The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Measures) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (09:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will reintroduce, with certain modifications, two measures relating to student entitlements that were originally announced by the previous government in the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and the 2013-14 budget.
The two measures were removed from the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014 during its passage through the Senate in March 2014.
Interest charge
The bill will allow for an interest charge to be applied to certain debts incurred by recipients of Austudy payment, fares allowance, youth allowance for full-time students and apprentices, and Abstudy living allowance.
The interest charge will only be applied, from 1 January 2015, where the debtor does not have or is not honouring an acceptable repayment arrangement.
At present, current recipients of income support with debts have their payments reduced until their debts are repaid. For former recipients of income support, on the other hand, there is no incentive to repay their debts.
Debtors who are already making repayments, or who come to a repayment agreement with the Department of Human Services following implementation of the measure, will not be charged interest.
The key purpose of the interest charge is to encourage debtors to repay their debt, in a timely fashion, where they have the financial capacity to do so.
Once the interest charge is in place, debtors who have not been making repayments will have an incentive to engage with the Department of Human Services to make a repayment arrangement in order to avoid the interest charge.
The rate of the interest charge will be based upon on the 90-day bank accepted bill rate, plus an additional seven per cent, as is currently applied by the Australian Taxation Office for tax debts under the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Over the last four years, this rate has averaged approximately 10.9 per cent, and currently stands at 9.69 per cent for the quarter July to September 2014.
Student Start-up Loans
From 1 January 2015, the bill replaces the current student start-up scholarship with an income-contingent loan, the student start-up loan. The student start-up loan aims to help students with the costs of study, including the purchase of text books, computers and internet access.
Under the new arrangements, there will be a limit of two start-up loans per year, of equivalent value to the student start-up scholarship (currently $1,025 each and to be indexed from 2017).
The loans will be available on a voluntary basis, and will be repayable under similar arrangements to Higher Education Loan Program debts.
Students will only be required to begin repaying their student start-up loan after their Higher Education Loan Program debt has been repaid.
In a departure from the measure introduced in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (a departure arising from the 2014-15 budget), there will be no grandfathering arrangements for students who had previously received a student start-up scholarship prior to the commencement of the new provisions.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Industry Code Penalties) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Billson.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (09:05):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Industry Code Penalties) Bill 2014.
This bill is the first step in the start of a new era in franchising. It is the start of an improved, fine-tuned regulatory system for the franchising sector, which represents a significant part of Australian small business.
The first franchising code was introduced by the Howard government in 1998.
The stated purpose of the Franchising Code of Conduct is 'to regulate the conduct of participants in franchising towards other participants in franchising'. And, overall, it has to be said that it has done this quite well over the years.
The code has been reviewed many times. There have been eight reviews into the franchising sector or how it is regulated, at the Commonwealth and state level, in the last eight years. It has been amended from time to time by governments on both sides of the divide to patch holes as they were identified. But it is now 16 years old and it is beginning to look its age.
That is why we will be introducing a new franchising code, one that simplifies and modernises the way franchising is regulated, one that fulfils our election commitment to refine the franchising code to strengthen its effectiveness, improve its responsiveness to the sector's unique commercial characteristics and tensions and guard against additional state-based regulation. For years in opposition, the coalition has campaigned for reform in the franchising code and committed to do so. Today is a tangible and substantial element of our election and policy vision.
The franchise industry is very important to the small business community, with around 73,000 units employing over 400,000 Australians and producing a sales turnover in excess of $131 billion annually.3 It gives the public access to successful Australian enterprises as well as some of the most recognisable international brands.
Indeed, the franchising sector displays great capacity for nurturing innovation and entrepreneurship; the majority of franchise systems in Australia are developed right here rather than being overseas imports. Through these measures, the government will ensure Australia maintains world-class franchising regulations to give this important sector the confidence and support it needs to flourish.
We want to promote growth in the sector, reduce red tape and make sure that all participants in the industry follow best-practice principles. The government is also committed to guard against separate and additional state regulation to maintain a consistent national framework.
The purpose of this bill is to enable the government to include civil penalty provisions in the new franchising code. A breach of a civil penalty provision will expose a franchisor or franchisee to an infringement notice issued by the ACCC or a pecuniary penalty imposed by the court. The question of pecuniary penalties for breaches of the franchising code has been considered many times in the past. Pecuniary penalties were recommended for breaches of the code by the 2008 parliamentary joint committee. Similar calls were made in 2008 by committee inquiries into franchising regulation legislation in South Australia and Western Australia.
In 2013, Mr Alan Wein conducted the most recent review of the franchising code. This independent review involved comprehensive stakeholder consultations across the franchising community and found that there was widespread industry support for introducing pecuniary penalties to deter breaches of the franchising code. The coalition welcomed the Wein review and its recommendations and at the time stated that it was a 'useful road map to franchise reform'.
Building on Mr Wein's recommendations and the strong feedback from stakeholders, in April 2014 this government took swift action to develop and release exposure drafts of the bill and the new franchising code for public comment. Feedback on the proposed reforms was very positive, receiving widespread support across the sector.
The ability to include civil penalty provisions in the Franchising Code is a key component of the reform package.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Industry Code Penalties) Bill 2014 will facilitate a change to the way the Franchising Code of Conduct is enforced by amending the Competition and Consumer Act to:
allow regulations to be made that prescribe a pecuniary penalty not exceeding 300 penalty units for a breach of a civil penalty provision of an industry code; and
allow the industry regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable grounds to believe a person has contravened a civil penalty provision of an industry code.
These measures will more effectively deter breaches of the code and enhance the enforcement tools available to the ACCC by allowing it to take rapid action when breaches of the code do occur. This will facilitate greater compliance across the sector and may assist in reducing the number of protracted, costly disputes.
This will promote better practice in franchising, which will, in turn, make the sector more attractive to investors, both locally and internationally. Penalties will not apply to other industry codes unless separate policy and regulatory action is taken to specifically introduce penalties under those codes.
The bill sets the upper limit for a pecuniary penalty for a contravention of an industry code at 300 penalty units, currently $51,000. The amount of an infringement notice issued by the ACCC for a code breach is 50 penalty units, $8,500, for a body corporate and 10 penalty units, $1,700, in any other case.
These penalties are reasonable and moderate. They represent a penalty amount with targeted application to provide a balanced, lighter-touch approach that will give the code teeth while preserving the co-regulatory principle of industry codes.
Pecuniary penalties will only apply to provisions of the franchising code that are fundamental to the purpose of the code and where noncompliance is likely to cause significant detriment to the other party.
By allowing the ACCC to issue an infringement notice for a breach of the code, the government adds increased flexibility and agility to the regulator's enforcement armory. Infringement notices allow breaches to be dealt with in a timely and cost-efficient manner without the need for a court order in appropriate circumstances.
As I said earlier, this bill is the first step in a new era of regulation for the franchising sector. The bill is part of the government's comprehensive package of reforms to improve the way the franchising sector is regulated.
The government will bring forward a new Franchising Code of Conduct to be progressed later this year, subsequent to the passage of the bill. The new code will enhance and update the current code.
The new code will introduce an overarching obligation for parