online. It is just way too easy for people with malicious intent to hide behind a screen and lie online about their intentions. I welcome Carly's Law as one way of addressing that.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (18:08): On a recent weekend, my wife and I had the opportunity to catch up with a group of friends for dinner. All of our group share the common bond of having come to know one another over the last decade or more during the years in which our children attended kindergarten, preschool, primary school and secondary school together. As parents, we have known all of these children as toddlers, small children and teenagers, and I suspect that for all of us it has been our most important and sacred role—to guide and protect those we have been blessed with in their studies, their careers and adulthood. Our network of friends facilitated much of that. We looked out for one another, we did our best to monitor friendship groups and we insisted we meet our kids' friends and their parents, arranged parties and prepared them as best we could for the pressures and challenges of the teenage years. I am proud to say that they are a fine group of young people doing their own thing, and I am sure we are all most proud of this group of young people.
There are some in society who would seek to circumvent such family and community groups' protection of children by attacking and taking advantage of them via online means. Such behaviour is disgraceful, reprehensible, foul and un-Australian. It has absolutely no place in our society whatsoever. That is why the bill we are debating this evening, as part of the Turnbull government's efforts to protect vulnerable children online, is so very important. Its genesis as the tragic death of Carly Ryan, a 15-year-old girl who was lured to her demise by a man in his 50s posing online as another teenager, is sobering indeed.
Over the last decade, we have seen child sex offences rightfully strengthened and expanded, including those directed at the use of carriage services such as the internet and mobile phones for the sexual exploitation of children. This bill goes further, amending the Criminal Code in order to introduce a new offence relating to online acts to prepare or plan to cause harm to a child, to engage in sexual activity with a child, or to procure a child for that reason. As such, it focuses solely on the intention of such a perpetrator without having to identify a specific child victim or prove communication with a specific child victim, and regardless of whether a perpetrator is targeting an actual child—as could be the case with a police officer, for example, assuming the identity of a fictitious child in order to expose such perpetrators. Such harms can be considered to be psychological or physical, such as unconsciousness, pain and disfigurement. Procurement can be considered to be encouraging, enticing, recruiting and inducing a child to engage in a sexual activity. The bill is intended to achieve all of this in a way that recognises trivial issues and allows for judgements to be made about what conduct might be acceptable or incidental to social interaction or to life in our community. Consequential amendments are also to be made to ensure existing law enforcement powers are available to combat all Commonwealth child-related offences.
As the government steps up efforts to provide greater protection for Australian children online, it is timely for our whole community to recognise our responsibility to be at the front line of protecting our vulnerable children from abhorrent activities anywhere, any time, in person, in public and of course online, as this bill addresses. As parents, as legislators, as education services, as community groups and as members, we all have a role to play in maintaining a watchful eye over children and minors in our society.
There are few news items that can stop our society in its tracks as do revelations of vile acts against our children. What future do we as a society have if we are not doing our utmost to protect vulnerable children? We are often sickened by news of those who are attacked, and, in more tragic cases, of those who we lose forever at the hands of perpetrators who must simply be dealt with. We must strive to prevent such actions before they can cause heartache. We also hear so much about the lifelong impacts on victims who can carry their physical and psychological scars for life. I urge parents to get involved in their children's use of technology in a bid to prevent cyberbullying before it occurs, as well as to protect them from online predators, as is the objective of this bill. Our children's safety online is vital, and I am so pleased that the government shares the concern of my own community back in the electorate of Groom that the internet, through social media, is being used by predators to target our most vulnerable.
What we are doing in this bill is taking steps to strengthen existing laws while introducing a new offence criminalising acts online in preparation for doing, or planning to do, harm to a minor. The amendments broaden the scope to capture offences which could result in physical harm or harm to someone's mental health. A preparatory act may, for example, include a person using social media to lie about their age or an event in an attempt to lure a child into a meeting.
While we debate this bill about protecting minors online, I also want to make mention of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner's range of classroom resources, as has been discussed in this House; their outreach programs; and a service dedicated to investigating serious cyberbullying cases, including a youth program called Rewrite Your Story. I certainly encourage all parents to check the resources of the eSafety Commissioner and start the conversation to ensure our children are cybersmart and cybersafe.
I call on all parents to play a role in protecting children online by having ongoing conversations with their children about their various online activities. For small children, we can put in place online safeguards and parental control settings—filters and products that block certain content. We should also talk to older children about the risks of sharing information, and particularly photos, with people that they do not know. For teenagers, their online life is an important part of their social identity. We know you cannot just switch off the computer and expect that the online comments and risks will go away. We must talk to our children about cyberbullying and these online predators.
Australians can be assured that the government recognises children are amongst the most vulnerable in our society, and they need and deserve our care and protection. There are few crimes, as I have said, that are more vile than child sex offences, and this Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill is one that I therefore commend very, very strongly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for Groom for his contribution. I call the most honourable and enthusiastic member for Canberra.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:17): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz—charmer! The sentiment and purpose behind the amendments outlined in this Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill are significant. They respond directly to our innate need to protect our vulnerable young people from existing and emerging risks to their safety. While this bill responds will to our primal protective nature, we also need to ensure that this emotive response is balanced with the rule of law, so I am looking forward to hearing the outcome of the inquiry the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has conducted into the bill and the amendments, and I understand it is due to report today.
This is not the first time that a bill like this one has been introduced in parliament; this is actually the fifth time. In previous iterations the bill was too broad, it did not demonstrate the necessary element of intent or it did not improve on existing provisions contained in the Criminal Code. I really admire the tenacity it has taken to progress this bill to where it is today.
I admire it because a young girl named Carly Ryan is the reason this bill and the previous iterations were introduced. Ten years ago, 47-year-old Gary Francis Newman posed online as an 18-year-old named Brandon, who paid attention to 15-year-old Carly Ryan. He convinced Carly to meet with him. After she rejected his advances, Newman became irate. Carly suffered a horrible death. She was assaulted and drowned at Port Elliot in Adelaide. When the police found Newman, he was allegedly logged in as Brandon, once again chatting to another girl online. Newman was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a 29-year non-parole period. It is Carly's tragic story that highlights the risk to our young people of exploring the world on the internet. It has resulted in this bill. It highlights the need for measures to prevent other young people from possibly meeting the same tragic fate.
Up until now our focus has been on promoting education and awareness of internet safety and responsibility, as was suggested by the previous member. This bill is the first time in many years that a government has pursued a legislative enforcement option to address online predators. Our Criminal Code needs to continually adapt to the technological environment and community expectations as they evolve over time, and the evolving online environment is no exception. What this bill proposes is that any person who prepares to harm a child using the internet should be just as accountable for their actions as a person who succeeds in committing a crime. This bill provides a pre-emptive measure. It will ensure police have the ability to investigate behaviour that could lead to the harm and sexual exploitation of children.
Schedule 1 of this bill amends the Criminal Code by including a new offence for adults who use a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm, engage in sexual activity with, or procure for sexual activity someone under the age of 16. It attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, which is less than other preparatory child sex offences—procurement has 15 years and grooming has 12 years. Unlike previous versions of this bill, the new offence targets preparatory behaviour where the offender has not proceeded far enough for the conduct to be captured under the existing offences. In fact, the offender may not have actually communicated with the victim. That is the key point of difference with this bill—it considers behaviour that could lead to harm or sexual exploitation of children. It does not necessarily apply after the event has happened. In doing so, it sends a very clear message to the community that the use of technology to harm children will not be tolerated.
Just the other week I met with a group who brought an issue to my attention that absolutely sickens me to my core: 'cybersex trafficking'. It is a form of cyberabuse that involves offenders commissioning the abuse of children in developing countries on a pay-per-view basis. For example, somebody jumps on a social media platform like Skype and pays a trafficker via a wire transfer to view—via webcam footage transmitted over the internet—a child engaging in sexually explicit acts or posing for sexually explicit photos or videos. The cost of the show to the viewer increases with the level of abuse required by the viewer. Most of the victims in this type of cyberabuse are under the age of 12. We are talking about something absolutely horrific here. It is absolutely appalling to hear of the horror faced everyday by these children in developing countries.
But this is not just happening in a faraway land—something that we can put to the back of our minds and forget about. Australians are making the wire transfers for this absolute abomination on these children. This is happening, probably tonight, in our Australian communities. Earlier this year, Sydney paedophile Bryan Beattie was charged with ordering sex offences over the internet for as little as $12 per session. During the court hearings, Beattie reportedly rationalised his behaviour—how you can rationalise that I do not know—by saying he thought the children looked 'happy', and that he was not the person physically abusing the children. He also said he thought these children were receiving financial benefits due to his viewings. It is reported that NSW Police sex crime detectives also found over 300 images and videos of child abuse on Beattie's laptop and external hard drive. It is not a giant leap to see how someone involved in cybersex trafficking could also build a fake social media profile with the purpose of grooming and meeting with children, just like Carly Ryan's killer did.
Carly Ryan's story and the story of cybersex trafficking has only reinforced in my mind the need to strengthen laws around online predatory behaviour. Our laws must keep up with the evolving technological world. I recognise there are different points of view in how this is to be achieved.
The Law Council of Australia have raised concerns about this bill, and it is their view, along with that of the Australian Federal Police, that the existing laws are sufficient. The Law Council notes:
… the proposed offence is much broader in scope than the ones proposed in previous Bills. The focus of the previous Bills was upon misrepresentation of age, whereas the Bill would criminalise a broader range of conduct …
In 2015, the Australian Federal Police gave evidence that they did not consider the new law to be necessary because they believed existing laws, which had been updated to keep up with the online world, already provided police with the powers they needed to intervene before a sexual offence took place. To respond to the Law Council's point, the previous bills were introduced at different points in time and responded to the one event—the tragic event involving a 15-year-old girl named Carly Ryan. Unfortunately, the online world is a lot blacker, a lot darker, a lot more appalling than we thought. The growth of cybersex trafficking in Australia is just one example, and this bill attempts to address that. Technology changes, and with it we see changes in use. Whether the AFP hold the same view now, two years on, would be interesting to know, because in February 2015 the AFP reported receiving 5,617 referrals of online sexual exploitation in the 12 months prior, an increase of 54 per cent from the period before. I wonder what those figures were like over the last two reporting periods.
I know that International Justice Mission Australia has some drafting ideas on how to strengthen existing provisions in the Criminal Code in relation to cybersex-trafficking offences, so there may be other ways that the intent of this bill could be captured and drafted. That is why I am looking forward to seeing the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report on this bill.
Labor is committed to ensuring that all Australians feel safe online, and it recognises that parents should be able to feel safe that their children will not meet the same tragic fate as Carly Ryan. This bill will ensure that online predators can be prevented from harming children, whether the child is in Australia or overseas. It puts an additional enforcement safeguard in place so that Australian parents can have peace of mind, knowing that their children are being kept safe.
Before I conclude my speech, like the previous speaker, the member for Groom, I want to touch on the earlier bill, the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill. I spoke about this when we were discussing the actual legislation, but we are two years down the road since Labor first introduced a bill to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, known as revenge porn, and unfortunately the government is no further ahead. Labor first introduced its bill on 12 October 2015, shortly after the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee established an inquiry into the issue. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concern that there were limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with revenge porn conduct. The DPP submission to the inquiry acknowledged existing Commonwealth laws covered only part of revenge porn conduct.
So, what happened next? Unfortunately, the government refused to support Labor's bill, and the Minister for Women wrote to the opposition in January 2016, indicating that the government would instead wait for advice from COAG. This was a month before the Senate inquiry report was published. It was published in February 2016 and it called for Commonwealth legislation to create offences in relation to revenge porn. The COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children, chaired by Ken Lay—also comprising 2015 Australian of the Year Rosie Batty; and the head of Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety, Heather Nancarrow—released its report in April 2016, recommending:
All Commonwealth, state and territory governments should introduce legislation that reinforces perpetrator accountability by removing uncertainty and explicitly making it illegal to use technology to distribute intimate material without consent.
The Minister for Women advised Labor that one reason she did not support Labor's bill was that the COAG advisory panel had yet to advise on the issue. But, once the panel actually gave its report, recommending that revenge porn be criminalised, the government failed to act.
Labor reintroduced the bill in October 2016, and, in parallel, some states and territories—and many of us in this chamber would have heard about that—have begun to criminalise this conduct at the state or territory level. But even now there is still no overarching Commonwealth law that can provide a consistent baseline of protection across the nation, the whole country, so that we do not have inconsistencies from state to state.
The Turnbull government will make the excuse that in November 2016 COAG agreed to develop principles for harmonising revenge porn laws, but they have made no commitment to introduce or support Commonwealth legislation that applies right across the nation that, in a way, standardises legislation to criminalise this egregious behaviour. Labor on the other hand went to the federal election promising Commonwealth legislation to criminalise revenge porn within the first 100 days of being elected.
I just want to go back to the enhancing online safety for children legislation. We welcome the expansion of the Children's eSafety Commissioner's role to adults as well as children. It is sensible that the commissioner's website contain resources on revenge porn, as was mentioned by the previous member, and that the new complaints mechanism be handled by the commissioner's office. Unfortunately, rebadging the office and creating a complaints mechanism is not enough, however, nor is trying to change attitudes about pornography.
The images and videos used against victims of revenge porn are not pornography; they are largely images and videos created with the subject's consent. By sharing them without consent, or threatening to do so, the perpetrator is abusing the trust that had been given to them by the victim. The victim should never be blamed for that abuse of trust. Labor will continue to fight for the criminalisation of revenge porn, including the creation of appropriate Commonwealth offences.
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (18:31): As part of a generation that grew up with the introduction and transition of the internet from dial-up to broadband and now the NBN, I have seen the internet become a major part of our lives—how we live, how we work and how we play. But like so many other innovations it has the potential to be used for both positive and dubious means. Something which my wife and I face, and will continually face as our young daughter grows up, is how to ensure that our daughter can grow and develop independence in an environment that is safe and secure, where she can learn from mistakes and explore new ideas without putting herself in danger.
Children are among the most vulnerable members of our community, and they have a right to expect from us the care and protection they need. I implore all in this chamber to support the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017 to prevent a repeat of what happened, for example, to 15-year-old Carly Ryan 10 years ago. We have seen the very public and widespread impact and devastation that these monsters and perverts leave on children in our communities. Our children deserve better from us, and we must deliver it.
This bill builds upon the critical work that has come before, and I thank Senator Xenophon for his work in this important area. It introduces an offence to criminalise acts to prepare or plan to cause harm to, procure, or engage in sexual activity with, a person under the age of 16. The legislation is focused on the use of a carriage service, including social media. This is especially important, as technology often develops at a faster rate than the law.
Our duty as a government is to protect our people, especially the most vulnerable, including our children. To prey on children is possibly one of the most horrific prospects, and this bill seeks to prevent that. We will secure through this legislation the necessary amendments to ensure that existing law enforcement powers are available to combat all Commonwealth child sex-related offences. This includes a requirement to prove an intention to plan the offence, not the intention only to commit the ultimate offence, nor require the targeting of a specific child victim. We are stopping perpetrators before the harm even reaches the child. Currently the Criminal Code does not cover this sort of behaviour.
As a dad it is so important to me that we have legislation like this. It is a parent's worst nightmare to find that at home, where we should be safe, we do not have the safety that we have worked so hard to build up and that it might be reached, for example, by a monster whose intentions toward your child are sinister and potentially murderous. I know it would be a great comfort to many families to know that this bill would pass through this House without a dissenting vote.
Most schools—indeed, I believe all schools in my electorate—have very strong policies about cybersafety for their students. Perhaps two of the most encouraging responses I have seen to approaching cybersafety in Dunkley are by Frankston High School and Mount Erin College, which have hosted cybersafety nights and issued special edition newsletters focusing on cybersafety, although I am sure there are many other schools in the electorate whose initiatives I have not yet seen.
Productive relationships between parents and schools go a long way towards keeping our children safe, and it is our responsibility as the government to ensure that we complement their efforts and deter and respond to threats towards children, especially online. The government is committed to ensuring that the advancement of technology does not leave people unduly unprotected, and this legislation makes it clear that these threats to our children are unacceptable and will be countered in every way possible. I recommend this bill to the House with the utmost enthusiasm and hope to see it passed unanimously for the sake of our children.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (18:35): I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017. I am thankful also for the opportunity to confront an issue about which as a parent I have in retrospect possibly been a little too laissez-faire. I have three sons, good sons but spirited and with a thirst for all that life has to offer, one that my wife and I as parents encourage. That quizzical, inquiring and adventurous mind is a great thing. Life is to be lived, and the inquisitive nature of children is something to treasure. Another distinctive characteristic of children is their innocence and level of trust—things also to be protected.
I spoke recently in the Federation Chamber about the risks to children that arise as a result of easy access to online pornography. I have been visited by a constituent in my electorate, Liz Walker from Porn Harms Kids. Liz came to my electorate office and emphasised the dangers that access to online pornography poses to Australian children. She outlined the research and opened my eyes a little bit. Needless to say, I went home and spoke to my eldest son and he was 10 steps ahead of me. He was way ahead of me. He had already been shown a lot of what Liz was talking about at school, believe it or not, by other students through wi-fi access. I then spoke in the chamber and I mentioned the correlation between the consumption of violent, sexually explicit material, of which there is plenty, and the normalising of sexual aggression. I asked, 'How do we keep our children safe given the ease of access to the internet everywhere—at home, school and public wi-fi hotspots?' At any moment it seems our children can be just one click away from harm.
The answer is that we here and at home do whatever we can. We listen to those at the coalface, and we respond, just like we are today, with tangible measures to minimise the potential for harm. We work with our children. As suggested by the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, we need to teach our children that not everyone they meet online can be trusted, even if they seem nice and friendly. It is unfortunate but necessary because, to be perfectly frank, there are creeps that devote their entire lives to getting around all those things that we do to keep our kids safe. They are experts in depravity.
The minister in his second reading speech recognised the work of Sonya Ryan in the drafting of this legislation. The bill is a testament to Sonya, who has worked tirelessly for change since her 15-year-old daughter Carly was murdered a decade ago by an online predator posing as a teenage boy. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I say: I am so sorry, Sonya. It is impossible to bring back to life those like your beautiful daughter Carly who have lost their lives at the hands of the most cowardly predators. I wish I could change that. We cannot. But we can change in response.
The bill we are discussing today adds a new level of child protection to that which currently exists. It guards children against internet predators by allowing intervention by law enforcement agencies sooner, well prior to harm being done. With a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, the amendment ensures that the serious offence of engaging in conduct to prepare or to plan to cause harm to, procure or engage in sexual activity with a child is matched by appropriate punishment—if there is such a thing. The bill introduces an offence that focuses on predators' use of online forums and platforms like social media and messaging applications for exploitive purposes. It addresses emerging technology and trends. It brings up to date the framework that offers protection, with the new offence targeting a broader range of preparatory behaviour than that which is captured by existing offences. It addresses the advantage that the anonymity of the internet offers to child predators, which they use to forge relationships with children. This is something that we recognise is a first step these deviants use to little child victims for sexual abuse and other forms of harm. The bill further complements the government's ongoing work to counter the online sexual exploitation of children, including through the Australian Federal Police's ThinkUKnow program which educates students, parents and teachers about dangers online.
I am proud to support efforts to protect children using the internet and to be here to speak on this bill. Technology is a changeable landscape. We must all keep pace, especially when it comes to protecting Australian children. I think all those who work in this space—police, health workers, community organisations, foster carers and public servants. It is tough stuff. But I would say to mums and dads, to grandparents and carers: have a conversation with your children and monitor their online usage.
Lastly, I want to say sorry and thank you to those children who have supported online incidents. We know that it is not easy, but in doing so you help to protect the youngest Australians—from toddlers to teens. You are our eyes and ears until we figure out a way to offer you watertight protection. Watch this space. We are working on it. This bill is the next step.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (18:43): by leave—I want to take this opportunity today to make a few additional comments about the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017. This bill comes with a long history. In the year of the 10th anniversary of the murder of Carly Ryan, I am pleased that this bill is finally in a form that can be passed by this parliament. Labor is particularly pleased that the offence provision in this bill will enable police to investigate and intervene earlier during an investigation before any abuse of children occurs and will capture a broader range of preparatory conduct than existing procurement and grooming offences in the Criminal Code.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has reported on the bill this afternoon after a number of hearings at which the committee heard from multiple submitters about the operation of this bill, including the Law Council of Australia, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Federal police and, of course, Sonya Ryan, of the Carly Ryan Foundation, who has been such a strong and powerful advocate for this reform of the law. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has recommended that the bill be passed without amendment.
Labor has always been clear that we support the intent of this bill. We will always ensure that our laws work to keep children safe and that our police and prosecutors have the powers and the resources they need in order to prevent harm occurring in the first place and to hold perpetrators accountable. No-one in this place disputes the importance of protecting children. That is why I was shocked that the Minister for Justice would, in comments to The Adelaide Advertiser, accuse Labor of failing to support this legislation and of 'turning a blind eye to the vile grooming of online predators'. These comments are deeply offensive and they are blatantly untrue. The Minister for Justice should have known the falsity of his comments at the time he made them.
Labor did not delay this bill. The government, well into its second term and 3½ years after it was first elected, introduced the bill to the House on 30 March this year. Since then, the government could have brought the bill back on for debate in this House during any parliamentary sitting week but clearly decided it was not particularly urgent. Labor has no control over how the government schedules its parliamentary business, and the Minister for Justice knows that. The bill was not brought back on again for debate for 60 days, not until 30 May. Debate continued in the Federation Chamber on 31 May until the government again chose to suspend debate. And then we see these despicable comments from the Minister for Justice in news reports, three days later, falsely claiming that Labor had delayed the bill.
The government has had multiple opportunities to pass the bill through the House but has delayed the bill of its own accord. To accuse Labor of delaying or failing to support it or 'turning a blind eye to online predators' not only is deeply offensive but also ignores how parliamentary processes work. Committees examine new laws, particularly new criminal laws, to ensure that they are robust and effective and that they will not have unintended consequences. The scrutiny of new legislation by Australia's elected representatives as well as by legal experts, community groups and interested members of the public often leads to improvements to legislation that ensure that those laws are strong and effective.
When I referred in my earlier remarks to concerns raised by the Law Council of Australia I did so only because Labor's wish is that this bill be as strong and as effective as it can possibly be. The bill has gone through the proper parliamentary processes, just as all bills do. It was sent to a Senate committee for proper scrutiny, just as many bills are and just as the previous versions of this bill, introduced in 2010, have been. The Senate committee has reported and has recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. It is up to the government when it wants to bring the bill on in the other place. I hope it will be brought on without further delay. I believe that the bill is scheduled to be debated in the other place later this week, and Labor will be supporting it when it is. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (18:48): There can never be too much that we can do to protect our children, and the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017 will add another layer to laws aimed at protecting children under the age of 16 from online predators. Carly's Law, a law that has evolved out of tragedy, will target online predators planning to cause harm to or to procure or engage in sexual activity in a child. It will also target those who misrepresent their age, with offenders facing 10 years imprisonment. The proposed legislation is the legacy of a decade-long campaign by a mother whose 15-year-old daughter, Carly Ryan, was murdered by a man posing as a teenager online.
In South Australia, where this tragic event took place, and right across the rest of Australia, every parent felt the pain of Carly's mother, Sonya, when her daughter was murdered by a sick deviant. It was 10 years ago, in 2007, that the gorgeous 15-year-old fell in love with a young musician called Brandon. They corresponded online, sharing intimate thoughts and dreams. But Brandon was not who he said he was. He was not an 18-year-old musician; he was a 47-year-old sexual predator who cruelly deceived Carly and tricked her into meeting him. He raped and brutally murdered her. He discarded her battered body on the beach. He took a beautiful young life, destroyed a family, and forever broke her mother's heart. Within 11 days, police found Garry Newman in Victoria. They found him at his computer, logged on as Brandon Kane and talking with a 14-year-old girl in Western Australia. He had 200 fake internet IDs.
This brutal and sadistic paedophile, with the ability to charm his way into the hearts of vulnerable young girls is not alone in trawling the internet for young victims. It is the responsibility of parents and governments to protect children from perverts like Garry Newman, whose grossly depraved plan to deceive, seduce and murder Carly was born out of his own perversions. Carly had her whole life in front of her, an impressionable 15-year-old child whose dreams, goals and future were stolen by a love interest who was a lie—not the young man of her dreams, but an overweight, balding, middle-aged paedophile with sex and murder on his mind. What terrifies many parents is that Carly only did what millions of other kids around the world do for hours on every single day—they use social media to meet new people and make new friends. There are so many ways that young people can access the internet—mobile phones, game consoles, tablets—there is now unprecedented access for those who wish to do harm, develop relationships and exploit vulnerable children. With accessibility of email, social networking, chat rooms and instant messaging, children are exposed as never before. Online predators are frighteningly clever, often posing as another young person to gain trust, and, frighteningly, they can contact children in almost any online venue.
Parents have always been the first order of care for their children and that is increasingly so today, as new and unfamiliar risks enter our children's lives—risks that parents do not have direct experience in dealing with. That is why the coalition government established the Children's eSafety Commissioner in 2015 to increase awareness and to provide extra information to parents. It is vital that parents understand when, where and what their children are accessing online. It is vital that parents are equipped to deal with daily advances in technology and the constant adaption of the predators, that parents are always vigilant and that they have the tools to educate their children in the dangers that lurk beyond the screen.
However, the government also recognises that parental vigilance on its own is not enough and that laws need to be changed to respond to this evolving menace. The protecting minors online bill that is before us today is a clear demonstration that this parliament has nil tolerance of that type of predation. Australian children must be safe to grow, explore and develop. The government has a duty to ensure that, with ever-evolving technology and expanding possibilities of communication, Commonwealth laws deter would-be offenders and provide a sound basis for prosecution. The iCyberSafe.com website is there to help protect kids and cites some of the facts about internet predators. At any one time in the online environment there could be up to 750,000 online child sexual predators. These predators are online around the clock looking for targets. Surveys show that one in five of our kids will receive sexual advances while online, but less than 25 per cent of them will inform a parent or an adult. Seventy-five per cent of children are willing to share personal information with a stranger on the internet—exactly what the predators are looking for. Sixty-four per cent of the teens surveyed admitted that they did things online that they would not want their parents to know about. Approximately 19 per cent of teens say they have considered meeting someone offline that they have only known online. Approximately nine per cent of teens state that they have actually met an offline stranger who they previously only knew through an online contact. Teens spend an average of six hours a day using media, which is more than any other activity.
Following Carly's death, her mother founded the Carly Ryan Foundation, devoted to promoting internet safety and supporting victims. The passage of this legislation is a testament to Sonya Ryan's relentless efforts to protect children from online predators. She has taken her unimaginable grief head on, risen above her suffering and turned the greatest tragedy possible—the murder of her child—into a relentless crusade. Sonya has dedicated her life to driving the cause of cyber safety through the Carly Ryan Foundation. Her selfless and tireless push for internet safety earned her the honour of being named South Australia's Australian of the Year in 2013.
Now we have before us this legislation which will further strengthen our weaponry against those who wish to prey upon our children and do them harm. The new law will criminalise acts that plan to cause harm to, procure or engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. The new law allows for the law enforcement agencies to act pre-emptively, most importantly, before the offence is committed. An offence will have been committed if someone uses a carriage service—that is, the internet—to prepare or plan to cause harm, procure or engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. The legislation also implements provisions to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect, negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse. The bill promotes the rights of children to be protected from physical or mental violence, sexual exploitation and abuse. It deserves the full support of this parliament. The legislation is presented in Carly's memory and in recognition of the bravery of her mother, Sonya, to try and ensure that this tragedy will never happen again. I am proud to stand in this chamber and support the bill.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (18:55): I rise to support the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017. This is obviously a very important bill. It is interesting when paedophiles go to the extreme effort of disguising themselves to basically coax younger people. In this case it comes from the sad and tragic death of Carly Ryan, a 15-year-old who was murdered by a 50-year-old man. I thank her mother, Sonya, for establishing the Carly Ryan Foundation and for all the great work she has done.
I go back to my days in the police force. I remember, in one of my early days as a recruit, the instructor showed us a photofit. On the photofit it had various faces, and we were asked to identify who was the rapist, who was the paedophile and who was the murderer. Everyone pretty much selected their three. In actual fact it was revealed that all were in some way a rapist, murderer or paedophile. I heard members refer to paedophiles as monsters, and they are. But when you see them they come across as everyday people who have this sick obsession. That is the danger for parents and young people. You will find that a paedophile will in many cases become the parent's best friend, because he knows that if you get the parents on side you can get access to the child.
So many young people use the internet, and they obviously want to communicate and meet new people. The family home is a very safe place indeed, unless your son or daughter is on the internet talking to someone or communicating with a person you believe is another child. The parent could walk past their bedroom and see the photo of a young male or a young girl and think that they are just communicating with someone from school or sport. But I do say to parents, always ask your child how they know that person. Is it a friend from school? If it is not someone they have ever identified before, have a danger flag go up. Yes, I am overprotective, but as a former police officer my first aim is to be protective.
Paedophiles realise that if they go in as their own identity, meaning a 50-year-old male talking or communicating with a 13-year-old or 15-year-old, obviously the communication will pretty much stop there. If they put themselves up as someone who a young person will relate to—we hear that the most creative fake internet or Facebook posts are actually of Justin Bieber. Why? Because the person who is creating that pseudonym would know that that is a way they can easily make contact with a young person.
These laws are very, very important. I congratulate the Minister for Justice for the work he has done. It creates new offences which will apply to a broader range of circumstances than the Commonwealth laws currently have. It will target existing grooming and procuring laws and acts leading up to sexual activity with a child and will require the participator to be identified. With the new laws, as the person is creating their new character, the police do not have to wait until an offence has been committed. It is a bit different in law enforcement when you come to, for example, drug trafficking. You can basically wait until the buy-bust goes down and you can arrest all those involved. Police obviously cannot and do not want to do that when it comes to sexual offences or paedophiles. Currently they pretty much have to wait until the communication has started. This is stopped and it allows the police to intervene at a much earlier stage—as soon as they are able to identify that a person is basically creating a fake identity to target or procure a young person and groom them. Police can actually act. To me that is very worthwhile.
The penalty is significant: 10 years jail. To me, that is a good penalty. Obviously I would like to see mandatory life imprisonment, but that would probably extend this too far. In the last financial year, 33 defendants were charged with offences against children under section 474.26 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises using a carriage service to procure a minor. Obviously, this is occurring all the time. Twenty-three defendants were convicted and 17 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment. I congratulate the law enforcement officers who identify and investigate paedophile activity. When I was in the police force, it was an area I did not want to go into. In many cases they have to watch very sickening offences, and identifying victims is also exceptionally troubling for them. This all comes back to the sad and tragic death of 15-year-old Carly Ryan, as I mentioned before. We thank her mother, Sonya, so much for what she has done—for going out and pushing rather than sitting back and saying, 'Hey, it's too difficult.' She has gone on the front foot and, on behalf of all members of parliament and all the Australian community, I congratulate Sonya for the incredible work she has done.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (19:02): I thank all the honourable members who have contributed to this debate, particularly the member for La Trobe whose comments I just listened to. This bill introduces tough new offences for adults who use a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm to a child, engage in sexual activity with a child or procure a child to engage in sexual activity. Importantly, these new offences will cover adults who misrepresent their age online as part of a plan to harm a child. This offence will complement existing online child sex offences for preparatory conduct, including grooming or procuring a child for sexual activity. The bill takes this protection one step further: ensuring that those who use a carriage service to plan or prepare to harm children are also captured by the criminal justice system. The evolving nature of the internet and the anonymous nature of the internet unfortunately provide unprecedented opportunities for online predators to harm and exploit children. The offence proposed in this bill carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, and this serves as a very significant deterrent to predators who would seek to harm our children. This offence will allow law enforcement to take action against online predators sooner and with far greater consequence. The bill also continues the government's proactive approach to legislative amendment in light of rapid technological change.
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The committee has literally moments ago reported on this bill and recommended that the bill be passed with no amendments. I welcome the committee's having reached that conclusion, although it did seem to me to be a rather drawn-out process for a bill that I would consider to be a complete and utter no-brainer. I would have thought that this was a bill that was very easy for anyone in this House—indeed, for anyone in the other place—to support. Although the committee process insisted on having public hearings—I am not sure why—it continued to delay the passage of this bill in a way that I do not think was particularly helpful. I think that this bill is very easy to support, sends a clear message to the community that we will not tolerate behaviour that will harm our children, offers our children greater protection and continues to serve as a strong deterrent to predators. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this bill, I commend it to the House, and I would hope that it passes expeditiously.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (19:06): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (19:06): Labor supports the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The bill continues the implementation of the Montreal protocol, which was made law in Australia during the Hawke government and is considered one of the most successful global environmental agreements. Action needs to be taken on phasing down HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, as they are a greenhouse gas 1,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Although they make up only around two per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, their contribution has been increasing, because they are being used to replace other ozone-depleting chemicals that are being phased out under the Montreal protocol. Hydrofluorocarbons are organic compounds of hydrogen, fluorine and carbon. They are produced synthetically and are used primarily as refrigerants. They became widely used beginning in the late 1980s, with the introduction of the protocol that phased out the use of chemicals such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons that contributed to the depletion of the Earth's ozone layer.
However, while HFCs have an ozone depletion potential of zero, they are incredibly powerful greenhouse gases and thus their manufacture and use has become increasingly regulated in the 21st century. This will mean Australia's phase-down is consistent with the international HFC phase-down under the protocol that was agreed in Kigali in October last year. The phase-down will be managed through the existing licence system under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act, and import quota limits will be managed under the Ozone Protection Act. The international agreement underpinning these changes is to phase down HFC imports by 85 per cent in developed countries, starting in 2019 and ending in 2036. I have been advised that Australia is well placed to meet and exceed the global phase-down and will start one year earlier in 2018 with a limit 25 per cent below the Montreal protocol limit. Industry supports the earlier start and lower limit, and I commend them for their proactive work in this area. The Montreal protocol is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty. It has phased out over 99 per cent of ozone-depleting chemicals such as CFCs, HCFCs and halons. It is a real indication of what the world can do when it decides to act and the important role Australia can play in these incredibly important environmental actions.
The government may try to claim that this is a key element of Australia's 2030 emission targets. Make no mistake: it is a good commitment, but Australia's current climate policies are not sufficient to achieve even its current commitment to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels. The coalition government's direct action plan has proven beyond any doubt to be an ineffective waste of taxpayers' money. The government's own data shows carbon pollution rising since the coalition implemented direct action, with their own data projecting emissions rising all the way to 2030, which is as far as the projections go. In fact, the government's data shows that the government will miss their target of a 26 to 28 per cent pollution reduction by 2030 by a full 26 per cent. The data shows that emissions in 2030 will effectively be the same as in 2005, showing zero progress for 25 years. The government's policies will not constrain, let alone reduce, emissions to 2020, let alone 2030.
If the government is serious about meeting its obligations under the Paris Agreement they will have to strengthen their 2030 targets as well as implement real policies to reduce emissions, especially in the electricity sector. The Paris Agreement includes a ratchet mechanism that will see countries increase their pledges to meet the two-degree target. Current pledges under the Paris Agreement are consistent with three to four degrees of warming, but the government pretends that their 26 to 28 per cent target is all they will have to do. They know that this is not true, and they know that by ignoring this fact they are effectively misleading the Australian people.
In contrast, Labor's target—45 per cent by 2030—is consistent with what the Climate Change Authority has said is needed to reach the two-degree target. It seems unlikely that the Prime Minister has the will or the ability to stand up to the extreme Right in his own party and to deliver the policy leadership we need to modernise our energy system. China, New Zealand, Brazil and more are all asking important questions about this government's lack of climate and energy policy to meet our Paris Agreement commitments. Just as they refuse to give answers at home, they are refusing to answer international concerns about their policy black hole.
The Turnbull government also refuses to introduce policy to support renewable energy investment post-2020, which is crucial if we are to meet our Paris obligations. The current figures show that Australia's pollution rose by 0.8 per cent in the year to June 2016 and almost 2.5 per cent since June 2014. The data also shows a shocking 16.2 per cent in annual electricity emissions in the last two years alone. Power bills and pollution will continue to rise as a direct result of Malcolm Turnbull's and his government's decision. Labor has a proud environment record, and we support strong action on protection of Australia's unique environment as well as global action on climate change.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:12): Labor supports the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The bill continue the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which was made law in Australia during the Hawke government and is considered one of the most successful global environmental agreements. Labor has a proud environmental record, and we support strong action on protection of Australia's unique environment as well as global action on climate change. The government may try to claim that this bill is a key element of Australia's 2030 emissions targets. Make no mistake: this is a good commitment, but Australia's current climate policies are not sufficient to achieve even its current commitment to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels. With an opportunity to speak about the environment, I would make a note of welcoming the Finkel report and also being pleased to be part of a Labor caucus that has put its bipartisan hand across this chamber to suggest that together we might be able to make a difference to global warming.
This government loves to talk about their energy policy being based on economics and engineering, but that is not true. According to the findings of the Australian power generation technology report, using the most modern coal plants will make energy 45 per cent more expensive; using carbon capture and storage will make prices swell. But it is important to note, while we are talking about the environment and we are talking about legislation to protect that environment, that there is work to do in this parliament. There is work to do for our colleagues on the other side to come to grips with the impacts of on our environment of our energy policies.
My electorate is one of the youngest in the country. These issues really matter to the people of Lalor and to the young people in my community who speak to me so often about what we are doing to protect the environment and about what we are doing to change the way industry operates to ensure that we minimise the damage that we are doing. This bill is part of that story.
So why is Australia phasing down HFCs? It is because they are potent greenhouse gases—a thousand times or more powerful than carbon dioxide. They make up around two per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions but are growing as they replace ozone-depleting chemicals that have been phased out under the Montreal protocol. A phase-down of HFC imports is a simple and cheap way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The phase-down will reduce Australia's HFC imports and, as a result, emissions by 85 per cent between 2018 and 2036 and is a key element of Australia's 2030 emissions target. This fits with the global approach. The phase-down is consistent with the global HFC phase-down under the Montreal protocol that was agreed in Kigali in October 2016.
The protocol phases down HFC imports in developed countries by 85 per cent between 2019 and 2036, and we will get started on that early. Australia is positioned to meet and exceed the global phase-down schedule. We will start one year earlier, in 2018, and with the limit of 25 per cent below the Montreal protocol limit, matching Australia's current HFC use. Industry supports the earlier start and the lower limit. It is a pleasure to stand in this House in agreement with those opposite on a piece of legislation. The Montreal protocol has phased out over 99 per cent of ozone-depleting chemicals, including CFCs, HCFCs and halon, and is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty.
The phase-down plan is for a gradual reduction in the amount of HFCs permitted to be imported into Australia. Reduced imports will lead directly to reduced emissions. The phase-down will be managed through the existing licence system under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 and import quota limits under the ozone act. Ninety per cent of quota will be allocated to existing importers based on their market share between 2009 and 2014. The remaining 10 per cent will be available to any applicant through a ballot system.
The phase-down approach has been used for CFCs and HCFCs. Business is familiar and comfortable with the approach as it provides long-term certainty to make investment decisions; something that has been sorely lacking under some of the environmental policies of those opposite over the last four years. Business first proposed the phase-down in 2007, so it has been a long time coming. It has been designed in close collaboration with business. If you look at the industry figures, the refrigeration and air conditioning industry employs over 173,000 people in over 20,000 businesses. There are over 45 million pieces of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment in Australia. Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment leaks far less now than it did 25 years ago when these conversations began. This is due to improvements in design, construction, installation and maintenance. The same amount of refrigerant is imported now to service equipment as was imported 25 years ago, despite that rapid growth in equipment numbers. Since 1990, air conditioners in cars have become standard, and most houses have one or more air conditioners. Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment has become more energy efficient. It is saving consumers money, reducing the strain on the energy grid, and reducing environmental emissions. The equipment now uses around a third of the power it did 20 years ago due to initiatives such as the Australian minimum energy performance standards. The phase-down has been worked through in consultation with industry, and industry is pleased to be joining this.
In closing, I would say that it is a pleasure to be on this side of the House tonight to support a piece of legislation that will lead to protections for our environment and that has the support of industry. I look forward to working with government members on a way forward in all environmental matters in limiting global warming; in limiting our use of carbon; in finding ways to invest in the research and development that is required to continue the road to increase renewables, which is supported greatly by the Australian public; in finding employment for Australians in renewable industries as well as to looking at research and development. I look forward to this government determining that it made an error in withdrawing funds for research and development, particularly for clean carbon storage in those areas that are being discussed this week after Dr Finkel's report.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (19:20): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The bill implements the outcomes of a significant review of the program, introducing further measures to reduce emissions, streamlining the administration of the act and reducing compliance costs on the industry. The bill will reduce the number of businesses required to hold a licence by one-third, halve the reporting obligations and reduce the number of invoices sent by 94 per cent. The bill will achieve this while continuing to ensure a high standard of environmental protection.
The central element of this bill is an 85 per cent reduction of the importation of hydrofluorocarbons—HFCs—through a phase-down from 2018 to 2036. HFCs are potent synthetic greenhouse gases, primarily used in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. HFCs can be thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, and make up around two per cent of Australia's annual emissions. The phase-down will be achieved by establishing a quota scheme and reducing caps on imports starting on 1 January 2018. A similar approach was used successfully to phase out gases such as chlorofluorocarbons—CFCs—and hydrochlorofluorocarbons—HCFCs. The phase-down, together with other measures included under this program, will reduce emissions by up to 80 million carbon dioxide equivalent tonnes by 2030. This is a significant contribution towards our Paris target.
The Australian market is well placed for this domestic phase-down and industry supports the measures. Consumers will be able to use their existing equipment and systems until the equipment's natural end of life. The phase-down will also leave a 15 per cent residual from 2036 to ensure that niche uses, such as medical aerosols, are available and existing equipment can be serviced.
The phase-down will be in line with the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, under which all 197 parties to the Montreal protocol agreed to phase down HFC production and imports from 2019. The global phase-down is predicted to reduce emissions by 72 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050—the equivalent of one and a third year's global emissions. It has been estimated that this action will avoid up to 0.5 degrees of temperature rise by 2100, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.
Australia played a leadership role, co-chairing negotiations to secure this global agreement, culminating in October 2016, and I again pay tribute to my predecessor, the member for Flinders, in this regard. Australia has a proud record of leadership in addressing ozone depletion and issues related to the Montreal protocol. It is widely considered the world's most successful environmental protection agreement, being the only one with universal acceptance. It has reduced the production and import of ozone-depleting chemicals by over 99 per cent globally. Concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere are reducing and scientists confidently predict the ozone layer will be repaired by the middle of this century in the mid-latitudes and about 20 years later in Antarctica. It is a truly remarkable achievement. Through this bill Australia will continue to show the same leadership on HFCs.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (19:24): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (19:25): I wish to make it clear at the outset that the Labor Party supports the principle of having a zero threshold for the GST for imports. We support that on a number of ground. We support it on the grounds that Australia's businesses, particularly small businesses, deserve a level playing field—competitive neutrality. They are competing now with businesses from around the world and, if they have to charge GST on their goods and businesses they are competing with do not, that is a competitive disadvantage for Australian businesses and it should be dealt with. I support it on the grounds of revenue for the states. Of course, GST revenue goes to the states and states' budgets are constrained, so it makes sense that we look at ways such as this to improve the fiscal outcome for the states. Frankly and simply I would put it this way: if John Howard and Peter Costello had the information that we have today—and this is no criticism of them in the slightest—they would have applied the threshold for the GST at zero. They did not foresee and nor could they have been expected to have foreseen the rise of internet commerce and the rise in the ease with which Australian consumers can import goods from overseas. For all those reasons, the principle of a zero threshold for GST to apply to imports is a good one, and one that this side of the House supports.
However, this government has utterly mismanaged the implementation of this reform. We sometimes get lectured that there should be more bipartisanship. Here is an example where the Labor Party has offered bipartisan support to the government and this Treasurer has managed to completely bungle the implementation of the GST threshold, for reasons I will outline during this contribution. In the time I have available tonight, and tomorrow when the debate resumes, I will outline the proposal that the Labor Party puts to the parliament, and most particularly will put in the other place. In the other place we will see a more sensible outcome and there will be time for the government's mismanagement of this issue to be properly examined and for a sensible way to be implemented to give Australia's small businesses a more-level playing field.
This issue has been debated and discussed for some time. It is a measure from the 2016 budget—not the 2017 budget but the 2016 budget. Yet, here we are debating it today—even if it was the best bill in the world, even if it was a perfect reform and one that everybody was happy with, even if it was presented to the House in a way that was implementable, it is coming into force on 1 July this year. And here we are in June, so the government is allowing no time for businesses to adjust and to allow the systems to be put in place to see this rather significant change to be implemented. For those reasons alone, putting aside the problems with the implementation model, this legislation is deeply flawed.
In addition, this is a vendor registration model. This is one in which the government has chosen that overseas suppliers, including electronic platforms such as eBay, Amazon and et cetera, and re-deliverers of services, with an Australian turnover of $75,000 or more within a 12-month period, will be required to register for and charge GST.
In fact, I think it would be fair to say that there is a wide degree of in-principle support from the entire parliament—although I cannot speak for other parties. For the reasons I have outlined, I think there is a widely held recognition that this is a necessary reform. But Labor did have concerns about the implementation, and accordingly we referred this to a Senate committee, which has already done its work. I want to commend in particular Labor senator Chris Ketter for going through the government's proposals, which fell apart before that Senate committee and before Senator Ketter's questioning.
Firstly, on the matter of compliance, we are told—and I agree—
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Joshi, Professor Sneha
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (19:30): I rise this evening to pay tribute to the life of my dear friend Sneha Joshi. Only a few weeks ago, Sneha was with me here in Parliament House meeting the new High Commissioner of India. I called Sneha as she travelled home a few days later. She was in her usual bright spirits and we shared a few laughs. She was over the moon to have finally spent time with my baby, Aurelia, while she was in town. We planned to catch up when I returned from Canberra, but that was the last time we would speak. Sneha was taken from us suddenly and too soon.
I cannot remember the first time Sneha and I met, but I know that it was during the 2013 election campaign. In this profession you do not forget those who join you in your corner when the chips are down, and that epitomised Sneha. That was the start of our friendship. In the nearly four years since, I have got to know not only Sneha but her remarkable family, including her beloved husband, Mahdu, her son, Milind, and her daughter, Madhavi, as well as her extended family and grandchildren. She happened on that occasion, when I last saw her, to be in Canberra visiting her granddaughter Aishwarya. She was so proud of all her grandchildren. One of her proudest messages to me was about how her grandson Jay had excelled with the Blacktown District Cricket Club, and about their historic victory in Orange earlier this year. I know because she said in the message to me, 'I could not resist communicating this good news to you.'
Sneha always addressed me as 'Respected Michelle' or 'Honourable Michelle' regardless of how much I protested. She was a gifted academic, a doctor and a professor of education. In another age she probably would have been a minister for education or a senior education bureaucrat. Her family told me that when she was doing her PhD she would wake early and stay up late—she was always switched on. In fact, they said, she could survive on around four hours sleep a night.
Sneha epitomised the very best of the migrant story. We grew close because we were interested in relationships, and politics is about relationships. The commentary and analysis come and go, but being able to have relationships is a constant. Sneha's relationships were always authentic. She knew how to talk with people. She was a model for young people. Some of my fondest memories are of being at her home and sitting with a number of Young Labor members around table with too much food. A social media memory was shared during the election campaign last year and, yes, we were seated around table of food at her house. On election night last year I had never seen anyone happier. Indeed, she was the happiest person in the room that night at the Blacktown RSL. I will never forget Young Labor making a circle around her, clapping and chanting, 'Boss is boss!'
Sneha was a Swaminarayan devotee, and we would greet one another: 'Jai Ganesh. Jai Swaminarayan.' She enjoyed very much the Lalor Park Community Garden. As one of her former gardeners commented to me at her funeral, the message that Sneha brought, irrespective of everyone's background or their different religions, was that we were all connected. As my staff said, it is still hard to believe that Sneha will not be popping into the electorate office in Seven Hills after her community garden day. I particularly want to thank the Sydney Shakti Temple, which put on prayers at very short notice when Sneha's illness became known.
So many people commented with the same words when they found out about Sneha's death: 'Michelle, she adored you.' She did, and I did not deserve her adoration. I will miss our long talks. I will miss the way we looked at one another knowingly when we could not talk. We always understood one another. I will not particularly miss standing in the cold all day for three weeks, while pregnant, at the Blacktown pre-poll during last year's campaign, but I will never forget how hard Sneha worked at pre-poll and, again, how we would look knowingly at one another when we knew we had a vote.
Sneha was the heart of the campaign and, as I said, she represented all that is good about the Labor story—a respected professor of education from India who migrated to Australia and who lived her life to the fullest. Her passion for education in young people drove her every day. She was incredibly kind and warm. She was a truly selfless individual whose home and heart were always open to others.
I never thought I would be in this parliament thanking a 73-year-old woman from Gujarat for getting me here. She was one of the hardest workers I have ever met. When she was farewelled last week people were spilling out the door from at least six religions that I could ascertain, from so many demographics and backgrounds. Thank you, Sneha, for loaning yourself to me for such a short period of time.
Adani Coalmine
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (19:35): I rise to deliver a long overdue message for the soy latte sipping extreme green activists who peddle their lies to undermine jobs and families in North Queensland. The message is this: the fraud is over; your far-fetched anticoal fantasies have worn out their welcome in North Queensland; your fake news has failed and you have nothing left. The anticapitalists, the socialists, the Greens, GetUp! and the George Soros funded ecoterrorists have thrown up every fairytale, furphy and falsehood they could fabricate in a desperate bid to stop Adani, mining industry and jobs in north and central Queensland.
What a famine of facts we find in their fake news. Fake news was GetUp!'s fundraising emails and advertisements that claimed 'toxic sludge' would be 'dumped on the reef.' The truth is there is no toxic sludge—nothing was ever going to be dumped on the reef. And the dredge spoil at Abbot Point is being disposed of on land at the coal terminal. Fake news was the World Wildlife Fund postcard asking people to donate to help protect the reef's Caley Valley Wetlands. In reality, the wetlands were created by hunters in the 1950s so they could shoot ducks. The reality is that those wetlands are 40 kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef. But the greater fraud was the use of an image of a dredge bucket actually dredging Boston Harbour that deliberately misrepresented the suction technology that will be used on the Abbot Point expansion. Fake news was claiming that the Great Barrier Reef was already damaged by climate change and supporting the claim with a photograph of a reef in the Philippines damaged by a hurricane.
Fake news was claiming that coal is in structural decline, while the local Daily Mercury newspaper in Mackay is reporting on new mines starting up, old mines reopening and much-needed jobs returning to our region. Fake news is claiming one bank after another have refused to fund Adani when none of the banks that they have bullied into that stance were ever asked to fund Adani. Fake news is claiming that Indigenous opposition to Adani has stopped the Carmichael coal project from going ahead when Adani has actually struck six Indigenous land use agreements with traditional owner groups—including the Jiru, Jaeggi, Berrimah, Wangan and Jagalingou native title groups. The Wangan and Jagalingou agreement the fraudsters hang their hat on was approved by a vote of 294 to 1.
Fake news is saying sediment run-off from the mine will damage the reef when nowhere in human history is there any record of water climbing uphill, much less defying gravity for 300 kilometres to climb over a mountain range. Fake news is claiming that only 1,400 direct and indirect jobs would be created by the Carmichael coal project—as if those 1,400 extra pay packets in the regional economy are somehow a bad thing. Meanwhile, the project's headquarters, opening in Townsville, is going to employ 500 people to work in the office alone—before any construction even starts. Independent consultancies report that more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs will be created by the project. Fake news is claiming that plane-loads of Indian workers on 457 visas will work in the mines, when Adani has made a commitment in writing to employing only locals and has no desire to source, recruit, train, transport and house workers that would have to be paid the same as an Australian anyway—not to mention the fact that the 457 visa program has been abolished.
Fake news is claiming $1 billion in taxpayers' money is being 'given to a billionaire' for the Adani mine when the truth is that if the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund granted a concessional loan, it would have to be paid back, with interest, and the infrastructure would open up the Galilee Basin for other users who are waiting in the wings. Fake news is the claim of a beach being covered in coaldust when the substance was tested and found to be naturally occurring magnetite, which occasionally washes up on beaches in that area. The major falsehood that underpins and drives much of this fake news is the fallacious claim that digging up coal at the Carmichael mine will cause catastrophic climate change and kill the reef. If the ecoterrorists really believed increased emissions will cause Armageddon, consider this: if Adani does not use coal from Carmichael, it will continue to use dirtier coal that creates more carbon dioxide emissions. Stopping the Adani mine will create more emissions.
So, my message to the activists is this: enough with the lies. If you cannot win an argument without lying, you do not have an argument. Your stock-in-trade lies have made you an irrelevant joke. These activists are mostly southerners and foreigners pursuing their own interests but the message from North Queensland is this: try worrying about some issue in your own backyard instead of stopping the good, honest families of North Queensland from getting a job. Or, to quote a great bumper sticker that I saw earlier this week, let us keep our coal jobs and we will let you keep your soy lattes.
Vocational Education and Training
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:40): I rise today on National TAFE Day to stand up for public education in Australia and to place on record my unwavering support for TAFE as a vital national institution. For well over 100 years, TAFE has been providing students with the skills they need to prosper. In my electorate of Newcastle, Hunter TAFE is an exceptional provider that has been operating since 1936. In fact, it is the largest regional provider of vocational education and training in the country. It is a loved and trusted public institution that is deeply embedded in our community, but it has not been immune to the sustained attacks that have been waged in recent years by both state and federal Liberal governments. On this side of the chamber, we believe in TAFE because we understand the critical role it plays in ensuring that Australians have the skills they need to secure quality jobs. We understand how important this collective skillset will be to our national prosperity into the future and we see what an integral part TAFE plays in so many communities, especially regional communities like mine.
The world is changing rapidly. The World Economic Forum reports that 65 per cent of young people entering primary school today will end up working in jobs that do not yet exist. We must strive to ensure that, as a country, we have the skilled workforce we need to be ready to grasp the opportunities that lie ahead, but we will not be able to do this without a strong, agile and properly funded national TAFE network. You would think that in this environment of rapid change and opportunity the Turnbull government would be bolstering TAFE. Regretfully, nothing could be further from the truth. Over recent years we have seen conservative governments at both state and federal levels hell-bent on slashing funding for education across the board, on privatising our vocational education sector and on bringing TAFE to its knees. The federal Liberal government has cut $2.8 billion from skills, training and vocational education since coming to office. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the importance of a skilled and agile nation, but actions speak louder than words and the Prime Minister has revealed his true priorities by cutting a further $600 million from skills and apprenticeships to help subsidise his $65 billion worth of corporate tax cuts.
TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of supported students are now lower than they were a decade ago, despite the fact that more jobs today call for vocational skills. Nationally, the number of apprentices has fallen by almost 150,000 since the Liberal government came to power. In New South Wales, TAFE fees have skyrocketed, staff have been cut and restructures have been forced. As well as cutting vital funding for skills and vocational education, the federal government has actively pursued a damaging privatisation agenda. Millions of dollars of public money have been handed out to private companies and too often students have paid a heavy price. We have all seen the terrible rorts and exploitation. We have all heard the stories of private providers, driven by profit motives, who have prioritised shareholders over students and the quality of training they provide. This sort of shameless profiteering has ruined lives and severely damaged trust in our vocational education system.
In contrast to those opposite, Labor will turn around the trend of privatisation. We will put TAFE back in the centre of vocational education. A Labor government would reverse the Prime Minister's $600 million cuts to skills and training and we would guarantee that at least two-thirds of public vocational education training goes to TAFE. We will also create a $100 million building TAFE for the future fund to ensure that regional communities like Newcastle and the Hunter have high-quality facilities to give students the skills they need to meet the needs of local industry. A Labor government will have a target that one in 10 jobs on all Commonwealth priority projects will be apprenticeships. And we will also invest in pre-apprenticeship programs and establish an advanced entry adult apprenticeships program to fast-track apprentices for up to 20,000 people facing redundancy or who have lost their jobs. While the Liberals are hell-bent on tearing TAFE down, Labor will fight to protect it. We will back public TAFE, and it is time the Liberals dropped their cuts and joined Labor in this project. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (19:45): On this side of the House we support business investment in the economy unashamedly, and we support families that are trying to get ahead unashamedly. We believe in these things because we believe that business investment and the aspirations of families to grow the financial position of their family are very good things for our nation. Those opposite are taking increasingly belligerent and populist positions which are against these things—which are against business investment—very, very clearly and very explicitly. And they are against households who seek to build their wealth. There are numerous examples of that, which I will run through in a minute.
But I wanted to begin with a happier story, and that concerns investments in the Australian start-up sector. Back in 2015 I wrote an opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review calling on the government to abolish capital gains tax for investments in start-up companies. As a nation, we have been somewhat underweight in the start-up sector. We do not have as strong a start-up sector as we should, relative to the size of our economy. We need a good start-up sector, because start-ups create wealth in the economy and tend to create a substantial number of high-wage jobs. Happily, the government did abolish capital gains tax investments in start-ups and also put in place a number of other initiatives in the National Innovation and Science Agenda back in December 2015, including reductions in income tax through tax rebates for investors in start-ups. I want to acknowledge that at the time that was actually supported by those opposite, and I would like to note the sensible efforts of the member for Chifley in understanding the importance of these issues. We have seen a very substantial increase in venture capital investment in Australia, so much so that it has gone from $154 million raised in 2013 to $568 million in 2016. So there are very, very positive developments in the venture capital sector, and the policies we put in place were somewhat bipartisan.
But, in other areas of policy, there is a very different situation. According to Credit Suisse, Australian households are the second wealthiest in the world. The average Australian's household wealth is the second highest in the world, and that is a good thing. That is not bad; that is good. It is good that the average Australian household has high levels of wealth. But 66 per cent of the net assets of Australian households are held in housing, and if you look at the middle deciles, from 40 to 60 per cent, 92 per cent of their net assets are held in housing. So the last thing a sensible government would seek to do is damage the value of that housing asset. Those opposite are wanting to abolish negative gearing, which has existed for over 100 years in Australia, and raise capital gains tax by 50 per cent on everything, not just housing. This would have a very substantial negative impact on the value of the most important asset held by Australians. Those opposite have, sort of, acknowledged that. The member for Fenner said, 'House price growth with our policies would have been at a slower pace than it is today.' The shadow Treasurer, somewhat awkwardly, said it would 'take some of the heat out of prices going forward'. But if it is going to have a negative impact on prices—and, in many markets, prices are already going down—that means that the opposition's policies would make house prices go down even further. In Darwin, house prices have already fallen six per cent in the last year. In Perth, it is about four per cent, and even in Sydney and Melbourne we have seen an absolute decline in house prices in the last month—in May. Those opposite have acknowledged that their policy on negative gearing and capital gains would reduce house prices relative to what they would otherwise have been. They are explicitly saying they want the most important asset of Australian households to be worth less. That is an extraordinary policy.
They are also making an extraordinary, populist attack on people who invest in things. I did a little exercise today where I went onto the Hansardonline because I thought there were some expressions that were getting used by those on the other side quite a few times. The term 'millionaires' has been used 140 times in this parliament, and 'billionaires' 34 times. Those opposite have said 'top end of town' 66 times, and 'big end of town' 176 times. This is about trying to create an 'us and them' mentality and to demonise investment in Australia, and that is not a good thing for our country.
Fowler Electorate: Australian Turkish Community
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (19:50): Last week I had the privilege of attending an iftar dinner at the Parliament House of New South Wales to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assisted migration agreement signed between Australia and Turkey. It was an honour to share this iftar dinner with my state and federal parliamentary colleagues and over 15 Turkish organisations that are active across Sydney in the areas of education, aged care, youth and cultural affairs.
The iftar dinner provided an inclusive and open platform for the New South Wales Turkish community, who are preparing to mark the 50th anniversary of this agreement, which paved the way for immigration to this country as guest workers. I was very fortunate that night to meet members of the very first group to come from Turkey. They arrived on a chartered Qantas flight in 1968.
The iftar dinner provided an opportunity to reflect on the great cultural, social and economic contributions of Australian Turks to our broader Australian community. Australia has thrived because of migration—and the Turkish community have made a large contribution to that—and we can see this in our schools, our workplaces, our businesses and, indeed, our culture itself. We are a better, bigger, bolder and smarter nation because of our multicultural fabric. I am particular proud of the Turkish community in my electorate of Fowler, who have shown themselves to be model citizens, successful in business and, certainly, very proud Australian Turks.
The iftar dinner was also a time to reflect on the spirit of Ramadan itself, a time in which Muslims are encouraged to remember those who are less fortunate in our community. Clearly, for many of us our thoughts are with those in the various parts of the globe that are impacted by conflict and violence. Particularly in my thoughts today is the senseless death of 12-year-old Australian Muslim girl Zaynab Al Harbeya, from Melbourne, who was killed earlier this month in a suicide bomb attack in Baghdad while visiting her grandfather. She was a young girl enjoying an ice cream at a local milk bar. This tragic event highlights the ongoing brutality of ISIS, who clearly show no respect for religion, nationality or borders.
In the past few weeks, we have also been rocked by a number of other terrorist attacks—in Egypt and Afghanistan, in Manchester and London, and in Melbourne itself. During the holiest month in the Islamic calendar, these acts of terrorism are not only crimes against humanity; they are also crimes against Islam. These recent terrorist attacks have been used as a platform to spread hatred and division within the broader community. This issue was aptly illustrated last week in a cartoon published by The Sydney Morning Herald, showing an angry man with a bomb strapped around his body, holding a knife in one hand, saying, 'We will not stop until we have eliminated every last trace of goodwill towards moderate Muslims.'
As a nation, as religious leaders and community leaders and as people of goodwill we must stand together and we must unite against these acts of terror and violence, which are clearly aimed at turning people away from those of the Islamic faith. To this end, I would like to recognise the significant role played by the Bonnyrigg Mosque—the Bonnyrigg Turkish mosque—which is in my electorate, in ensuring peace, understanding and goodwill throughout our local community. It is fair to say that much of the credit for this goes to the hard work of the imam, Osman Cavuslu; the mosque president, Muhammet Eris; and the adept Adem Cetinay, who is always either on the phone or visiting my office to talk about issues.
The humanitarian goodwill of the Australian Turkish community is also reflected in modern-day Turkey, with Turkey opening its doors to more than three million refugees, despite the domestic challenges it is currently facing. Turkey is also hosting and sheltering more than 800,000 school-aged Syrian children, which, again, is testament to their generosity.
I congratulate the Australian Turkish community on hosting the iftar dinner, and its 50 years of successful contribution to Australia's multicultural fabric. You should be, as we are, proud of your contribution to our great nation.
Human Trafficking
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (19:55): Janice, a freedom advocate and former Salvation Army client, spent three years in slavery in Sydney. She was brought to Australia on the promise of paid work as a housekeeper. Her passport was taken away by her employers under the pretence of organising permanent residency for her and her children. She worked 7 am to 10 pm seven days a week and was never paid. Janice became ill but was not seen by a doctor. She was forced to stop practising her religion. She could not contact her family, and she could not leave. She had no choices, no freedom and no control over her own life.
A French backpacker was exploited by a labour hire contractor in regional Victoria and was made to pay a $900 up-front commission to those who brought her here. She was paid as little as $12 an hour, was provided with uninhabitable accommodation and was locked into paying off that debt—conditions that she was led to believe were typical of farm life in Australia.
Football manufacturer Sherrin was found to use child labour in India in their supply chain, paying the children who worked in a factory $1 per day, despite having a 'zero tolerance policy regarding the use of underage workers', enforced by an 'extremely thorough global corporate social responsibility compliance program'. I am pleased that such an iconic Australian company then took the appropriate steps to fix the situation and ensure modern slavery was removed from their supply chain.
The reason I mention these stories is to speak about an issue of great enormity that, regrettably, receives far too little attention in the public sphere. As Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I am proud to be spearheading the inquiry initiated by the Turnbull coalition government in 2016, launched in February 2017, into Australia adopting national legislation to combat modern slavery both in Australia and in Australian company and organisational supply chains. An example of such legislation is that of the United Kingdom with their Modern Slavery Act 2015. Such legislation is critical to stamping out practices including human trafficking, forced labour, wage exploitation, forced marriage and debt bondage. We have, therefore, an example which we can look to improve upon.
Modern slavery frequently flies under the radar of the public but is frequently present in supply chains, agricultural production and various labour industries. Because of the experiences of people such as Janice, effectively enslaved by her employers, and the estimated over 4,500 people living in modern slavery in Australia, not to mention the more than 45 million people impacted by modern slavery practices worldwide, it is critical that that we take action.
I am thrilled to also have the support of Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest, the Walk Free Foundation and, in particular, coalition cabinet ministers and colleagues in this endeavour. I look forward to the outcomes of the many written submissions we received, as well as the upcoming public hearings next week and in August across the country. The Attorney-General's Department is monitoring the effectiveness of the UK's corporate reporting requirements. We aim to not simply copy and paste the British legislation but improve upon it.
I can see many positive developments coming from this inquiry. For example, our report could include a recommendation to introduce a registry for businesses that are covered by the legislation that can be checked by investors and consumers. It could, for example, include an antislavery commissioner, creating a brand-new position to ensure that these objectives are reached, much like in the UK, as well as much more.
I thank those who have participated in this process so far and invite the Australian community to be part of this conversation. Further hearings will be held, as I noted, in June for businesses and in August for general participants, followed by an interim report on supply chains to be released by the subcommittee in August, as well as a final reporting date for the inquiry in December this year. This effort led by the Turnbull coalition government, and supported on a bipartisan basis, to turn around the shameful practices entrenched in many industries will see businesses held to account and working with the government to achieve and reinforce social responsibility in our community.
I am proud to be a part of the coalition government, who have initiated these responsible first steps to tackling this deeply important issue of modern slavery, and I thank everyone who has given evidence so far. I especially look forward to the final report being handed down later this year and to the recommendations of what a modern slavery act in Australia would include.
The SPEAKER: It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Joyce: to present a Bill for an Act to establish the Regional Investment Corporation, and for related purposes.
Ms Bishop: to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to passports and the criminal law, and for related purposes.
Mr McCormack: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Corporations Act 2001, and for related purposes.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Embassy Project, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Main Building Refresh Project, Geoscience Australia Building, Symonston, ACT.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out of leased premises for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 15 William Street, Melbourne, Victoria.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Headquarters Project.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation Project, Broadmeadows, Victoria.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Russell Offices buildings 5 and 6, infrastructure upgrade, Russell, ACT.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Seaward Village—Proposed upgrades to housing for Defence families at Seaward Village, Swanbourne, Western Australia.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Stage One of the Garden Island (East), Critical Infrastructure Recovery Program, Sydney, NSW.
Mr Albanese: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the recent report released by the Water Services Association of Australia titled ‘Next Gen Urban Water: The role of urban water in vibrant and prosperous communities’;
(2) acknowledges that healthy urban rivers play a vital role in ensuring cities are sustainable and liveable and that the development of efficient blue-green networks can offset some of the worst effects of climate change by:
(a) reducing the heat island effect;
(b) ensuring a strong urban ecology through the preservation of biodiversity; and
(c) improving flood mitigation through effective management of water, particularly stormwater;
(3) recognises that rejuvenating urban rivers also has a positive impact on community wellbeing, and that investment in walking and cycling paths is a key component of this renewal process as it provides spaces for recreation and social cohesion;
(4) commends the previous Labor Government’s investment in urban rivers, noting the positive difference this has made to the natural environment and amenity of urban areas;
(5) notes, in particular, the successful improvements to the Cooks River, an iconic part of the inner west landscape, which was once used as a storm water drain and today is a popular walking and cycling route;
(6) recognises that the renewal of the Cooks River is a consequence of hard work from dedicated community groups including the Mudcrabs, Cooks River Valley Association and the Cooks River Alliance, as well as the investment from the previous Labor Government; and
(7) calls on the Government to provide real leadership and actual investment in our urban areas, instead of just rhetoric, so that Australia’s cities reach their full potential and are productive, sustainable and liveable for all who reside there.
Mr Wilkie: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes.
Ms McGowan: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there is electorate wide support for renewable energy;
(b) in March 2017, the Australia Institute reported that in a national poll 67 per cent think that that Australia is moving into renewable energy too slowly and 73 per cent supported setting a new renewable energy target for 2030;
(c) the Government has committed to ensuring that 23.5 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation in 2020 will be from renewable sources;
(d) the transition to a renewable energy future will require high levels of social consensus and engagement;
(e) international best practice has demonstrated that community ownership has become a well established mechanism to build consensus and assist the transition to increased renewable energy sources;
(f) Australian households are amongst the high adopters in the world of photovoltaics solar, driven primarily to help control their own energy costs;
(g) community owned renewable energy projects that allow communities to reduce their energy costs, or even make income from power production, would enable these benefits to be felt across the broader community, addressing the Government’s energy policy priority of security, reliability and affordability;
(h) the absence of clarity in Government policy has led to many communities ‘going it alone’ to secure their energy future; and
(i) continued investment and innovation in the sector requires a clear message of support from the Government; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) recognise that the community energy sector can play a significant role in the Government achieving its policy trifecta of secure, affordable and reliable energy; and
(b) demonstrate this recognition with a dedicated funding program for community energy projects to support the design and implemention and management of their own community specific integrated energy plans and projects.
Ms Sharkie: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) took the chair at 16:00.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
Consideration in Detail
Consideration resumed.
Treasury Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $4,523,474,000
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:00): It is a great honour to rise to speak on this proposed expenditure. May I say up-front in relation to this year's budget that this is a budget that is both honest and practical. It is obviously honest about the challenges and choices we face as a nation and practical in what we can deliver to the Australian people. While Australia has consistently outperformed some of the largest advanced economies in the world, we just cannot take this remarkable run of growth for granted. As the Treasurer pointed out on budget night, we have to fight for every inch of growth. We have to show determination and resolve, and furthermore, if we are to stay the course, we must have a decisive plan of action. I can assure all Australians that this government, the Turnbull government, does have a decisive plan for action in these key criteria.
The budget, the next phase in the Turnbull government's national economic plan, provides this in four areas, starting firstly with, and focusing on, more and better-paying jobs. In pursuing this objective, we know that Australians benefit when small businesses have the right settings and when we build the critical infrastructure that our country needs—road, rail and runway infrastructure, invested not only in our big cities but also in our regions. This of course builds on the government's recent success in cutting taxes and red tape for small and medium-sized businesses; in opening up new opportunities through our export trade deals, most notably with China, Japan and Korea; as well as in our investment in innovation and defence industries.
However, the reality is that not all Australians feel they have shared in our nation's hard-won growth story, a growth story that now exceeds a quarter of a century. With many Australians frustrated and not getting ahead, we have moved in this year's budget to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, including health care, disability support, education and employment. At the same time, we realise that many Australians have not had a decent pay rise for a while. This can make life more challenging for many households in dealing with what seem to be ever-increasing expenses. That is why we have chosen to place downward pressure on the cost of living, with a strong focus on energy, child care and housing, three areas that we know, particularly for families, have been a pressure point in recent years.
To make sure that the budget supports growth that secures more and better-paying jobs, the government is maintaining a credible path of diminishing deficits each year, leading to a projected return to balance in 2021 with a budget surplus of some $7.4 billion. This will place Australia in a better position to withstand any future economic downturns. It will also reduce the need to increase taxes or to cut back on essential services if there comes a time when government needs to take action to support economic activity. By living within our means, the government will not burden future generations with debt from today's everyday spending. From 2018-19, debt will not be required to fund recurrent spending, for the first time since the GFC, and this will ultimately lead to a stronger and more resilient Australia.
In setting up our fiscal future, well-selected infrastructure investment can also improve productivity and increase economic growth, which in turn leads to more secure and better-paid jobs. The government realises that the budget commitments that we have made to road, rail and runway infrastructure will provide the catalyst necessary to improve the productivity in the economy, which will, most importantly, achieve this objective of the budget. So a fair and responsible path to a balanced budget underpins the Turnbull government's approach to harnessing change and navigating the ever-complex and evermore competitive global economic environment that every single Australian business will increasingly face. Above all, the budget ensures fiscal sustainability and economic growth for the next generation, without mortgaging that generation's future.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:05): When he rolled the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, the member for Wentworth said that his chief rationale was that Australia needed economic leadership. Since then, we have seen record government debt—shortly due to hit half a trillion dollars—profits surging, real wages falling, the slowest GDP growth on an annual basis since the global financial crisis, home ownership at a 60-year low and inequality at a 75-year high. It does not sound very much like economic leadership to me.
But today I want to focus on the issue of dodgy phoenix directors. We know, in many of our communities, that phoenixing activity is a scourge on honest businesses. When dodgy directors are able to tank a firm, take its assets and start a new one, they hurt their suppliers, their workers and the taxpayer. And yet the government has been unwilling to act on a string of important reports on this. I commend the team at Melbourne Law School and Monash Business School that has set up a phoenix research program and produced a set of important recommendations over the last few years. That builds on PricewaterhouseCoopers's analysis suggesting that phoenix activity five years ago cost the Australian economy up to $3 billion—a number that is surely higher today. We hear the stories through our community—the bricklayers, chippies and electricians who are ripped off by dodgy phoenix directors. We have more stories in the press today about phoenixing activity.
That is why Labor has announced a package of measures to tackle dodgy phoenix directors. We have said that we will require all company directors to get a director identification number with a 100-point ID check to deal with the problem that it is currently tougher to open a bank account than to become a director. Chris Jordan, the tax commissioner, told a senator in estimates recently that he could easily register that senator as a director and they would not even know about it. One expert says the laws currently are so lax that you could almost register your dog as a director. That is why Labor believes that we need a director identification number.
We also support increasing penalties associated with phoenix activity, introducing an objective test for transactions that deprive employees of their entitlements, clarifying the availability of compensation orders against accessories and consulting on the targeted integrity measures based on the recommendations of the Melbourne-Monash Phoenix Research Team. In this, we are backed by a string of entities. Who supports Labor's director identification plan? The answer is: really, who does not? Supporters include 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.
Indeed, the only body of any significance in Australia that does not support a director identification number is the Turnbull government. Perhaps the minister will tell us, at some stage later in this debate, why the Turnbull government are so slow to act on dodgy directors and why it is that they are not willing to crack down on this activity that is doing so much harm in the economy and why it is that they are more focused on giving a millionaires' tax cut and cutting penalty rates than they are on dealing with dodgy directors. The government say they care about debt yet they have delivered record debt to Australia, with debt per person increasing by around $4,000 just since the coalition came to office. They say they care about the cost of living, yet they have seen real wages growth at the worst that it has been since records began. They say they care about fairness, but their tax plan would raise taxes on minimum-wage workers yet cut taxes on millionaires. There is nothing fair about doing that when inequality is the highest it has been in 75 years. They are a government which are unwilling to get tough with the strong and are always going after the weak, leaking story after story about 'welfare cheats' to tabloid newspapers, but, when it comes to tackling the scourge of phoenix activity, the government are unwilling to act despite calls for action across the political spectrum.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:10): I want to focus my questions today around the Turnbull government's support for small business, such as the extension of the instant asset write-off announced in the budget. Could the minister please outline to the chamber what economic impacts this extension will likely have on our local economy, including in Brisbane, considering the benefits that we have already witnessed from previous extensions and this policy? I understand that the measure was initiated in the 2015 budget, and it was otherwise scheduled to finish on 30 June this year. It has now been extended in the 2017-18 budget just announced last month.
Having spoken with many local small businesses, I must say that their feedback to me has been overwhelmingly positive. Local small-business owners have told me about their greater confidence and their greater willingness to invest in their businesses or to invest sooner. This is the type of positive and constructive economic activity that we should be trying to encourage, especially to the extent that it activates those economic multipliers, meaning that that cycle of greater investment, trade, consumption and therefore prosperity grows in our local economy.
As we know, Deputy Speaker, a strong small-business sector means more jobs for Australians. Small businesses are, after all, the backbone of our economy. They are the engine room for opportunities and the creation of prosperity. I have said before, maybe countless times in this place, that, if every shopfront in Australia would employ another two workers tomorrow, our unemployment rate around the nation would be zero. That would mean that the majority of young Australians, mature-aged Australians, Indigenous Australians and the disabled who are looking for work would find the dignity they want and deserve.
Of course, there is no silver bullet there. There is no single measure that is likely to cause that to happen in one fell swoop. We need to grab every opportunity that we can, whether it is opportunities like this to encourage investment, whether it is red tape reduction, whether it is tax cuts for our small-business sector, whether it is help to give jobseekers a chance and a foot in the door, whether it is the innovation agenda or it is focusing on those economic fundamentals around stability, consumer sentiment and business confidence. I consider that this measure, this proposal, is one more initiative, one more indication of this government's continued strong support for our small-business sector to grow and to deliver more and better-paying jobs—in this case, by helping them to upgrade their businesses by replacing or upgrading their machinery or their equipment. New capex means more efficiency and more productivity, and higher productivity is, after all, the only truly sustainable way to raise wages.
This could be for that new coffee machine or that new kitchen equipment or other new investments for, say, a local cafe in Paddington. I just visited the Naim cafe, in Paddington in my electorate, on Sunday. It used to be called Shouk, and it has recently been through a very successful reinvention, including its name and its menu and its facilities. Or this could be for, say, a new set of tools for a local carpenter in Albion. It could be for the great extension and expansion that is planned by the Green Beacon craft brewery in Newstead in my electorate or maybe for a hoist, say, for a local mechanic. This measure provides immediate benefits for those willing to invest in their business, and ultimately, therefore, it benefits our economy. When cash flow is king, and it really is for so many small businesses, this immediate write-off is exactly what so many small businesses need.
In my electorate of Brisbane, I understand there are approximately 28,000 small businesses that could qualify under this measure, and I would naturally encourage each and every single one of them to take advantage of this and to explore it as an investment option for them before the end of the financial year. The evidence of how this measure has been utilised in recent years is very clear to me and hopefully to everybody, and maybe the minister would like to expand on these numbers. I understand that, as of a few weeks ago, with about 60 per cent of 2015-16 returns counted, over 200,000 small businesses had taken advantage of this measure last financial year, and that is up on about 150,000 the year before that and on about 120,000 the year before that. So that is 200,000 claims, and I understand that they are about $8,500 on average. If I have done my sums right—and the minister may wish to correct me—that is $1.7 billion in total of investments under this scheme, and a significant proportion of those investments would have been made, or brought forward and made sooner, as a consequence of this government's initiatives.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16 : 15 to 16:31
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:31): I have a question about the small-business portfolio in particular. I used to run a small business. I have been a consultant for many. I managed a trade association for quite a few years. One thing I absolutely learnt in all of that time is that the single thing that is most likely to guarantee your success is that your customers are feeling confident and spending. If you do not have customers, nothing else matters. The customers need to feel that they are spending. For many years now I have been watching the growing inequality and wondering when it was going to snap, when the fact that we were sucking money away from the customer base and feeding it into profit would start to hurt because there just would not be as many people spending in order to make people wealthy. Spend money and it flows and eventually ends up in profit if we do things well. So I was wondering when it would break. I know that in the last couple of years or so there have been many economists around the world, including in bastions of radical thought like the World Bank, saying exactly that—that the inequality that we are now seeing across the world is becoming a problem.
I have watched this government through the last budgets, and there are a couple of things that concern me. I want to ask the Minister for Small Business how he responds to this. I have heard businesses from time to time—some businesses—arguing that they want to cut the wages of their staff. That is not uniform, by the way. I have heard many people say they do not want to do that. But I have never heard a business argue to cut the wages of its customers. And yet that is what we see happening in this budget.
We have seen the key measures of jobs and growth downgraded. We have seen the Turnbull government expecting 100,000 fewer jobs in our economy than they were expecting just a year ago. We have record underemployment. We have fewer hours worked per Australian than ever before. We have higher rates of casualisation and insecure work. We lost 35,000 full-time jobs last year. We have record low wages growth and inequality at an all-time high. That looks to me like we are seeing smaller numbers of workers and workers not getting the kinds of pay rises which particularly those at the lower end would spend.
We also see cuts to household income in this budget. We see cuts to family payments. One million families will be worse off. A typical family on $75,000 will be $1,000 worse off. About 70,000 new mums and their families will be worse off due to cuts to parental leave. Abolishing the energy supplement for millions of pensioners is about a billion dollars that is sucked out of the local community. Seven hundred thousand people will lose their penalty rates of up to $77 a week, and some much more. And of course we have a tax hike through the Medicare levy, which will particularly impact on the lower paid.
These people—the people who are affected by the penalty rates cuts, the families on $75,000, new mums—traditionally are on lower incomes and spend their money. They spend all of it. If they are confident, they will spend at the local hairdresser or supermarket et cetera. So, if you take the money out of that, you are actually ripping the money out of the community from the group of people that is most likely to spend it locally. Then the fruit shop does not get that money, it does not pay its staff who then go on and spend it again et cetera. The multiplier is affected as well. It is absolutely pulling money out of the pockets of customers that small business depend on.
I would like to ask the small business minister—with all the talk about jobs and growth and with all the talk about support for small business—how he responds to an economy which is seeing the money that people spend in local small businesses being reduced seemingly every month and every year. It is a very serious issue. When you go out—as I am sure you do—and talk to local businesses, the first thing they will tell you is that things are pretty tough out there at the moment because customers are not spending. If you rip this amount of money out of their customer base, what impact does that have on small business?
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:36): I applaud the Minister for Small Business for making a real difference to the businesses of Capricornia. I thank him for personally visiting Capricornia last week as part of the small business roadshow. The Minister for Small Business has shown an unprecedented commitment to genuinely help small business in my electorate of Capricornia, personally attending the small business roadshow. What a turnout! The evening hosted by the T@ble Capricorn Coast Business Community is designed to offer a unique opportunity for small businesses to interact directly with the government and learn about the government's plan for small business. The audience was highly impressed even with the ATO representative. The session also allowed for the minister and agencies to hear direct from Yeppoon businesses the current issues affecting small businesses operation.
The coalition government is genuine about addressing the challenges facing small business, the backbone of our community. It is also a sector that feels the brunt of downturns in other sectors like mining and tourism. We heard from a very diverse group of 50 people that it is fixing the basics that matters most. Those in attendance could see that the minister is genuinely focused on resolving these challenges. Already, we have seen tax cuts and extension to the instant asset write-off for small businesses and incentives to work with state and territory governments to cut red tape. The government's support for small business is all about addressing the real issues facing small business, which include cutting red tape, reducing tax, simplifying the business activity statement and levelling the playing field for small business.
The lowest small business rates since the Second World War means local businesses can reinvest to grow and create more jobs. The ATO are developing a contemporary service-orientated organisation by transforming services and the way they deal with business. The office of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman—ASBFEO—was launched on 11 March 2016. The role of ASBFEO is to advocate for small businesses and family enterprises and ensure that the government policies take into account the needs of small businesses and family enterprises. These are all geared towards making life easier for working mums and dads, supporting the local business community and creating better opportunities. The immediate business tax deduction of $20,000 for purchasing assets makes a big difference. Extending the instant asset write-off program is a highlight of the budget for small business. The measure has proved to be one of the most popular government small business incentives and encourages Australia's 3.2 million small businesses to invest in their business.
During the minister's visit, we also stopped at Almost Anything Web and Graphic Design, a web and design business in north Rockhampton, who also happens to be one of two Google partners north of Brisbane. Almost Anything Web and Graphic Design have a high turnover but the profits are marginal. They can now benefit from the increase in turnover to $10 million. They have invested in branded vehicles that are used for deliveries, meetings and promotion. They are committed to growing their business and are now looking forward to doing so without punishing red tape and restrictions.
Minister, do you expect small-business confidence to increase following decisions in the budget to extend the instant asset write-off, an incentive for the states and territories to cut more red tape, lowering taxes and increasing the small-business threshold?
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (16:40): I always delight in these sessions of consideration in detail. It reminds me a bit of the parliamentary cricket match, where you get to come in off a bit of a run and send a few down to those on the other side.
Mr McCormack: You haven't played yet!
Mr HAMMOND: The Minister, I note, has often thrown down the gauntlet and has indicated that I have not yet played, so we might use this as a bit of a warm-up. I might only come off 13 steps as opposed to my normal 24- or 25-step run-up, and I thank those opposite for their words of support.
My remarks are directed to the minister in his capacity as, perhaps, the poorer cousin of his portfolio, I have to say—that is, the consumers. We do not sit too far away from each other in question time, the minister and I, and I often hear him cry, perhaps somewhat rhetorically, 'Why do you hate small business?' He often says this. Not only am I proud to be a champion and great friend of small business, having grown up in a small business myself—my late father ran a real estate agency off the sweat of his own brow; Hammond & Co. it was called, in the South Shore Centre in Mend Street, South Perth, in Deputy Speaker Irons' electorate—but also I would like to think that those on this side are great friends of consumers.
How does that compare to the minister's track record, in relation to being an advocate for consumers? Perhaps the amount of productivity from the minister, in relation to attention focused on consumers as opposed to small business, tells the tale that we need to hear. In order to stay abreast of the portfolio not only do I constantly have my ears to the ground, in relation to stakeholders and what they require from advocates in this place, but also I regularly get the minister's email publications—press releases, speeches or transcripts of media interviews—and I go through them quite regularly. The statistics are telling.
Since his boilerplate press releases welcoming the publication of the Productivity Commission report into the ACL regulators on 12 April and the ACL review on 19 April, the minister has published on his ministerial website 37 media releases, 20 transcripts of media interviews or press conferences and five speeches. For those playing this at home, that is 62 in total. Yet a word search of all these publications reveals that only six of them include the word consumer. That is less than 10 per cent of the output of this minister being devoted to looking at any issues relevant to consumer affairs. Zero transcripts. Zero speeches.
I did raise this issue in the House a couple of weeks ago, in an MPI, and we ran a word count. The minister did go through his response by referring to the word consumer 13 times in his speech. That is 1.3 times per minute. In fairness, one of those times was when the minister was referring to himself as the minister for consumer affairs, so let us call it 12 mentions. Since that debate he has published another 10 media releases and four transcripts. Only one mentions consumers—in a joint media release with the member for Cowper about country-of-origin labelling for milk. Maybe the member for Cowper is looking to take on the member for Riverina's consumer affairs responsibilities, because it does not seem to me like the minister wants them. And this is not crying over spilt milk, I will have you know.
Having handed out a few brick bats to the minister, perhaps a bouquet—which relates to a bipartisan approach to one of Labor's long-held policies that we took to the election, that I am pleased to see the minister took up with gusto. That is in relation to Labor's policy of increasing maximum penalties for anti-consumer conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. And doesn't it all give us a warm glow when those reach across the aisle and accept our policies—it is a victory for commonsense.
The questions I have for the minister simply relate to those penalties. What is the time frame for implementing the increased penalties? Given the 2009 COAG agreement with state governments about the Australian Consumer Law, is the minister's budget announcement predicated on the hope that state consumer affairs ministers will agree? Has the minister sought any agreement from the ministers of the states? And has it been forthcoming? I have a final question for the minister, as I finish my long run, on the fifth ball of my six-ball over, and that is whether the increase in the maximum penalties for anticonsumer conduct will be accompanied by an increase in the ACCC's litigation budget? (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): I do thank the member for Perth for not talking about his tennis career as well! The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (16:45): I will go through in some detail each of the points that members have raised and endeavour, in the time allotted, to get through them. Phoenixing, as raised by the member for Fenner, is a scourge on the Australian economy, and the government is taking action—real action—to stamp it out. Too many times I have heard of cases where small businesses, particularly in the construction industry, are not paid by their employer and that employer then goes under, but then the same defaulting company, under a different name, springs up, either in the same state or elsewhere, to continue operating, minus their debts. It is not fair. It is not on. Phoenixing is un-Australian, and it is not fair to everyone who is working hard every day to get a job done—particularly in the construction sector: they get a job up to lock-up stage, sometimes, and then lose everything; they lose all that hard work and do not get paid.
In February 2017, the Phoenix Taskforce provided a submission to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services on law reform to deter phoenixing activity, including the introduction of director identification numbers. Also in February, a joint paper from the University of Melbourne and Monash Business School on phoenixing was released. As you would expect, the government is carefully considering its options on both reports. It will respond in due course with a package of reforms.
To the member for Fenner: I note that he has finally caught up on reading this government's phoenixing agenda and has flagged the support of Labor for recommendations in these papers, and I look forward to working constructively with the opposition as these particular bills pass through, hopefully, the parliament. I note that the member for Fenner quoted Master Builders Australia's Denita Wawn. I would like to quote her now:
The Budget's small business measures will particularly benefit the building and construction industry which is 98% made up of small businesses. The building industry is a big winner from the extension of the accelerated depreciation measures by one year and to businesses turning over up to $10 million.
That is from her budget night media release, and I commend that to the member for Fenner.
To the member for Parramatta, who asked me about the budget, feeling confident and spending: yes, small businesses in her area are very genuinely excited about the instant asset write-off. In fact, Alana Laliotitis—whose Kouzina Greco restaurant I visited with the Minister for Defence, Senator Marise Payne—said that the new equipment that she purchased as a result of this program 'helped immensely'. She said: 'It was necessary for us to produce good food and for staff morale.' And it actually had a chain reaction, because she bought new kitchen equipment from a local supplier and she had it installed by a local tradie. So that created a chain reaction of positivity throughout the member for Parramatta's electorate. I would recommend that the member goes and visits that restaurant and talks to Alana about how positive it is, and, while the member is at it, she could talk to a number of other small business owners in the high street, in the CBD, to see how the small business instant asset write-off extension, the lowering of the company tax rates and all the other good measures in the budget—a budget of fairness, opportunity and security—have helped businesses in the member for Parramatta's electorate.
The member for Brisbane talked about the instant asset write-off. There are 31,775 small businesses in his electorate. I visited his electorate for a national business roadshow forum on 6 April, and there, too, I had that feeling of positivity. He talked about a carpenter in Albion and a brewery in Newstead. Yes, I can assure him that all those businesses and many more—indeed, the almost 32,000 small businesses in his electorate; what a great number!—are going to benefit from the measures announced recently in the budget. How good is that!
We also heard from the member for Capricornia. I had a great visit to her electorate just last week. There is so much positivity there. Jason and Yolanda from Almost Anything, a graphic design business that employs 13 people, have used the instant asset write-off to purchase two new vehicles.
Lastly, the member for Perth might have talked about cricket, but he is no Wally Hammond. Labor often criticised the government for not moving faster on consumer issues. That is all well and good, but it again shows that Labor does not know its own process. It is a process they created.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Any amendment to the Consumer Law is a direct result of Labor's intergovernmental agreement. They were in power when this process was put in place. I agree, we could do things faster, but we are restricted to Labor's processes, and so that is the restriction— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): I call the member for Kingsford Smith and remind the member for Perth to let the member for Kingsford Smith be heard in silence.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:50): The member for Perth might not be a Wally Hammond but he is certainly a Dennis Lillee, I think. So I will take that into consideration. He is one of Perth's and Western Australia's finest, I might add. But I digress.
Of course, budgets are about priorities and, when it comes to low- to middle-income Australians in particular, this budget is all about the wrong priorities for Australia. In terms of the tax arrangements that are outlined in this year's budget, we have seen that millionaires will get a tax cut of about $16,000. But an average family on about $60,000 a year will pay $325 more tax in two years time as a result of this budget. Cuts are being made in a number of areas, particularly to education programs, most notably to schools funding but also to the TAFE sector and to the early childhood development sector, that will make it tougher for families. Pensioners are going to lose the energy supplement. It will make life much more difficult for them, particularly in an environment of rising electricity prices.
The issue that I want to concentrate on today is something that is near and dear to the hearts of many in my electorate of Kingsford Smith and, indeed, to most families throughout Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane these days. It is the issue of housing affordability. There is no more fundamental human right than the right to a roof over your head, particularly in those vulnerable years when you are raising a family. But, for many in Australia now, the cost of living is becoming so prohibitive that they are unable to afford to buy their own home. Indeed, many are unable to afford to rent a home. State Liberal governments are cutting back investment in new public housing, and public housing waiting lists are exploding. In the electorate that I represent, the public housing waiting list is eight to 10 years long, and it is getting worse because this government will not invest in public housing. In fact, we have actually seen this government cut funding for investment in public housing.
House price costs throughout the country are rising at an alarming rate every day. In the three years from 2014 to 2017, the cost of homes in Malabar in the electorate that I represent rose by a whopping 46.3 per cent, adding the $365,000 to their value. That equates to about $580 every single day.
Mr Leeser interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Berowra.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: Up the road in Coogee, it is $592 every day. In Botany it increased by around 35 per cent over the last three years.
Unfortunately, when it comes to housing affordability, this Turnbull government sits on its hands. It is doing nothing. They talk about increasing supply. Liberal governments at the state and national level are talking about the importance of increasing supply, but they are not dealing with the crux of the issue, which is demand and, in particular, the massive tax concessions that exist in Australia at the moment for wealthy investors through negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. That mob over there on the government benches are all about funding priorities. They are about making sure that you have measures in the budget to fund your priorities. Yet, when the capital gains tax discount was introduced by former Treasurer Peter Costello on behalf of the Howard government, it was unfunded in the budget. There was no measure it all to fund this commitment that reduced revenue by quite a large amount in the budget.
It is the view of the Labor Party that unless you reform negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability in this country.
Government members interjecting—
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: I will take that interjection. They say that it is nurses and people that are negative gearing.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Order! I remind the member for Mackellar that he was warned in the chamber.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: It is well known that over 50 per cent of the negative gearing tax concessions go to the top 20 per cent of income earners, and we are talking about predominantly surgeons. The greatest number of negative gearers in this country are anaesthetists, and these are the people and the tax concession system that the mob over here want to defend. Unless you are tackling negative gearing and restricting it in the manner that the Labor Party proposes to to ensure that negative gearing is only available for new investment properties, and you reduce the capital gains tax discount by 50 per cent, the situation where first home buyers are priced out of the market will continue. So my question to those opposite is: why will you not adopt Labor's sensible approach to negative gearing and capital gains tax, restrict these outrageous tax concessions and make housing more affordable for more Australians? (Time expired)
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:55): Can I just say how unfortunate it is that the previous speaker did not hang around to do another five minutes, because we are still waiting to hear what the Labor Party's plan is around housing affordability. In particular, I would love to see the modelling of housing affordability. At what price point do you want people's housing assets to be? The other side are silent, because they know the truth. They know that their only argument is that they want to reduce the asset value of people who own houses. What political party, in today's day and age, honestly goes to the people and says, 'We understand how important housing is to you, and our policy is that the value of your houses drops'? That is the Labor Party policy: drop the value of your assets. What we are yet to hear is exactly to what value they want those assets dropped. So they want to kill the housing industry. They want to penalise those mums and dads who have worked hard and bought a house. They are clearly saying they want the asset value of those properties to drop, but they have not come clean by saying how much they want it dropped.
As for the idea of even mentioning energy prices, I am a Queenslander, and we have about 4½ per cent renewables in our state, and the Labor Party's plan is to increase it to 50 per cent. We have the Queensland state government price-gouging, because we are talking about government owned enterprises in that marketplace. Every day, mums and dads are again being penalised with electricity prices because the Labor Party know they cannot run their finances, so they price-gouge so that they can feed their own coffers.
As for negative gearing, Labor's negative gearing plan only penalises those people who are prepared to take a risk and build their own enterprise. It is counterproductive to a free market economy, but it is absolutely consistent with big government—a big government Labor Party that wants to set not only high renewable energy prices but also the housing prices and that will penalise everyday Australians for wanting to invest and take a risk. That is what the Labor Party has to offer.
I want to say how honoured I feel as a member of the coalition—as a member of a party that understands that it is small business that keeps this economy running. On the Sunshine Coast alone, there are over 37,000 small businesses, and every single one of those businesses will enjoy a tax cut. Not one of them will lose out. And did you know that every single one of them will now, for another 12-month period, have access to the instant asset write-off? They were not going to have that. The Labor Party might oppose these measures for business, but of course the coalition deliver.
Of course, this is not the only thing we are doing for small business. This is the party—this is the government—that has reformed competition policy. This is the party that is extending the GST to low-value imported goods to ensure we have a level playing field. This is the party that is determined, and the government that is determined, to rip out red tape. There is only so much the federal government can do. Yet, what we have seen from this government, and what we have seen from this minister, is a package of $300 million to incentivise states and territories to rip out their red tape, which paves the way for small business to do what they do best and what they do best is create jobs. They create jobs in what is now, thanks to this government, a far more competitive, free market economy, where small businesses not only in metro areas but in the regions have a fair go. It is due to that philosophy of free enterprise and the policies embedded in this budget and thanks to this minister that they will have that benefit.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Employment Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $2,182,014,000
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (17:01): Thank you for the opportunity to examine the budget that has been handed down by the government and the assumptions that are contained therein. In particular, I am interested in looking at some of the figures that go to forecasts for wage growth and the forecast for fewer jobs over the forward estimates compared with the budget of last year. Firstly, can I go to wage growth. What we do know is that we are seeing the lowest wage growth in this country for at least 20 years. A few weeks ago, the ABS came out and confirmed what I think most Australians already know—that is, wage growth is falling in real terms. People's wages are going backwards. Effectively, there is a wage recession in this country. As a result, people are struggling to make ends meet. They are struggling to pay for essentials. They are struggling to pay for the mortgage, the rent, to put petrol in the car and to provide for their families. They are feeling the stress that is clearly the result of falling wages in real terms in this country.
We are aware that the government, despite the fact that wages are falling, wants to continue to support a decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates, and we see tax arrangements changing to the extent that people earning a million dollars will receive a tax cut on 1 July of $16,400. That contrasts quite starkly with what will happen for other workers. Indeed, workers earning under $87,000 will receive a tax increase. So at the end of this month, retail workers will see their taxes go up and their wages go down at a time when wage growth is the lowest in more than 20 years.
Off the back of that, the budget forecasts that wage growth will actually reach 3¾ per cent at the end of the forward estimates. I am somewhat sceptical about that assumption. Having seen wages flatline over the life of this government and to now see the forecast in wage growth at 3¾ per cent over the forward estimates, it is somewhat of a surprise. I think, therefore, it is incumbent on the government to explain how it is that wages will increase to such an extent, given the recent years of wage decline. This is a very important question. It goes not only to whether Australian workers should believe the government that their wages may start to improve in real terms but also to whether, in fact, the government can rely upon the revenue that they will receive based on the forecasts contained within the budget. If the budget forecasts are wrong—if they are inflated and optimistic, as many, many commentators suggest—then not only do we have a situation where workers are not going to see the improvements to wage growth but we are also going to see a problem with revenue for the government and therefore a real challenge for the government to balance the budget, as they say they will, in the future.
On that basis, I ask the minister who is acting on behalf of the employment minister: why is it that the government is so confident that the wage growth forecasts, as contained within the budget, are correct? What evidence does the government have, beyond what is contained within the budget, to suggest that these forecasts are not unrealistic, as many commentators have chosen to conclude?
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:06): I have been a builder in the construction industry for 30 years. I have worked as a carpenter, an adjudicator and a barrister. As a barrister, I produced three independent reports between 2013 and 2015 for the then Queensland government into the reforms of the Queensland Building Services Authority, security of payment and private certification in the Building Act.
One of the most important issues facing small businesses in the construction sector is that of security of payment for subcontractors. The 2015 Senate inquiry into insolvency in construction found:
In 2013-14 alone, ASIC figures indicate that insolvent businesses in the construction industry had, at the very least, a total shortfall of liabilities over assets accessible by their creditors of $1.625 billion. Others who have analysed the data place the amount at $2.7 billion.
It also found that the industry is burdened every year by nearly $3 billion in unpaid debts, including subcontractor payments. In my own state of Queensland, we have seen the terrible outcomes for subcontractors of failures in security of payment. Since 2013, construction company collapses may have seen as much as $200 million worth of debts left owed to as many as 3,500 subcontractors. In recent months, the collapses of Cullen Group Australia, Batir Construction and Bloomer Constructions have left many tradies struggling to keep afloat. We must do something about security of payment for subcontractors.
We have seen what the wrong approach looks like with the Queensland state government's proposed legislation to impose project bank accounts on all projects between $1 million and $10 million by 2019. Every project of this size will have to have its own project bank account, or PBA—a ring-fenced trust account established and managed by the head contractor. The principal will pay into the trust account, while the prime contractor and first-tier subcontractors will be paid simultaneously from that account. This may sound like a positive idea at first blush, but this move will result in no greater security of payment. Instead, it will form a statewide brake on growth and a catalyst for higher prices in what is already an over-regulated market.
Building projects of a value of over $1 million often involve multiple tiers of many subcontractors. It is those further down the chain—the self-employed tradies and family businesses—who lose out first when there are problems and are most vulnerable to such cashflow problems. The project bank account expressly excludes subcontractors beyond the first tier. Further, it is the head contractor that submits the payment claim to the principal, and the principal or superintendent that submits the progress payment instruction to the bank. The PBA will therefore do little to protect subcontractors down the contractual chain from unscrupulous practices. If the principal chooses not to pay enough money into the PBA because of perhaps a dispute between the principal and the head contractor, the funds will simply not be there to pay either the head contractor or their subcontractors. If a dispute arises—and that is how I used to make my money—between a subcontractor and the head contractor or principal about the payments due, as it often does, the PBA will be of no value. These disputes will continue to be resolved using the security-of-payment legislation, but in the meantime no payment will be made from the PBA to any other party down the contractual chain.
So the PBA will do little to assist. It is very likely that the scheme will actually increase costs for consumers, create significant risk and administrative complexity for head contractors and perhaps even lead to more insolvencies. Under PBAs, builders are going to face a greater need to source finance, overdrafts and industry creditors but will see some of the cash flow they could previously rely on to reassure their potential creditors reclassified as money held in trust. Further, the necessity of operating a PBA system on its own will increase head contractors' costs, literally thousands of complex new trust accounts will need to be created and administered to meet that new requirement, and most head contractors will need to bring in outside help from expensive professional service companies. So we know what the wrong answer is. The Turnbull government has consulted widely, listened to subcontractors and considered these issues carefully. So I ask the minister: what is the federal government doing to better ensure security of payment for subcontractors in the building industry?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (17:11): Just so I can get this correct—the minister is going to answer questions at the end of this; is that right?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:11): I am. The call will go back and forth.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (17:11): Okay. That is fine. The other point I touched on but would like to go to in more detail is the fall, as forecast in the budget, of jobs in this country. As I said, the budget forecasts 100,000 fewer jobs over the forward estimates when compared with last year's budget. We have already had a stubbornly high unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent, so there are some real issues that any government would confront in dealing with the unemployment statistics—the significantly high unemployment rate and the highest underemployment number in our history, with over 1.1 million Australians looking for more work but not being able to find it. You add those 1.1 million underemployed Australians to the 730,000 unemployed and you have got 1.8 million workers in this country either not being able to find any work or not being able to find sufficient work. I ask the minister to consider, in light of that, what it is that the government is doing to ensure there are more opportunities for prospective employees, jobseekers, or indeed part-time employees who are seeking more work so that they can find work? What is it that the government seeks to do?
As I said earlier, we have a situation where wages are falling and hours of work are declining. Aggregate hours of work over the last few months have fallen in net terms, and yet there seem to be, at the same time, improvements to profits. That is a good thing—it is good to see companies profiting, and indeed we applaud and welcome that—but we are concerned about the disconnect between profits of companies on the one hand and the fact that wages are falling and unemployment is not falling on the other hand. I refer to an article by the economics correspondent Adam Creighton that was published recently. He says:
Company profits rose more than 30 per cent in the year to March, the best result of 33 years, while wages rose only 1.5 per cent, leaving the share of wages in national income at 51.5 per cent — the equal lowest level since the early 1960s. A lower share doesn't mean most workers are worse off in absolute terms, but wage growth has been below consumer price inflation for six months, suggesting living standards are falling.
Mr Creighton and other commentators are pointing to this disconnect between, on one hand, good results for company profits and, on the other hand, wages falling in real terms. Given that the government now wants to consider things through the prism of fairness—or so it seems ostensibly—what is the government seeking to do to ensure that workers are beneficiaries of productivity improvements or increased profits? At the moment, it is apparent that wages have fallen since the life of this government and they continue to fall. They are going to fall again on 1 July as a result of the first stage of the cuts to penalty rates as a result of the decision of the Fair Work Commission. The government does not seem to be seeking to doing anything to arrest this decline in any way nor does the government seem to have any plan to provide opportunities for work, given that the budget's own figures forecast a 100,000 drop in employment figures over the course of the forward estimates.
If I can just remind the minister of my questions. Firstly, what has happened to wage growth? Why is it going backwards and what are you doing about it? Secondly, why is it that there are so few job opportunities? Thirdly, why is there such great growth in profits and such a fall in wages?
Mr IRONS (Swan) (17:16): I welcome Minister Pyne to the Federation Chamber. It is great to have him here representing Minister Cash, another fantastic Western Australia. Actually, Minister Cash was in my electorate of Swan last week. It was an opportunity for her to tour the Belmont Business Park and to meet with some of the small and medium businesses in the area which employ many people in my electorate and more broadly across Perth. The member for Gorton will probably remember that the first time I met him was in Belmont many years ago. Minister, you might wonder what Minister Cash was doing in Belmont. It was to do with round 1 of the regional grants program. The coalition government is providing a $6 million grant to the city of Belmont for a business regeneration program, which is halfway through. We were fortunate enough to visit the company Paull & Warner, who have recently moved into the area. They are a smash repair business that has gone high-tech. We also visited KONE Elevators—their Western Australian office—and Alvin Brodie from Bondall, a concreting company in the construction industry.
Minister, today is a great opportunity for us in this consideration in detail to talk on another area of employment—that is, the ParentsNext program. The ParentsNext program helps parents with young children to plan and prepare for future employment. It provides personalised assistance which, first and foremost, recognises their role as a parent. As a custodial single parent to my son, I understand how important it is for parents to put their children first and how difficult it can be to juggle work and family commitments at the same time. ParentsNext has been operating since April 2016 in 10 of the most disadvantaged locations in Australia and has provided pre-employment assistance to almost 15,000 parents already. The current locations are Logan and Rockhampton in Queensland; Playford in South Australia; Bankstown, Wyong and Shellharbour in New South Wales; Greater Shepparton and Hume in Victoria; Burnie in Tasmania; and Kwinana in Western Australia. Parents in the program meet regularly with the ParentsNext provider to set employment or education goals and work towards these goals. The ParentsNext provider helps parents to access services in their local community, which will help them to achieve their goals. Some of the services that parents might access through the program include education, training, parenting courses, counselling, health services, child care, housing services, financial management and language, and literacy and numeracy classes.
We know that the program is having a deep and positive impact on the lives of many parents and young children. More than 1,000 parents in the program have commenced in employment and another 6,000 parents have commenced in education and training. That is why I am so pleased that the ParentsNext program, which has been expanded to 20 new regions, includes my electorate of Swan. We have heard stories about women in the program recovering confidence after emerging from violent relationships, a father who found an unexpected and unlikely role as a playgroup program leader and people who have started their own businesses or visibly gained confidence from this program.
One example of this is a lady who came to Australia on a humanitarian visa five years ago. I will not disclose her name, but she has two young children, aged three and six, and was eligible for the ParentsNext program. As you can imagine, in her first interview with the ParentsNext provider she was nervous. She told the provider that she really wanted to work and would be happy to do any kind of job; however, deep down, her dream was to become a nurse but she felt that her poor English would prevent her from realising this dream. The ParentsNext provider discussed some of the pathways to becoming a nurse that were available to her and provided her with a lot of confidence by reassuring her that her English was good. But she still lacked confidence about her English, so the provider researched courses with more flexible English requirements. They found a course for a certificate III in health service assistance that met this lady's needs. As you would expect, she was thrilled that this course provided the opportunity to progress to a diploma in nursing.
Finding the course was an important start but, as all of us do sometimes, she still needed support. ParentsNext provided her with assistance for the course enrolment, preparation, finding an appropriate local childcare service and applying for childcare assistance. I understand she also received help to locate her family's lost visa information, which was required for the course enrolment, through Visa Entitlement Verification Online. When asked about her ParentsNext experience, this lady said she was thrilled with it and would definitely recommend it to the other women who needed it.
Minister, how does the government propose to build on the successes of the ParentsNext initiative and, particularly, how can those successes be applied to Western Australia and my electorate of Swan?
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (17:21): The former speaker mentioned Wyong. Wyong is my home town, where my family has lived for six generations, and it is really tough. At the moment, youth unemployment on the Central Coast and in my electorate sits at about 16.6 per cent—three points above the national average. If we then unpack that further, we see that there is significant underemployment. About 30 per cent of people aged 15 to 24 are also looking for more hours. This is coupled with drastic cuts in apprentices in training and also significant cuts to the local TAFE in Wyong on Porter Street. My brother Eddie was one of the young apprentices who was able to do his training through the TAFE there. In the past it was seen as a really good place for local people—young people, particularly—to be able to get a start and have a career and a good job.
In my community, one in four workers commute outside of the Central Coast each day for work. They spend a minimum of four hours commuting each day. I am also concerned that, in pockets of my community, families are living below the poverty line. In some pockets of my community, families are living on $600 per week. Recently we supported Maybe Baby, an initiative to help those families in need, particularly coming into winter. But I am really concerned that youth unemployment is stubbornly high, sitting at the moment at 16.6 per cent—three percentage points about the national average—and that one in four workers in my community are being forced to work outside of the community each day, commuting a minimum of four hours each day just to get to and from their job. Also, regarding wage parity on the Central Coast, a lot of people are forced to commute because the wages are not the same on the coast as they are in Sydney or Newcastle. This is coupled with so many families living in desperate need.
My background is in health and health care. As soon as someone's job is insecure, it has an effect on their health and wellbeing. So many people have spoken to me about the impact of job insecurity on their wellbeing and that of their families. As someone who has spent 20 years working in mental health, I have seen what job insecurity means to people. A lot of people in my community are less than three pays away from defaulting on their mortgage, losing their accommodation and living in desperate need.
My question to the minister is: what is your jobs plan for the Central Coast, what do you have to say to the young people in my community who cannot get a start, who cannot get a local job and who cannot get the training they need to get a start, and to those people who have commuted for 10, 20 and 30 years to Sydney in order to support their families?
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (17:25): Firstly, I would like to welcome and thank the minister for joining us in the Federation Chamber today. I acknowledge that this is not, technically, your own portfolio but we appreciate you representing it here today to answer questions and to enable us to speak directly about the aspects of the employment portfolio that affect the constituents of Dunkley.
As the youngest member of the House of Representatives I hear from many constituents about their concerns related to youth unemployment. Dunkley is an incredibly diverse electorate and statistics there reflect trends observed right across Australia. Young people everywhere struggle to combat unemployment and, increasingly, underemployment. Fifteen- to 24-year-olds, in particular, experience unemployment at a rate approximately double that of the rest of the working-age population.
Often, people remark on the fact that apart from the retail and hospitality industries, which have more of a focus on the youngest of the youth cohort, employers regularly demand experience in an industry before employing an individual. Yet people are often unable to obtain this experience, because of the lack of avenues to do so. I am frequently, therefore, asked how someone starting out in the workforce is able to get experience in an industry for the first time.
It is for this reason that, when I heard of the Youth Jobs PaTH: Prepare, Trial, Hire legislation, I was very enthusiastic about it. This program will provide young people with the experience and avenues needed to obtain meaningful employment and avoid welfare dependency. Currently, unemployment and underemployment are concerningly high. My concern for Dunkley residents is that this can affect self-confidence, particularly, among young people who are unemployed or underemployed. The parallel phenomenon of welfare dependency is crippling for self-esteem and takes away the independence that people work so hard for these days.
If we can help people out of the debilitating cycle of applying for jobs, being rejected due to a lack of experience and, then, needing to claim welfare payments, which require them to apply for more jobs, we should embrace the opportunity without hesitation. Despite the phrase first rising to fame 52 years ago—18 years before I was born—'We are talking about my generation,' this is part of generation Y and most of generation Z, people who are unlike me, my wife, Grace, and many of our friends. People I have spoken to in my community about the Youth Jobs PaTH Program have all reacted positively to the increased access to employment, training and opportunities this would provide to young people.
As I mentioned in the House when I spoke on this bill, a constituent of mine in Langwarrin recently was in the news for having applied for over 200 jobs but had been rejected each time. Young people want to work. They want a job, but systemic barriers in many industries are preventing them from accessing work. There is plenty of evidence that lots of people are trying but are being knocked back because they have not had the chance to develop job skills or get experience in the industry, or have not been able to find someone willing to give them a go.
With these objectives in mind, Minister, could you please elaborate on the reception of the Youth Jobs PaTH Program but particularly from employers and industry leaders that the government has spoken to? Do they feel similarly about the program and do they believe that the additional support provided will help them access a previously inaccessible and willing sector of the workforce? What feedback have they provided regarding the projected outcomes and implementation?
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I was expecting the minister to rise. If he is not rising—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Yes, we do go back and forth but at some point I want to hear the minister answer a question. There is no reason that we cannot interchange and we ask a question—you can, actually, answer some questions.
Mr Pyne: We used to do it that way but Joel Fitzgibbon made such a fuss about it—
Mr Brendan O'Connor: I am just making the point. We will alternate and you will wait until the end. Is that right?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I am calling the member for Chifley.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:29): The first question I wanted to ask in the Employment portfolio relates to the Employment Fund. A billion dollars is sitting there that is supposed to be used to aid jobseekers in improving their chances for employment. The Employment Fund—a billion dollars—is supposed to be there for jobactive providers to be able to draw down and invest in a jobseeker when they detect an area where they can either get their skills or training improved or deal with any other hurdle that may be inhibiting them from getting work. At the moment, we have unemployment that is tracking roughly the same as what it was when the global financial crisis was here nearly 10 years ago. The Turnbull government has a $1 billion fund, and so far, 30 per cent of the way in, only 15 per cent of that Employment Fund has actually been used to improve the ability of jobseekers to get work. That 15 per cent translates to just over $170 million. This fund is supposed to be used to improve those jobseekers' chance of getting a job. Instead of having the spectacle that we saw today, when the Minister for Human Services thought it was okay to slander an entire population within one of the biggest cities in Western Sydney and try to point fingers at people, why are they not looking at their own failures and making this Employment Fund, which is supposed to get people into work and remove any barrier that is stopping people from getting work, work better?
I have a series of questions that I wanted to put to the minister as to whether or not they will be able to answer them or whether they have identified anything that will be able to rectify the flaws at the heart of the way in which the Employment Fund has been structured and utilised. When we asked why the money was being left in government coffers instead of being used to help jobseekers, the deputy secretary of the Department of Employment on 29 May said, 'The jobactive providers expend the money, and they are asked to do that based on their assessment of the needs of the jobseekers,' yet the jobactive providers are saying that there have been so many hurdles and so many limits as to how they use it. But in actual fact the question comes back to: why isn't the government reviewing? Why isn't the fund being used? Why can't the jobactive providers access the funds in a way that will provide targeted assistance to get people jobs? Will the government commit to help jobseekers find work by spending the money set aside in the $1 billion Employment Fund for training, preparation and support? Secondly, why hasn't the government made changes to the Employment Fund requirements so jobactive providers can better support jobseekers with that resource?
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:33): It is always a pleasure to be able to stand in this place on behalf of the people of Goldstein, represent them and raise the questions that matter to them. One of the key issues that are raised with me regularly is from constituents, particularly those of mature age who are seeking employment opportunities because their previous employment may no longer be relevant or they may be seeking a different stage in their career, including a shift towards part-time work and making sure they are in the best position that they can be to secure employment to support their lives, to reduce their dependence on their superannuation and to be able to continue to enjoy the benefits and dignity that come with work. That is why, in the end, they are Liberals, and that is why I am so proud to represent them, because they understand those fundamental and important concepts of individual and personal responsibility.
These issues are particularly close to my heart because previously, in my former capacity as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, I spent time working with the former Age Discrimination Commissioner, Susan Ryan, who was—shall we say—of a different political persuasion to mine but nonetheless a very good woman whom I have very high regard for. Former Commissioner Ryan ran an inquiry that produced a report called Willing to work: national inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with a disability, which was dealing specifically with the issues around age discrimination facing people who are older seeking work. I was very proud to support her with her important work in that space.
My concern, in that inquiry as it is now, is what the government is doing to support and assist those people of mature age to seek employment. What programs, Minister, are available to ensure that people of mature age are able to find a job and are then able to keep a job, because that is so important to their life to be able to support themselves and their sense of purpose of life? What support is the government providing in this budget to support mature-age workers so that they can continue to take responsibility for themselves, continue to contribute to our community and be part of the success story of this great nation?
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:35): Just over a year ago, a young bloke on a Work for the Dole site—
Government members interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: If you want to make light of a young bloke dying on one of your worksites, by all means you can explain why you find that funny. Over a year ago, this young person died on a Work for the Dole site. There was an internal review done by the Department of Employment. It was finished in September and it went to the minister. Despite repeated requests that that report be made public so that people could be given an assurance that Work for the Dole sites are safer, at no time has that been done. At the same time, there was an internally conducted broader review about Work for the Dole safety by Ernst & Young, brought in by the Department of Employment. They checked out all the Work for the Dole sites. Over 200 sites were audited. And what did they find? Over 30 per cent of those sites were not meeting expectations on safety.
We had a young person die, and no report was provided as to what happened in Toowoomba—none. The reason offered is that the Queensland workplace authorities are conducting their own review and the Turnbull government want to wait for that review to be released before they respond. But why can't you give some sort of detail about the steps taken, not necessarily referring to the incident itself but giving an assurance that things are being done more safely? Then, when you get another consultant's report that comes out and says there are problems and safety expectations are not being met, you still do not provide a ministerial statement that says, 'This is where we're at right now in terms of making it safer, and when the Queensland state report comes out we will provide a more detailed report as to what is going on.' Nothing has been provided whatsoever.
Here is where the problem is: the government force people to go into a program knowing that there are safety issues. They force young people to go into that program. Here is the second problem: this program is tanking under this government. Between 80 and 90 per cent of people who go through that program do not end up with a full-time job three months after they have finished the Work for the Dole program. Why? No-one can explain why this incredibly low success rate is happening. A high failure rate is occurring under their watch, and no steps are taken to fix it. We get told in the budget, 'We're going to "refocus" it.' And what happens? What we find out through estimates is that there will be less money and fewer places. There are no answers as to what will be done to make Work for the Dole work.
Work for the Dole itself has operated under both political parties when they were in government, both Labor and Liberal. It is an important activation measure to ensure that people are going through and building up their work experience and job skills so that they can get work. But under this government it is failing. It is unsafe. There are serious concerns about whether or not safety expectations are being met. People are forced to go through it. They are not getting jobs at the end of it.
Frankly, a cynic would think that, in cutting the number of places, the government are more interested in a statistical ploy: if they have fewer places but they get similar outcomes, it will actually look like they are putting more people into work as a result of Work for the Dole. This is not a game. This should be about providing people with genuine skills that will ensure that they get a job at the end of it. If the government are saying that they want to see people get work instead of again pointing fingers at people that are not getting work, show us what you are doing to fix it up.
Our questions are: will the government actually be honest about why their jobs programs are failing and what steps they are taking to fix them up? When will they commit to fixing Work for the Dole and improving job outcomes for participants other than by engaging in cheap statistical games to make themselves look better with the outcome instead of fundamentally reforming the system?
Why commit to a Work for the Dole refocus that does not even help Australians actually find work? When can the family of the young bloke who died on a Work for the Dole worksite in Toowoomba in April 2016 get any kind of answer out of this government as to why they had systems that were not meeting expectations? Can the government give assurance to the other people going through the program that they are going through a safe program?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:40): I appreciate the opportunity to comment, in the time that is remaining, on the various questions that have been raised with me by participants on both sides of the House, including the shadow minister, the member for Gorton; members of my own party; and the member for Chifley.
I might deal with the member for Chifley's issue first, because it involves the tragic death of a young man, Mr Joshua Park-Fing, through no fault of his own, in April 2016 at the Toowoomba Showgrounds, as a member of the Work for the Dole program that was at that time in operation there. I am advised not to comment on the specific details of the accident while an investigation is still currently underway. The matter was reported immediately to the police and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, being the relevant regulatory authority. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland is currently still conducting an investigation into the accident and of course has the support of Minister Cash's Department of Employment. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland has not yet provided a firm date for finalisation of its investigation.
The Department of Employment has investigated those matters that fall within its role as the program owner, including compliance with the deed requirements by the jobactive provider. It is apparent that the Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation may cover matters that are also subject to the department's report. At this stage, it would not be prudent to comment on the details of the incidents or to release that information about the incident before those investigations have been finalised. The Department of Employment has written to the provider, outlining a range of actions required to ensure jobseeker safety in Work for the Dole activities, and I am advised that the program that was being conducted at the Toowoomba Showgrounds was immediately suspended and has not been resumed.
In a wider sense, the member for Chifley asks about what the government is doing about making sure that work health and safety arrangements for Work for the Dole are in place. I can assure him and all members of the House that the government takes workplace safety as seriously as the Labor Party or any other political party in this place does. Obviously it is an area where sometimes terrible accidents do occur, as happened in Toowoomba, and all of us would be united in extending our sympathies to Joshua's family in what must have been a very traumatic experience that will live with them for the rest of their lives.
Work health and safety is a priority for the Work for the Dole program, and the work health and safety arrangements are carefully considered in the design and implementation of the program. There are clear expectations set out to ensure all the parties meet their work health and safety obligations. Providers have to ensure there is a safe system of work in place throughout the life of any Work for the Dole activity. A risk assessment must be conducted on the work health and safety of each Work for the Dole activity. That is done by the Work for the Dole coordinator or the jobactive provider that sources the activity. Risk assessments must be conducted by a competent person, defined by the Model Work Health and Safety Regulations as being 'a person who has acquired through training, qualification or experience the knowledge and skills to carry out the task'. In addition, providers must conduct an assessment for each jobseeker referred to a Work for the Dole place, and host organisations also have work health and safety obligations. Of course, that would be the case no matter who was in government, either the coalition or Labor. I know that the previous government did support the Work for the Dole program. While the numbers of people who took part in the Work for the Dole program did plummet during that time, it was one of the programs that survived from the Howard era.
In the last minute that I have remaining, unless I am given permission by the opposition to continue, I would like to deal with some of the other issues that have been raised with me. The member for Gorton asked questions about the slow wages growth, as he described it, and asked for information about the forecasts that Treasury has provided and whether we have confidence in those forecasts.
Of course the government has absolute confidence in the forecasts provided by Treasury in the budget. The wage rise that was recently announced by the Fair Work Commission, on 6 June 2017, to apply from 1 July 2017 is actually above the wages growth figure for the whole economy. The wage price index is 1.9 per cent over the year to the March quarter of 2017, and wages growth is forecast by the Treasury to be 2½ per cent in 2017. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The minister has asked for an extension of time. Is it the will of the chamber that the minister have an extension of time?
Mr PYNE: I thank the chamber for allowing me to continue. The government does have confidence in its growth forecasts. Of course, we would all prefer wages growth to be higher than it has been. We are experiencing situations similar to those that have occurred in other Western democracies and economies around the world.
I would remind the member for Gorton, who has been here some time, that in fact wages growth was 19.8 per cent over the period of the Howard government. I picked that figure out from my memory, so it may be wrong, but I think that is pretty close to the mark. During the Keating-Hawke period, however, wages growth was less than two per cent—1.9 per cent over that period versus 19.8 per cent. In the boom years of the Howard government, apparently the Howard government—and Labor would paint us as not being the friends of the worker—were in fact the government that delivered exponential wages growth because of the combination of our policies. There were of course good policies in the Hawke and Keating period which the then opposition, both the Peacock-led opposition and the Howard-led opposition, supported. But I can say that, if you line up the two records of Labor and the coalition, our record during the Howard period far surpasses the record of the Labor Party.
The member for Gorton also talked about penalty rates. This is one of the most wonderful attempts at chutzpah from the Labor Party that even I have seen in my period in parliament, because it was the member for Gorton himself who very eloquently, in my view, on 15 February 2016—so not that long ago—said:
Labor believes that the FWC—
the Fair Work Commission—
is the appropriate body to consider these matters and it should be left alone by the Liberals to do just that, conduct its business as the independent umpire.
And of course, in the effluxion of time, the Fair Work Commission in its great wisdom has defused the issue of penalty rates for some awards on Sundays by introducing these changes over a three-year transition period. The air has well and truly gone out of the balloon of the Labor Party's campaign on penalty rates. I was surprised—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Well, it is apposite that the member for Dawson is present today, because the member for Dawson has been a very strong advocate for two particular groups in his electorate over the time that he has been the member for Dawson: firstly, for small business and the chance to give them the opportunity to grow. That is why he strongly supports, as we all do on this side of the Chamber, the company tax cuts for small and medium enterprises, which have been opposed by the Labor Party—inconsistently, given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister in the Gillard government. Secondly, the member for Dawson supports the workers in his electorate. He wants to ensure, as I do, as we all do, that his workers are paid a fair wage for a fair day's work. So I commend the member for Dawson, as I commend all members of the House for their support for both the workers in their electorates and the small businesses in their electorates. On this side of the Chamber, we are reducing taxes as we did in the budget and last year's budget. We are reducing taxes on incomes. We are reducing taxes on companies. We are encouraging investment and growth in the economy, which all leads to jobs. It was not that long ago that the Labor Party used to support that.
Now, the member for Dobell asked me questions about young people and unemployment in her electorate. I come from South Australia, and there is no doubt that there are geographic parts of our society that are not doing as well as others. There is no doubt about that. With the passing of the mining boom from the construction phase into the extraction phase, that is particularly felt keenly in areas like the electorate of the member for Dawson and in Western Australia and other areas where mining has been a staple part of the economy.
That is why the government is trying to expand and diversify some of the key parts of our economy like my own portfolio of defence industry, with the biggest military build-up in our nation's history in peacetime driving jobs and growth. In the Central Coast, the member for Robertson has strongly supported the establishment of a medical school by the University of Newcastle at the Gosford.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The question is the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the minister.
Mr PYNE: I know that there are some competitive tensions between Wyong and Gosford—I have been to the Central Coast. What is good for the Central Coast is good for the entire part of that economy. The expansion of the University of Newcastle in to a medical school with disciplines like nursing and health sciences and so forth will be a tremendous boon for those young people in particular on the Central Coast who are looking to be trained in areas that will be growth areas for the Central Coast given the demographic breakdown of the population there and, of course, in attracting people to the Central Coast because of the good level of services that will be available with the young people and others who are trained or retrained in the medical school and in the health sciences there, because of the good work of the member for Robertson. I am sure the member for Dobell supports the member for Robertson in the work that she has done in ensuring that jobs and opportunities are available for young people in the Central Coast.
My own colleagues have asked me some questions about various matters to do with this portfolio, which I would remind the House is not my own portfolio but Minister Cash's portfolio. The member for Fisher asked me about security of payments in the building industry. I can tell him that independent contractors are an essential part of the workforce. The government is sympathetic to the concerns of small businesses involved in subcontracting, where insolvencies and late payment issues can make or break these operators. That is why the government has announced a national review of security of payments laws. The government has also established a security of payments working group. The working group is focused on monitoring and improving compliance with current legislative requirements through the work of the ABCC. Together, the review and the working group will help to improve the level of protection afforded to subcontractors in the building industry.
On 21 December 2016, the Australian government announced a review of security of payments laws in the building and construction industry. The review is focused on identifying legislative best practice with a view to improving consistency in security of payments legislation across jurisdictions and increasing the level of protection for subcontractors nationally. So you can see, Acting Deputy Speaker Hogan, that the government is responding to the member for Fisher's concerns about security of payments in the building industry. The review is being conducted by Mr John Murray AM, who is a specialist in building contract disputations and security of payments legislation—as is the member for Fisher, who was a noted barrister and himself a builder in the part of the world where he now lives and represents.
The member for Swan asked me questions about ParentsNext and its national expansion. I can tell the member for Swan that the government is investing $263 billion to expand the ParentsNext program nationally to give more parents of young children tailored support to improve their work readiness by the time their children start school. From 1 July 2018, more than 68,000 parents across Australia each year will benefit from that program. I know that the member for Swan is particularly interested in this subject of how to support families in this situation because he himself is a single custodial parent and has raised his child as a single parent and has done so very successfully. Since April 2016, ParentsNext has been operating in 10 locations across Australia. Almost 13,000 parents are currently participating in the program. More than 6,000 parents have commenced in education or training, almost 4,000 have commenced in other assistance such as counselling, health related assistance and parenting courses, and more than 1,000 have commenced in employment.
The national expansion will deliver two streams: $150.1 million over four years to expand ParentsNext nationally to the most disadvantaged parents in the 51 jobactive employment regions, and $113 million over four years to provide a more intensive ParentsNext service in the 10 existing locations and a further 20 locations where a high proportion of parenting payment recipients are Indigenous. So you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, as can the member for Swan, that we are certainly putting our weight behind the ParentsNext program.
The member for Dunkley asked me about the Youth Jobs PaTH. As I have only 20 seconds left, I might see if the member for Chifley wants to ask me a further question, and then I will get the chance to sum up at the end.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:55): I will not take up too much time. I do want to ask a question about Youth Jobs PaTH, and I also would like to remind the minister that I asked a question about the Employment Fund and I am very keen to get an answer on that. I am also keen to see if he will table the letter that was written by the Minister for Employment or the Department of Employment to NEATO, the Work for the Dole provider involved in the Toowoomba incident, outlining exactly what measures that provider was asked to take to improve workplace health and safety.
The next thing I would ask, in relation to PaTH, is this. The opposition has constantly outlined its concerns about the prospect of wage and job displacement triggered by PaTH. We have constantly had extended to us an assurance by the government that they would keep tabs and track the businesses that use these PaTH interns and would be able to tell us whether or not this is occurring. During estimates, we asked whether businesses enrolling in PaTH were large or small. The Secretary of the Department of Employment, on 29 May, had to take the questions on notice. It did not give us much confidence. The issue came up a second time when it was revealed that one business had already taken on seven interns. The department was asked again whether it was a large or a small business. The answer revealed inadequate tracking: 'We actually do not have that information on size.' What we want to know is: can the Turnbull government demonstrate that they have sufficient tracking and monitoring processes in place to make sure PaTH interns are not used to churn workers or exploit young people, and are the government actually going to hit their target of 30,000 interns a year and 18,000 to 20,000 businesses participating in the scheme?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:57): In the time that I have remaining, I will deal with both of those issues: PaTH and the billion-dollar Employment Fund. I might deal with that one first.
The Employment Fund is a demand-driven and flexible pools of funds. Jobactive providers use these funds to help jobseekers get the experience and skills they need to find and keep a job. Over the life of the jobactive contract, the government is investing $1.1 billion into the Employment Fund. Between July 2015 and 31 March 2017, $518.1 million has been credited to the Employment Fund. Early Employment Fund expenditure was conservative, but provider utilisation of the Employment Fund has increased since the start of jobactive. A similar pattern was observed with the Employment Pathway Fund under Job Services Australia.
It is important to note that jobactive is performing better than its predecessor program, Job Services Australia, in 2014-15 and is helping more jobseekers to find work. In particular, the proportion of job placements converting to a 12-week outcome has increased to 53.7 per cent under jobactive compared to 49.1 per cent under the JSA for 13-week outcomes. The proportion of job placements converting to a 26-week outcome has increased to 36.2 per cent under jobactive compared to 31.1 per cent under JSA. Just under half—48.1 per cent—of all jobseekers were employed three months after participating in jobactive. This has increased compared to 42.8 per cent, which was achieved under the JSA.
I have about 1½ minutes to deal with the PaTH program. The member for Dunkley spoke much more positively about the PaTH program than the member for Chifley, but I have come to expect that from one of the government's chief critics. I can tell the member for Chifley that the PaTH program is working very well, and people are very pleased with the PaTH program, one of the Treasurer's particularly favourite programs. I can tell him that, as at 6 June 2017, nine hundred and—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Well, you will not be nearly as effective as the member for Corio, Member for Chifley. Do not try to elevate yourself to that level. Under the PaTH Employability Skills Training program, 921 courses have been approved in the department's systems; 196 courses have been completed; 186 are in progress; 539 are scheduled to commence on 7 June 2017—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): It being 6 o'clock, the time for the debate has concluded. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Employment Portfolio be agreed to.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Defence Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $32,746,245,000
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (18:00): The Federation Chamber will first consider the Defence and Defence industry segments and then the Veterans' Affairs segment of the Defence Portfolio. The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Defence Portfolio: $32,746,245,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:00): So I start? Happy days! This is a great opportunity—to have the minister present to answer some searching questions about his portfolio. But, before we get to the questions that I want to put to the Minister for Defence Industry, it is worth appraising how this government has performed in the area of Defence industry since its election in 2013, because the truth of the matter is that, from that moment onwards, this has been a government which has had no commitment to Defence industry at all. Indeed, in its first term, the government's Defence industry policy was about everything other than Defence industry. What we found was that the supply ship contract was being bandied around to try and close the Korean free trade agreement. We had the submarines being put on the table to try and close a free trade agreement with the Japanese. Defence industry was being leveraged for every purpose other than actually building a Defence industry in this country. There was no better example of that than when we saw the appalling spectacle of the submarine build in South Australia being tossed around the government party room at the beginning of 2015 as a pawn in a play in respect of a challenge of the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Of course the opposition welcomes the fact that there is a commitment from the government to build the submarines in Australia. That is an important commitment. But what we absolutely understand from the way in which the single biggest procurement in Australian history was being tossed around the government party room in this way is that this is not a government which has a commitment to Defence industry. This is a government which has a commitment to politics and playing politics, and Defence industry has found itself a part of that.
What also occurred in the first term of the Abbott government—and it has continued since the election in 2016 of the current Prime Minister—is that this country has experienced a real haemorrhaging of industry more generally. The car industry is the example which tells the story of what has happened to industry more generally across Australia. In my electorate, we have seen this firsthand with the car industry but also with the close of Alcoa's Point Henry smelter. That is just one example of what we have seen around the country, particularly in the states of Victoria and South Australia.
It seems to me that what we are witnessing now, as to Defence industry, from this government, is an attempt to make Defence industry the government's industry policy more generally. You get that from the fact that the industry minister became the Defence industry minister. It is, if you like, what the government seeks to do as to its industry policy more broadly.
Again, we welcome the fact that the government has found itself in a place, now, supporting Australian industry in the way in which it participates in the building and procurement of equipment for the Australian Defence Force. Sovereign capability matters. This is something Labor has always understood. The government is a late converter to this, but we will take it. It may be a shallow conversion, but that is fine as well. The concern now is that, given this, we have seen the Minister for Defence Industry, to his credit, active in various announcements in relation to a number of the projects. Right now the projects that are on the books of the government are the future frigate project, where there is an expectation or a commitment that steel will be cut in 2020; the OPVs, where steel will be cut in 2018; and the Future Submarines, in 2023.
I want to ask the Minister for Defence Industry: is he confident that those timetables are going to be met? Can he be confident that all the tenderers—the three tenderers for the future frigates—would be able to meet a date of cutting steel in 2020? Has the work been done to ensure that, on that time frame, Australian industry content is maximised in the supply chain of all of those projects and particularly the future frigates?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (18:06): Do you want to keep going? I was going to respond to everything at the end, but I am happy to respond now. Are you finished?
Mr Marles: I think we go back and forth.
Mr PYNE: We do go back and forth. We are supposed to go back and forth. We will do that then. In the employment one we did that, so we will stick to that.
It cannot be easy—and I do not envy the member for Corio—having to come in here and pretend that defence industry is not one of the most sparkling aspects of the government's policies. Of course, he did preside, in the government that he was a member of, over the lowest ever spending on defence in Australia's peacetime history since 1938. They managed to get spending on defence down to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest level since 1938, the last year of appeasement. By contrast, the government will hit two per cent, two years early, in 2020. It is a story of investing in capability as our No. 1 priority and investing in Australian native, sovereign, defence industry capability as our second priority. I admire the member for Corio's attempt to try and paint it as a shambles, but he knows as well as I do that if you speak to anybody in the defence industry they will tell you that they have never had a more exciting period of support for defence industry in living memory. Not only did we get the foundations right; we are now getting the implementation right.
The member for Corio asked me specifically: do I expect that the schedule—the very ambitious schedule, I might say—that we have set for ourselves for cutting steel on the offshore patrol vessels, the future frigates and, of course, the Pacific patrol vessels will be met? As he knows, I cut steel on the Pacific patrol vessels in Henderson about a month or two ago. We are very confident that the end-of-2018 deadline for cutting steel on the offshore patrol vessels will be met. The schedule for the release of the request for tender was met. The tenders are being assessed by the Department of Defence. We will make a decision in the third quarter of this year about the offshore patrol vessels in order to allow the time necessary to be able to bring that cutting-steel time line about. On the future frigates, the time that we want to cut steel is 2020. We believe—in fact, I am certain—that we will cut steel in 2020. On the future frigates, the request for tender has been released to the bidders. They are working on their bids. We should be able to make a decision on that on schedule in the early part of next year, as we had intended.
All of these particular projects work together in concert. Of course, the worst thing that could happen is for the Labor Party to win an election and completely undo what is a very complicated jigsaw puzzle that all works together. We all know that Labor left us with the valley of death at the Osborne shipyards and submarine yards by not making decisions over six years. So I am absolutely confident that, with a combination of the naval shipbuilding college, the retraining of workers, the construction that will begin at Osborne in July this year—I will turn a sod in July this year at Osborne, which will get the infrastructure underway at Osborne South for the shipyard—and the decisions around the offshore patrol vessels starting in Adelaide and then moving to Henderson, what we have done will mean that the workforce will be as intact as possible at Osborne South. The offshore patrol vessels will then come online, employing hundreds of people. The future frigates will begin in 2020, employing 2,200 people, and the submarine project, which is the piece de resistance, if you like, of the shipbuilding program, will begin in the early 2020s—in 2022 or 2023. It will be a $50 billion program of 12 submarines, employing 2,800 Australians. So by the mid-2020s we will have about 5,000 Australians in South Australia living in Adelaide and working at Osborne on a continuous naval shipbuilding program. It will be the first such program in our nation's history, and it will have been delivered by this government.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:11): I have a question up front, which the minister can answer at his next go. For the sake of the Australian defence industry, can you personally commit to not cutting steel ever again?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr MARLES: I see. But I do want to take issue with the defence industry minister's attempt to play politics in respect of the past and the way in which both parties approach defence industry now. The defence industry minister favours referring to spending during the Rudd-Gillard years. It is true that defence spending as a percentage of GDP was at 1.6 per cent. What the defence industry minister does not also say is that at one point during the Howard government years it was at 1.62 per cent—barely any more than was spent in the particular year he referred to. Indeed, I think there was a point during the Rudd-Gillard years where spending was taken to 1.93 per cent of GDP, which is higher than at any time during the Howard years. In the last budget of the Gillard government the amount committed to defence over the forward estimates was a record in absolute terms. So you can take statistics from certain periods and try to make an argument. But, if we are all honest and look at the stretch of time in respect of those statistics, the point that the defence industry minister makes simply does not stand up.
In terms of the valley of death, the reality is that it is something that is being experienced right now because of this government. This was a foreseeable event. Whilst the Rudd-Gillard government had built the skilled workforce in naval shipbuilding up to some 4,000, the end of construction of the LHDs and the air warfare destroyers was going to give rise to a gap before the building of the future frigates and the OPVs. Labor's intent was to fill that valley of death by making sure that the supply ships that the Navy was procuring were built in Australia and by bringing forward the timetable for the OPVs. What has actually occurred is that, thanks to this government, the supply ships are now being built in Spain and that, here in 2017, we still do not have a preferred tenderer to construct the OPVs. So the valley of death that we are experiencing now, which has given rise to 1,500 people losing their jobs and to Williamstown and Forgacs in Newcastle basically being at a standstill, is a product of the decisions that have been made by this government. The valley of death is being experienced right now because of this government and because the plans that had been put in place by the former Labor government were not, in fact, followed.
I do want to ask a question of the defence industry minister, though. The decision to pursue a defence industry is one that both parties obviously support, but it is a very significant and deep decision. In needs to be about jobs. It needs to be about more than jobs.
I want to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to experiences I had last year when I visited Israel, where I visited companies such as IAI, Elbit and Rafael. It was an illuminating experience to see those defence industry companies operating in Israel. What was completely clear was the organic nature of their relationship with the IDF. It was also clear that the majority of the work that each of those companies did was export based, albeit their largest customer was the IDF, and the workforce profile of these companies was also extraordinary: they were mainly scientific and engineering houses. It was hard to come away from that experience without the question being in one's mind about whether it is possible to have a long-term defence industry which does not have an export basis as part of it.
I do know that the export potential of our own defence industry is a matter of some interest to the defence industry minister, and it leads me to this question: in respect of the future frigates—because I think they particularly offer the best opportunity to leverage a domestic, export based defence industry in the realm of shipbuilding and naval construction—is that a factor in the way in which the government will ultimately determine who ends up being the successful tenderer? Clearly, building the best frigate is the principal concern, but will the capacity to build an export based shipbuilding industry be a factor?
Ms PRICE (Durack) (18:16): I have the pleasure to ask a question of the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Pyne. The Australian naval shipbuilding program is one of the most ambitious in the world, and the eyes of the world are watching Australia in this endeavour to see if it is indeed possible to modernise the Australian Navy's defence and border protection capability and to do it at home. Because we are bringing these vessels home by ensuring that they are built here, repaired here and designed here, we can ensure not only that the maximum amount of taxpayer money is spent here in Australia but also that we improve the operational capability of those vessels.
Because of the nature of Australia's position in the world geopolitically, if we really want to have a region-leading Navy, we need to have the capability to maintain and sustain those vessels here. If those vessels are required to be towed to the other side of the world—to a shipyard in France, Germany or indeed Spain—when they break down, those vessels' operational effectiveness is, of course, greatly reduced. To ensure that we are giving our servicemen and servicewomen the best chance to properly defend our shores, it is imperative that these vessels be built and maintained here at home.
But not only that; it is imperative that some of our naval shipbuilding be done in Western Australia, because Western Australia is hurting. We have suffered the slings and arrows of a boom and bust economy before, and my upbringing in the goldmining town of Kalgoorlie has prepared me well for life in the west and also life in politics. When the worm turns and the boom fades, there is a real human cost. We are left with mortgages worth far more than the worth of the property. We are left with closures of businesses and the loss of jobs, and the pain is real. The situation, of course, is not made any easier by the percentage of GST share that we receive, with most of it flowing to prop up other economies within our country.
That is why the naval shipbuilding program is so vitally important to people in Western Australia. We need to tell young Western Australians that this government has not forgotten them and has not sold them out and ruined their ability to go and get a decent job, have a career, earn a decent living and support themselves. The nature of the naval shipbuilding industry means that this is a sector that a young person can spend their entire career in. The lives of these contracts for the naval shipbuilding program are expected to be some 40-odd years, meaning the work will be there when it is needed. It will encourage those young people to go out and get the training that they need to be able to take advantage of a proper career in the naval shipbuilding of our country.
The skills required in this industry are very adaptable to the skills that many young people in Western Australia have acquired through the mining industry, so there is the potential for some retraining and some retooling for those hit by the mining downturn to turn their hand to naval shipbuilding. That is something that I think is very exciting and something that we should be talking more about in this place. If we can retool and retrain that considerable workforce in Western Australia, we have a real shot at establishing a robust sector that is not beholden to the boom and bust of the mining industry. We know that we can take those skills offshore as well. My question to the minister is: what is the government doing to support naval shipbuilding in Western Australia and what benefits will this bring to the economy of Western Australia?
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:20): I want to put on the list of the questions that we now have for the Minister for Defence Industry the question about the immediate future of the Canberra class vessels. Let me say at the outset that the Canberra class vessels, the LHDs, are a fantastic capability that have bipartisan support. They were initiated under the Howard government; a significant part of their construction occurred during the Rudd-Gillard years; and they are being brought into operational service now under the Abbott-Turnbull government. The ascertainment for our defence forces of a serious amphibious capability has been a bipartisan effort between the major parties for many, many years now, and obviously the Canberra class vessels are central to that, but they are not the only part of it, because the Army and Navy personnel who work with the LHDs in developing that amphibious capability are a critical component of it as well.
We are aware, through the media, of at least some of the issues in respect of both the HMAS Canberra and the HMAS Adelaide. From 7 March this year, an issue was identified with the HMAS Canberra. It was returned to Sydney on 17 March, and the HMAS Adelaide was returned shortly after that. As I understand it, the HMAS Adelaide went into dry-dock on 17 May. The Canberra has been beside the Adelaide since around that time as well. Exactly what the issue is, though, with both these ships is a matter which, in our view, needs greater elucidation by the government, and that is in essence the question that I ask of the defence industry minister now: what are the concerns in relation to the Canberra class vessels and what is their immediate prognosis? We know, from the most recent round of Senate estimates, from the evidence provided by the Chief of Navy, that the exact nature of the issue in respect of the propulsion pods is still being determined. There seemed to be a suggestion that this may have something to do with a design flaw, but I put that in terms of the question. What we really need to understand is: what is the concern in respect of the Canberra class vessels?
I ask this also in the context of the upcoming Exercise Talisman Sabre. Talisman Sabre this year was intended to be the showcase for the Canberra class vessels. This was going to be the moment at which both vessels would be able to put through the full range of operational paces that they have, with a view to them being finally certified for service at the end of this year. As I understand it—but I pose these as questions for confirmation by the defence industry minister—the Canberra may participate in Talisman Sabre, although I am not sure that has been confirmed. It appears—but again I put this as a question—that the Adelaide will not be participating in Talisman Sabre and will not be active until later in the year. If that is right—that one of the two vessels will actually not participate in Exercise Talisman Sabre—that is obviously a considerable concern. This was a critical milestone in the development not only of the ships but, as I said earlier, the amphibious capability that the ADF has been seeking to develop, with the support of both the major parties. It is a critical element because this was a moment at which those soldiers and sailors who work with the platform would have an opportunity to do so in the context of Exercise Talisman Sabre, which is a unique moment to test these capabilities. That one of these vessels appears not to be participating, and potentially both, is obviously a concern. The questions I ask the minister in respect of the Canberra class vessels are: what is the issue; what is their immediate prognosis; can the minister confirm that the Adelaide will not be participating in Talisman Sabre; and can the minister confirm that the Canberra will be participating in Talisman Sabre? What light can the minister shed?
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:25): As the minister knows, the government is spending an unprecedented $200 billion in the coming 10 years on our defence capability. This spend will transform our Defence Force's capabilities and make an enormous difference to our security in the coming years. The government is committed to ensuring that as much of this spending as possible flows into Australian businesses, so this procurement will also prove to be a massive boost to local industry.
I want to see some of that $200 billion spent on the Sunshine Coast. We do not have the facilities to lay down the keel of a frigate or to build an entire fighter jet; however, we do have an underutilised aerodrome in Caloundra, vacant industrial property, a great many retired Defence personnel and more and more technological innovators in our community. Our small to medium enterprises are perfectly poised to deliver important parts of the defence capability that our country needs.
There are already companies in my electorate of Fisher that are exploiting these opportunities. HeliMods in Caloundra have recently won a contract for $154,000 to deliver wet decks for 14 MH-60R 'Romeo' Navy helicopters. HeliMods already employ 25 skilled workers on the Sunshine Coast. If they are able to build on this contract and win more Defence work, they intend to employ many more. The minister will remember that I visited Will Shrapnel and the team with him just last month to see their manufacturing facilities. Another company in the same part of my electorate, Praesidium Global, have recently won a larger contract, for $1.3 million. Praesidium are designing and manufacturing an entirely new type of unmanned ground vehicle, which will help to keep our service men and women safe and out of harm's way. This kind of innovation is exactly why the coast is the perfect location for more Defence contracts in the future. A third business in my electorate who are also working with the ADF are Eniquest. Based in Warana near my own electorate office, Eniquest build military-grade DC and AC power generators and auxiliary power units which are used in our Bushmaster vehicles. Eniquest have not only been supplying these power units to the ADF, but they have also been able to enjoy a new contract with the Singapore military, announced only a couple of weeks ago. The University of the Sunshine Coast has also been successful in winning a multimillion-dollar contract, to research new pavements for runways for the ADF. This is a great sign of engagement between universities, higher education, and the Defence Force.
Helicopter parts, remote vehicles, power generators and research—these are the kinds of projects that small Sunshine Coast businesses and the University of the Sunshine Coast are perfect for. I want to see a Sunshine Coast that is no longer dependent on tourism, building and construction. I want to see our small businesses given the opportunity to make a contribution to the nation's defence capabilities. That is why I organised the inaugural Sunshine Coast Defence Industry Forum in May. I am very grateful to the Minister for Defence Industry for joining me for this event. One hundred and seventy local businesses registered for the forum to hear the minister speak and to learn more about what they could do to win a Defence contract. The interest among small businesses in Fisher was very clear. The Innovation Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast was full, and a great many had questions for the minister and for representatives of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability, Defence Science and Technology Group.
Small businesses see the opportunities here and they want to be involved. Small businesses face challenges, of course, that are different from their larger counterparts. Their lower cash flows and smaller cash reserves are one example. The Turnbull government already helps with this challenge with its Supplier Pay On-Time or Pay Interest Policy. The government pays all businesses within 30 days on contracts valued up to $1 million. If it fails, it pays interest on the balance. In 97 per cent of these contracts the government now pays on time. We are acting as an example in our payment terms for all businesses and I encourage all companies to follow suit. It will never be easy for a small business to get their first Defence contract. It is right that it takes flexibility, perseverance and vision. But government should do everything it can to make the process as easy as it possibly can not only in the Defence portfolio but across government procurement. I hope that the minister agrees. I would like to ask the minister what the government is doing to make it easier for small business to engage and to contract not just with the Defence department and the ADF but with government across all portfolios.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:30): The Future Submarine project is, by some measurements, the single biggest procurement in Australian government history. It is an incredibly important project in terms of the strategic capability of the Royal Australian Navy, of our Defence Force and, as a result, of our country. It is a huge project in terms of the construction that it entails and the development of a sovereign capability in Australia in terms of being able to sustain and maintain submarines in the future based on the experience that will be gained from building the submarine in the first place is enormously strategically important for our sovereign capability.
Labor have always been a supporter of the Future Submarines. Indeed, in large measure it was initiated under the former Labor government. Again, we welcome the government's, albeit late, conversion to now supporting the purchase of 12 submarines and, ultimately, having those submarines constructed in Australia; indeed in the minister's home state of South Australia. It was not always thus. For quite a while there seemed to be an attempt to make the submarine project something which was subservient to other government interests—namely, a free trade agreement with Japan. And of course we had the very unfortunate and famous remarks of former defence minister Johnston, who characterised ASC's ability in this regard as being unable to build a canoe. I accept that they are the comments of one individual and they are probably comments which, at the end of the day, cost him his job. But it does leave one a little uneasy about the exact commitment in the hearts of those on the government side about the need for the construction of this to occur in Australia and for the genuine sovereign capability to be acquired by Australia in respect of the Future Submarines so that we can have this capacity and maintain and sustain these boats into the future.
As the timetable is currently set out for the Future Submarines, we will not see the first submarine in the water until the early 2030s. I think it is estimated that the last submarine will not enter the water until 2050. That, in turn, has implications for maintenance of the Collins class submarines, so that a capability can be maintained between now and when the Future Submarines takeover the role. Because we are talking about maintaining the Collins class submarines through until the middle of this century, there is obviously a significant cost associated with that. The cost of the project is therefore significant and the actual capability we get from the project will not come to pass until the 2030s. On top of that, and this is simply making the observation, this is a unique capability which is being purchased; it is not an off-the-shelf product. With any unique build there is an element of risk associated with it. There is nothing that can be done about that, but it is part of the landscape that we now find ourselves in. It is a capability that will not come on board until the 2030s; a solution which is ultimately expensive by virtue of the fact that the Collins need to be maintained through until the middle of the century; and a new capability which has in it an inherent amount of risk.
The question then for the Minister for Defence Industry is: has the government given any consideration to the pace at which this project can be sped up? Is there any consideration or plan in respect of that? Obviously, if the project could be sped up then the maintenance of Collins would be reduced and ultimately there would be a cost benefit there. Can the minister assure us that we will not experience any capability gap associated with the transition from the Collins to the new Future Submarine? That is obviously critical in terms of how important the strategic capability is that we are acquiring with this submarine. Can the minister assure us that all 12 submarines will be built in South Australia?
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (18:35): Three weeks ago, we were in this very chamber making speeches about a terror attack in Manchester. Two weeks ago, it was London. Last week, if parliament sat, we would have been talking about Melbourne. Indeed, we are living in a global political environment which is amidst heightened volatility. Major conflicts are causing upheaval the world over. As I speak today, there are approximately 28 wars raging across the world—and if you include smaller conflicts in African nations, that number jumps to 58. In 2017 thus far, these wars have recorded 47,000 deaths.
As we have seen in the last three weeks, whether it is Manchester, London or Melbourne, there is another war going on, waged by Islamist terrorists, often targeting the most innocent of lives. It is a war waged against a way of life—our way of life. It is a war waged against a set of values, the very values that define who we are as a country and as a people.
Here in Australia, despite our rich diversity, we are united because we are bound by a common set of values. We have no more important value than that of freedom: freedom realised through independence, self-reliance and dignity of the individual—the individual who is equal, no better, no worse than other individuals. They are ideals that, in turn, promote the protection of free speech and property rights and encourage human endeavour and free enterprise. These are the very things that have created the Australia of today: an open, liberal, free-market economy. We are the envy of much of the world and yet the target of those who are repulsed by these ideals, who believe that freedom and our way of life should be detested and ruined.
All of this is a sombre reminder that, as we debate many a worthy cause in this chamber, there is no greater cause and there is no higher duty than protecting our nation and keeping our fellow Australians safe. Indeed, the Prime Minister addressed the House today, saying:
My No. 1 priority, my government's No. 1 priority, is to keep Australians safe.
The Australian government cannot discharge its duty in this regard on a wish and a prayer. We must ensure that our defence forces and our law enforcement, security and border protection agencies have the resources and capabilities needed to protect Australia and the values for which we stand.
We need to be on the front foot in this regard. Again, let me quote from the Prime Minister's speech today where he said:
Our national attributes, our pride in our security, our diversity, our freedom and the prosperity which they enable, mean that we are well-placed to confront these challenges.
But we can never be complacent or avoid hard truths.
The PM is right, and that is why I am here in the chamber today in support of that sentiment for the consideration in detail with the Minister for Defence Industry. If we are to build and sustain our nation's defence capabilities to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, major investments are needed, and, under the leadership of this minister, those investments are indeed being made.
The Defence Integrated Investment Program allocates capital investment of more than $50 billion over the forward estimates and $200 billion up to 2027-28. And it is my understanding that about 10 per cent of that $200 billion budget has been earmarked for the Land 400 program, which is the Army's largest program ever, valued up to $20 billion in acquisition costs alone. It includes 225 combat renaissance, I mean reconnaissance, vehicles—it is almost renaissance in our spend, can I say—in phase 2, and 450 infantry fighting vehicles along with 17 manoeuvre support vehicles in phase 3.
As a proud member of the LNP's team Queensland my colleagues and I are convinced that the Land 400 project could be delivered almost anywhere in Australia but nowhere better than in Queensland. Therefore, my question to the minister is: why is the Land 400 project so important and what is the current status of its tender?
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:40): I know that there will be many of my constituents who will be very eager to hear the minister's answer to the member's question, in respect of where Land 400 will be constructed.
A few weeks ago I visited the Middle East area of operations and I would like to place on record my thanks to the government, to Minister Payne and to the Defence Industry minister for their support. I have written to the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Binskin, Vice Admiral David Johnston, commander of the Joint Operations Command, as well as Major General John Frewen who is our commander in the Middle East Area of Operations.
It was a fantastic experience, and I note your service, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Hogan, as well so this will ring true to you, I am sure, in terms of what I witnessed—Australian Defence personnel of all three services operating in difficult circumstances but in a completely professional way and acting as our country's best ambassadors, acting in a way that made it clear to troubled countries—in Iraq and Afghanistan—that we are there to help and lend a hand to them in a difficult hour of their history.
The focus of our efforts in Iraq is combating the forces of Daesh, and it would appear that this fight is proceeding in a satisfactory way. The expectation is that, ultimately, Daesh will be defeated. I note the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning and my question, in respect of this, to the Defence Industry minister is to ask for a report of progress on the fight with Daesh and the work that has been undertaken in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the situation is more complex. There is an insurgency underway. But in both countries what Australian personnel are doing is providing training to the forces of Afghanistan and Iraq so that those countries have an increased capacity and ability to deal with the very difficult circumstances they face.
What became very clear from all that I observed and all the meetings that I had was that the advice, assistance and training being provided by Australian personnel is being received in a very favourable way by those countries. It is being seen as the provision of support which is, to be frank, invaluable, from their perspective, and which is really making a difference, in terms of the sustainability of those countries in dealing with a set of circumstances which for us, here, is unimaginable.
The professionalism of those involved was deeply impressive, the thoroughness with which people undertake their task, making decisions that go to questions of life and death—for example, whether or not a strike is made or not made from one of the FA18 Super Hornets, which are now over the skies of Iraq. Those decisions are matters of life and death, but I watched Australian personnel going through the process of making those decisions in a deep, thoughtful and thorough way, understanding the enormity of what they were doing and, as I said, in the process absolutely representing our country in a way which could only lead one to have an enormous sense of pride.
The point I want to make is that the mission that we are engaged in in the Middle East is one which has total bipartisan support of the major parties in this parliament. The work that those people are doing is making the world a safer and a better place. In doing so, the honour and the prestige of Australia is being promoted and built. I think I said earlier that the serving personnel in the Middle East are our greatest ambassadors and really do a marvellous job in the way in which they carry out their task in a very difficult way. I know that they are comments which will be received in a bipartisan way by the government, and they are given in that spirit. I guess the question that goes with it is that I am just seeking an update on how things are proceeding. (Time expired)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (18:46): I do thank my colleagues for their contributions to this consideration in detail about defence, and I thank the shadow minister, the member for Corio, for the spirit in which he has engaged in the questioning of the government in a serious way about things that are very important and, it is fair to say, by and large, attract bipartisan support. I might answer the shadow minister's questions first in order to pay him the respect that he is due as the shadow minister and then deal with my colleagues' questions.
The shadow minister asked about the Collins class submarines. He asked about a number of specific issues to do with the Collins class and its replacement. I can tell him that the timetable that he has broadly outlined for the replacement submarines based on the Barracuda class from DCNS is broadly right, and contingencies are being put in place by Defence, as he would expect, to ensure that there is no capability gap in the 2030s as we transition from the six Collins class submarines to the 12 DCNS submarines that will come into operation. I can tell him that that schedule cannot be hurried up. He asked if it could be done faster. The reality is that building submarines is an enormous task—it is a huge project. I give due credit to the Hawke government that initially decided that we would build Collins class submarines. Sure, that was a very fraught program, but let's not forget we had never built a submarine in this country before.
I, and I am sure the member for Corio does too, want to ensure not only that we have the sovereign strategic capability to sustain and maintain submarines, which we now have thanks to the work of particularly this government, but also that we can have the capability to build submarines into the future. We never want to be in a position again where we have to rely on another country for spare parts or for the availability of our submarines, as happened in previous periods, particularly during the Falklands War. I am sure that the opposition agrees with us about that. I can tell him with absolute clarity that every one of the submarines will be built in Adelaide at Osborne, from submarine 1 to submarine 12. Some of his colleagues have been trying to create dust storms around this issue. There is absolutely no question that the 12 submarines will be built in Adelaide, there is no plan at this stage to change the sustainment and maintenance arrangements that already exist between Henderson and Osborne for the sustainment and maintenance of the Collins class submarines, and the submarine project is very much on track.
As I said before, I will turn a sod at Osborne south in July, which is the shipyard. DCNS are organising their plans for Osborne north, which is the submarine yard, and I look forward to turning a sod there as well. I can inform the chamber that, in fact—as has been publicly stated—the Commonwealth government has secured, for $230 million, the Common User Facility at Techport, as it is known, which was previously in the ownership of the South Australian government. It has also secured all the land around the Osborne shipyard and submarine yard, effectively more than doubling it in size, in order to ensure that we have the space that is necessary for a successful ship- and submarine-building capability. In fact, the member for Kingston will be pleased to know that the shed that DCNS will build at Osborne north for the submarines is actually bigger than the Adelaide Oval stadium. So it is dramatically large. The member for Kingston does not seem as excited about that as I had expected she would be, but it certainly excites me. You will not quite see it from space but you will certainly see it every time you fly into Adelaide and be reminded that it was this government that secured the submarines for South Australia, not the Labor Party.
The shadow minister asked about exports. Coming from a government that never did anything about exports in six years, that was audacious, but, nevertheless, I take it in the spirit in which it was intended. I can tell him that there will be a defence export strategy released in the third quarter of this year, but, as he knows, I, as the Minister for Defence Industry, am not waiting for the defence export strategy; I have already written, in January this year, to all of the defence attaches— (Time expired)
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (18:51): I can assure the minister: I am very, very excited. I just hope that he actually delivers on his commitments to his Naval Shipbuilding Plan. I do want to reference the Naval Shipbuilding Plan. One of the priorities of the government, they have said, is that they plan to transition automotive workers from Holden. Unfortunately, Holden is leaving South Australia, affecting many of the workers who were in that industry—not just those in the Holden plant itself, but many people from my electorate. There was reference in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan to ensuring that those individuals are transitioned into shipbuilding as a priority.
My question is: there seems to be no evidence of that, so I would be pleased if the minister would highlight what evidence there is of steps the government has actually taken to work with Holden and automotive manufacturers—those who will no longer continue—to ensure that these individuals are skilled up and able to seamlessly, without large periods of unemployment, transition to shipbuilding. Could he outline what work is currently being undertaken with individual companies, with the state government and also with the individuals involved. What programs are in place? As to employment outcomes, has he set targets for automotive manufacturers moving into these industries? And has there been a full identification of what skills these individuals require to actually make a seamless transition into working in the shipbuilding industry? So that is my first set of questions for the minister.
I also have some other questions for the minister, more broadly on the Defence portfolio. Five years ago, there was a Pathway to Change program announced by the then Defence department, after a number of inquiries initiated by the Labor government into the culture within Defence, and there was a commitment from Defence for a strategic plan that has lasted five years. Those five years have now come to an end. My question is: will the government be providing any reflection, report or public statement on the end of this strategic plan? What will be put in its place in terms of processes going forward? Would the minister like to comment? One of the key recommendations or key findings was to ensure that more women were involved in Defence decision-making bodies. As of 30 June, I have identified that, within the ADF in particular, out of 62 positions, seven are held by women. So is the minister able to outline: what is the strategic plan going forward? What is the commitment? Why is it that we have not had a statement or an announcement? This has been something that the government regularly referenced when it came to issues around gender in Defence. I wonder why there has not been a statement at the end of that five-year strategic plan and what will be put in its place.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (18:54): In the short time I have left to me, I will try and answer the various points that were raised by my colleagues. I will deal briefly with the landing helicopter docks that the member for Corio asked about, in order to be able to answer his question. I can tell him that the HMAS Canberra completed initial propulsion sea trials in May, which, together with advice from industry partners, indicate Canberra is able to return to service before full pod repairs take place during scheduled maintenance docking later this year. Following analysis and advice from industry partners, Navy is continuing planning for Canberra to participate in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2017. The final decision on Canberra's participation in Exercise Talisman Sabre will be made in the coming weeks.
HMAS Adelaide moved to the dry-dock at Navy's Fleet Base East on 17 May 2017, and Defence is undertaking a range of activities, including access to and a detailed inspection of the propulsion pods, defect rectification and maintenance. The docking and inspection of HMAS Adelaide has identified damage to the port pod bearing system, which is the likely cause of the oil contamination, and reaffirmed the measured approach taken by Defence in managing the propulsion pod issue. Once more information is available, Defence will provide further updates. HMAS Canberra and Adelaide are still in their operational test and evaluation period. It is in this period that issues such as the ones currently being identified and addressed are resolved.
My colleagues from the coalition side of the House asked questions which I think deserve responses, starting with the member for Fairfax, who is one of the most significant advocates for team Queensland in this building and is putting in a laudable effort in order to try and win more work for Queensland in defence industry. The state government has really dropped the ball in recent years in promoting defence industry, unlike other states, but is now trying to come to the party—albeit late. But Queensland is well represented here by LNP members—in fact, by all three LNP members in the Chamber as we speak. The process for the Land 400 contract, which is the 225 combat reconnaissance vehicles, is that the two vehicles—the Rheinmetall vehicle and the BAE vehicle—are currently being tested in their risk mitigation activities to assess which one Army would prefer for us to purchase and of course to build, as much as possible, here in Australia.
I took part last week in the live firing exercise at Puckapunyal—I see the member for Kingston is now particularly interested in the idea of me being in a uniform—and firing—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr PYNE: I did. I have never fired a rifle, Member for Moreton, but I fired a cannon and I hit the target six times out of eight in the Rheinmetall and BAE vehicles. That was part of the risk mitigation phase for the two vehicles. It is, as you said, a $4 billion project. It is very significant. Both the bidders have indicated that they have down-selected Queensland and Victoria as the two sites where they will base their operations and their work. That is good news for both of those states. The contracts are so large, the scale of these projects is so huge, that the whole country will benefit from wherever the combat reconnaissance vehicles are being built, whether it is in Queensland or Victoria. I can assure the member for Fairfax that he and his Queensland colleagues are leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that Queensland gets a fair hearing as part of that process.
The member for Fisher raised with me issues about Australian involvement in defence industry. I visited HeliMods with him on the Sunshine Coast, who have won the contract to provide wet decks for the Navy's helicopters. I must say that was one of the best front pages that I have seen in a newspaper. The Sunshine Coast Daily's headline was '$200 billion bonanza for the Sunshine Coast'. It was not that the Sunshine Coast want a share of the $200 billion military capability build-up; they want all of the $200 billion! They obviously have great faith in their member, the member for Fisher—which they should.
The member for Leichhardt has gone, but he has been a great advocate too, for Cairns, as the sustainment and maintenance centre. I am sorry that we are running out of time. If the member for Kingston had covered that earlier—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr PYNE: rather than allowing the member for Corio to have four or five goes, she might have actually got an answer to her question. But there are other members in the Chamber who want to have an answer to their question—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr PYNE: and you have waited a bit long to saunter in, Member for Kingston. You should have been more on the job.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the member for Corio.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:59): In the—sorry?
Mr Pyne: Do you want me to answer the questions—
Mr MARLES: Indeed. In the minute left, you can answer those questions.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (19:00): One of the main purposes of the Naval Shipbuilding College is to help retrain Holden workers from Elizabeth into naval shipbuilding. The Naval Shipbuilding College request for tender has been released. It is gaining a lot of interest from consortia around Australia, and I think it will play a very important part in training and retraining people for the naval shipbuilding industry. We expect to turn out 1,600 graduates a year. None of these things would have happened if the Labor Party had been in office—none of them. But all of them are happening because we are in office. I think I am now pressing on a friendship; is that right, Mr Deputy Speaker?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): No, 10 seconds—you are fine.
Mr PYNE: We have 10 seconds left. How exciting! So I can tell the member for Fisher that everybody around Australia will benefit—including, Member for Durack, the Western Australian industry, which will also benefit around Henderson and around—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for this session has concluded. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Veterans' Affairs segment of the Defence portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Defence portfolio be agreed to.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:01): My first question is to the minister, and he has just walked in, so I am not sure if the member for Sturt wants to answer these questions. He might have a better go this time. My questions are for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs about the wider government freeze on allied health providers as part of the Medicare freeze. There has been some concerning evidence that the Medicare freeze has flowed on to the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule and that this is increasing the gap between what is paid by DVA and what a private or a public patient that is willing to pay the gap has to pay.
There has been evidence tabled by the Australian Medical Association, which has released findings of a survey which has highlighted that the indexation freeze is affecting not only psychological services but also specialist services including surgery, medicine, psychiatry and ophthalmology, to name a few. What is happening is that some specialists are refusing service to veterans and other specialists are treating them not under their DVA status but as public and private patients.
This has also been indicated to the Senate inquiry into suicide research and prevention. Evidence tendered by both the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is that the freeze, which has left the DVA rebate effectively the same for many years now, since 2014, is acting now as a disincentive for experienced, skilled clinicians to see veterans.
Considering that there is now evidence to show that this issue is affecting access for veterans to health care, my questions to the minister are: is he collecting any evidence? Is his department recording any complaints that are made around not getting service? Is there any empirical work being done about the refusal of service? Is anyone recording whether specialists or other healthcare professionals are not accepting DVA clients, preferring to treat them as public or private patients? Has he written or communicated with the Minister for Health about the impact of the freeze? Has he advocated for this freeze to be lifted earlier than in three years time? Has he spoken with the AMA or any of the other peak bodies about what this freeze means for veterans?
Is there any plan for any adjustments and to decouple the DVA repatriation medical fee schedule from the Medicare rebate? And will there be any automatic payments to cover what is becoming an increasing gap that is not able to be charged to veterans? Is this going to be followed into the future? And what will the minister be doing to ensure that veterans actually get what they are entitled to?
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:05): The federal seat of Fisher is home to many ex-service men and women. Our relaxed lifestyle and healthy environment, our strong community and our vibrant RSL subbranches make the coast a perfect place to enjoy civilian life. But life after service for those who have risked all in the defence of their country can sometimes be difficult. A return to civilian life, in and of itself, after the rigours and structures of a military life would be a challenging transition for anyone. Like any major life transition, such a change leads to an increased risk of poor mental health. For many service men and women, however, this transition is made more difficult by the experiences they carry with them. For those who have volunteered to put their lives at risk, have been away from families, have seen friends and colleagues in danger or worse, or have seen some of the terrible impacts that conflict has on innocent people, the effects can be severe and lasting.
That clock has not stopped after the last speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Just keep going, and I will make a judgement call when your time is up.
Mr WALLACE: Thank you. I am happy to take up the time! In 2013, of the 148,000 veterans with service-related disabilities being supported by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, 46,400—almost a third—were living with an accepted mental-health disorder. These included post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, depression and substance dependency.
In too many cases, these conditions can have tragic consequences. Towards the end of last year, the government released the most statistically robust data on the prevalence of suicide among current and former members of the ADF ever compiled. The figures, in themselves, make for devastating reading. In the 13 years to 2014, there were 292 deaths by suicide among people who had served in the ADF for at least one day since 2001—292 men and women who had done our nation proud and put their lives on the line to keep us all safe. Even one such death is too many, and, no doubt, these figures are an underestimation, as no data is available for those whose service occurred before 2001.
When examined in more detail, however, the statistics reveal an even more alarming fact which needs to be urgently addressed. Among serving male members of the ADF, after adjusting for age, the suicide rate was 53 per cent lower than the general male population. I can only speak about men, as the sample of women in the report was too small to create statistically valid results. Among men in the Reserve, the rate was 46 per cent lower. These figures are good news, and are testament to the ADF's work to support their soldiers through the most challenging and stressful environments. However, among veterans—ex-servicemen—the suicide rate was 13 per cent higher than for the equivalent general population. The day that a man leaves the armed force, his likelihood of death by suicide rises from 53 per cent lower than others his age to 13 per cent higher. Worse still, if he is a young man aged 18 to 24 who has served in and left the ADF, he becomes twice as likely as his peers in civilian life to die by his own hand. There have been 23 deaths since 2001 among this statistically small group alone.
I know that the minister has as keen an interest as I have in seeing a solution to these problems. In my own electorate of Fisher, the government has recently committed $5 million to the Sunshine Coast Mind & Neuroscience Thompson Institute for research and treatment programs for youth mental health, suicide prevention and dementia. I am proud of what we are delivering and grateful to the government. As I have mentioned to the minister before though, my next goal in this field is to secure further funding to support a PTSD program at the Thompson Institute. I look forward to working with him in the future to explore this possibility. If anyone watching or reading this speech is worried about how they or someone they know from the veteran community is coping, I urge them, on behalf of all members, to seek help early. The Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service is the perfect place to start to find support. They can be reached 24 hours a day on 1800 011 046.
Minister, what is the government doing to support the mental health of veterans of the ADF, and what action is the government taking in the area of suicide prevention for these men and women who have done their country proud?
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (19:11): I have worked extensively in the mental health community sector for more than 15 years. As the former CEO of one of the largest mental health community organisations in North Queensland, I am very well aware of the issues faced by veterans, ex-service personnel and their families. As the newly elected member for Herbert—which contains the largest garrison city in Australia, Townsville, which is home to veterans, ex-service personnel and their families—I am passionate about standing up for veterans, ex-service personnel and their families on this very important issue of suicide prevention. They deserve no less than the strongest advocacy in this place.
Minister, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on 11 August 2016 the Prime Minister announced a veterans' suicide prevention trial for Townsville. As the Department of Veterans' Affairs does not keep the official numbers or names of all the veterans, there are many veterans and ex-service personnel who are falling through the cracks. It is essential that these men and women have access to the suicide prevention trial in Townsville. But we need to have accurate data and modelling occur to ensure that all veterans are included. Minister, are there any plans to identify those veterans who are not registered with the DVA to address this huge gap?
In December 2016 the minister, along with the previous minister for health, the Honourable Sussan Ley, held a suicide prevention round table in Townsville. The feedback from veterans is that it was very much a tick and flick exercise. The minister's media statement released on 30 November 2016 stated: 'Minister Ley and I will be holding a round table with local stakeholders in Townsville to discuss this issue and hear ideas that will help shape the new landmark suicide prevention trial in the region.' Minister, what has been done with the information gathered from the Townsville round table? Will a report be released and, if so, will it be made public? How has the information received from that round table being shared and used to shape the trial? Has anything been done with that information?
Minister, I want to take you through everything that has occurred on the ground since the government announcement on 11 August 2016, which was more than 10 months ago. All of these steps have occurred without any assistance, direction or funding from the Turnbull government. In August 2016, I formed the Townsville Community Defence Reference Group, which includes local veterans, ex-service personnel, family representatives, health professionals and the PHM. The group was formed to ensure that local veterans had a strong voice in a program which directly affects them, and we meet on a regular basis. After several months of waiting for terms of reference, or any direction from the government, the reference group took the following action. It formed a steering committee, voted for the chair of the steering committee, drafted the terms of reference for the steering committee, drafted the job description for the project officer, formed an interview panel for the project officer interview process—and the PHM was directly involved in all of this process. The PHN advertised the project officer position, and the project officer has been employed by the PHN and has been working for over a month—and all of this activity has been paid for by the PHM. To reiterate the last point and make it very clear: not one cent of the $3 million that was allocated by the Turnbull government has been given to the PHN in Townsville. The PHN are clearly committed to this trial and as such have made funds available to get the trial underway.
My question to the minister is: why hasn't the funding been immediately released and will the minister be reimbursing the PHN for the costs they have accrued so far? No funding has been given to the PHN in what will soon be the first year of a three-year trial. Does that mean that the Townsville veterans will have a three-year trial that will actually be funded for only two years? The PHN is able to write business cases to roll over unspent funds for all portfolios except for the mental health portfolio. Why can't the mental health portfolio do this, especially given that this includes the veteran suicide prevention trial funding? Given that the first year of the suicide prevention trial received no funding, will the minister extend the trial to ensure that it runs for the full three years as promised? How will you do this, Minister, given the fact that mental health cannot apply to rollover funds? Has the schedule for the suicide prevention trial been done? Have targets been determined and agreed? Have the parameters of the work to be carried out been determined? Have the terms of reference from the project been done?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (19:16): I will enable others to speak, but given that previous statement I just want to place a few facts on the record. The member for Herbert was up there when we launched the trial site and she was included in it. Rather than trying to play politics on this issue, could the member work with the government on an initiative which was this government's then we will work cooperatively with her and do so. The PHN has been involved in this process from the word go. So the fact that the PHN has been involved in your process shows that your process is part of what we are trying to achieve. The health department have made it very clear to the PHN, and it has been publicly stated, that they have the funds available for the suicide prevention trial site. I will leave it there so others can have their questions. I will sum up at the end, but I just wanted to get that clearly on the record, so we can end the politics around what is very, very important to the veterans community.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:17): I hope the minister will come back to the repatriation medical fee freeze. I have some further questions on the budget for the Veteran Centric Reform. I note that in the 2017-18 budget there is $160 million appropriated for only one year of the Veteran Centric Reform. As a result of his own discussions at public forums, it has been regularly cited that a significant amount of work needs to be done. Different figures have gone around but in excess of $500 million over a period of time, I think a six-year period, has been discussed. We understand and have been in mutual agreement that having a system that is at risk of catastrophic failure is not good. My concern is that the budget has only an amount for years '17 and '18. Minister, what will that money be spent on? What particular parts of the program will be fixed as a result? What further money will be necessary to deliver the full Veteran Centric Reform, to fix the full IT system as well as deliver what PwC and the department have been working on? In the last budget they had been allocated money to put a program together. How much will be required to actually deliver the full scale reform in the Department of Veterans' Affairs? What is the process? What has been the commitment from the whole of government to properly fund this over the forward estimates?
Is the minister concerned that money has not been secured in the forward estimates? What other commitments have been made by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to properly fund the department to undertake this reform?
In the time I have left I am going to move onto another budget measure. The minister is waiting for me to finish. I would like to now draw the minister's attention to the $7 million that was allocated in the budget, although it is unclear in the budget papers, to recognise 100 years of armistice in 2018. Further investigation has identified that, while not described in the budget papers, this will be allocated as $50,000 per electorate. How was this program determined? Will it be the same as the Centenary of Anzac? Will it rely on local members putting together projects? Considering the length of time that Centenary of Anzac process took to ensure that the proponents had all their paperwork, can the minister see this process being actually rolled out so that projects are delivered by November 2018? What sort of support will be given to electorate offices to go through this process? If one electorate does not spend its full amount, will the money then be re-allocated to other worthy projects or will that be returned as a saving to consolidated revenue? Has there already being consultation with the veteran communities at the grassroots level about this program?
I ask these questions with hindsight, knowing my own experience with the Centenary of Anzac grants. While a very, very excellent Labor program, it did take significant time to ensure that proponents could get their applications in and that committees were in a position to be able to look through those. It took a very, very long time at the department end to process those. If we are wanting a program that properly recognises November 2018, the 100-year centenary of armistice, what assurances can the minister give that there will be adequate support for electorate offices as well as adequate processing time at the department's end?
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (19:22): Minister, thank you for joining us for this consideration in detail of the veterans' affairs portfolio. There have been a number of measures for veterans included in the budget this year, and I commend you and the government for your work in this area. Veterans' mental health is a worthy focus of affairs and I am proud to be a member of this government that is investing a record amount into veterans' mental health support and veterans' services. I thank you, Minister, for recently coming to Dunkley to speak at Seaford RSL with veterans about some of these initiatives.
Minister, we also recently met to discuss the personal difficulties that one of my constituents in particular is experiencing in relation to his Defence Abuse Response Taskforce, DART, claim, including the delays in reaching an outcome and the support that he requires. I really appreciated the time and concern you brought to that discussion and the assistance that you are providing to my constituent.
An area that has been brought to my attention, however, both locally in Dunkley and in the media are veterans' experiences in transitioning to post-military routine and often their struggle to cope, especially with employment and what many of us would consider aspects of ordinary, everyday life. We have heard about the shocking suicide rate among young veterans. I acknowledge my colleague the member for Fisher, who spoke before, and his concern in this area.
I would also like to bring focus to the welfare and support of veterans when it comes to re-integrating into the workforce. It is sadly all too common to hear that employers frequently do not recognise the training, accreditation and experiences of trades within the armed forces, as the skills required tend to vary in context and how they are applied. People who have served our country so selflessly do not deserve to be left at a loss when they leave the Defence Force. However, often their experience and skills are seen as nontransferable to civilian work.
Employment is an aspect of life that is so critical to routine and structure, something which goes hand in hand with learning to cope in a new environment and system. It is for this reason that I am incredibly supportive of the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program, which aims to support veterans in finding meaningful postservice employment and to assist businesses to recognise and value the unique talents of former ADF personnel—some of the talents, for example, that I saw when I recently visited the Middle East region and Afghanistan, joined by the shadow minister in this Chamber. Amongst the community, there could be a lot more support for those veterans than there appears to be currently, so I encourage ex-service organisations to get involved with the program and to register their interest in partnering with industry on projects to promote the employment of veterans.
I support the initiatives of the department to improve the transition process by ensuring that all individuals leave the Defence Force with the appropriate documentation detailing their training and abilities and individual transition programs. It is encouraging that many of the initiatives included in the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program will aid veterans in transition to postmilitary life, especially by working with civilian authorities to align military qualifications with civilian qualifications and to fill the effective gap in former members' working history.
Minister, on these points, with the aims of the Veterans' Employment Program in mind, how can we as a government work to ensure that our veterans do not fall through the gaps in the system and that they continue to be supported once they leave the Defence Force? Could you please elaborate on other aspects of the Veterans' Employment Program?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (19:26): I thank all members for their contribution to this very important area of public policy that we as a government are given responsibility for. Can I just go firstly to the questions asked by the shadow minister in her first statements regarding the Medicare freeze, which the Labor Party introduced. As the shadow minister would be aware, we are in the process of now dismantling that freeze, which the Labor Party introduced. All the available evidence that I have been given is that veterans are still getting the services that they require. We will continue to monitor this, but all the available evidence to me and everything that I am hearing is that veterans are getting the care that they need, and there is not an impact on the services available to them.
With regard to mental health issues and the work taking place at the Thompson institute and whether we might be able to look to do more in the area of PTSD: research into PTSD has been something that we have prioritised and will continue to prioritise. It is something that we will look to do on an ongoing basis on the back of our world-leading changes in the mental health area for veterans. Now, if you have served one day, you can get free treatment and free access to treatment for all mental health conditions.
Identifying veterans is obviously an area which has not been a priority but now is. What we want is a very seamless process whereby, when you start in Defence, we will be able to follow you right through your Defence career into the veterans community. As of 1 July last year, that process has started. Obviously, it will take time, but at least, from now on, we are going to be able to monitor someone's career through Defence into the veterans community so that we will not get people falling through the cracks.
With regard to the $160 million investment in Veteran Centric Reform, I thank the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance for being the first Treasurer and finance minister, I think, in over a decade to properly invest in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to make sure that it will continue to be able to operate as a proper, standalone department. The onus now is on the department and me as minister to make sure that that money is well spent so that we can then go back and ensure that we continue this process. With the initial $20 million last year, we were able to demonstrate what that could do to claims times in certain areas we put that money to. My view is that with this $160 million we will once again be able to show the transformational impact that this investment can have, and we will be able to continue the process to ensure that we have a 21st century Department of Veterans' Affairs.
When it comes to the Centenary of Anzac grants, can I say that we learnt a lot. Obviously the previous Labor government introduced the grants that were implemented by our government. We have learnt from that, and we will make sure that they are rolled out extremely well in the coming months.
Expenditure agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned 19:31
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
NBN services
(Question No. 690)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 20 March 2017:
What is the NBN mobile data coverage across northern Australia above the Tropic of Capricorn?
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The NBN has not been designed to provide mobile data coverage, rather it provides high-speed broadband services to residential and business premises. In northern Australia, the NBN provides these services through fixed line, fixed wireless and satellite technologies which are supplied to individual premises.
NBN services
(Question No. 691)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts, in writing, on 20 March 2017
With reference to NBN services:
(1) Are NBN services residential only—attributable to an individual, not a business entity,
(2) If so, does this mean that individual services cannot be managed through a single account, meaning all support/account management must be carried out by the named account holder, not a business representative.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
NBN Co Limited (nbn) provides services to its wholesale customers, telephone and internet service providers, and does not provide services directly to end users. These telephone and internet service providers develop retail solutions to address the needs of their residential and business end users. Account management features may form part of an nbn-based plan or product offered by a retail service provider. nbn is not responsible for determining or prescribing such features.
NBN services
(Question No. 693)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts, in writing, on 20 March 2017
With reference to the NBN and service level agreements on NBN connections:
(1) Is it a fact that there are no service level agreements on NBN connections?
(2) If so, does this mean that if there is an outage, no contractual relationship exists with the supplier to restore the service within an agreed timeframe, or to provide adequate communication channels for status updates on the outage.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Provision of services over the National Broadband Network (NBN) involves supply of services by NBN Co Limited (nbn) to its customers, retail service providers (RSPs) and supply of services by RSPs to their customers, Australian consumers.
The Wholesale Broadband Agreement nbn has with its customers includes a Service Level Schedule. This document describes the wholesale Service Levels that apply to the products and services that nbn supplies to its customers, RSPs. It also sets out the Performance Objectives that nbn will aim to achieve for certain cumulative Service Levels. The Service Levels are set out in a way that supports the end user lifecycle experience and apply to the wholesale nbn service provided to RSPs. These cover such things as connections, service availability and fault rectification. Failure to achieve a Service Level or a Performance Objective may give rise to consequences, such as an obligation on nbn to take corrective action or provide compensation or rebates to its RSP customers.
Standard telephone services delivered to consumers over the NBN are subject to connection and fault rectification timeframes in line with the CSG. Consumers are entitled to CSG compensation where timeframes are not met via their RSP. Internet and VoIP services delivered over the NBN are subject to the terms and conditions set out in the contract between the consumer and their RSP. Consumers unhappy with any aspect of their service, including fault rectification or outage communications, may seek recourse through their RSP or, if this does not produce a satisfactory outcome, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Consumers may also exercise their right to choose another RSP.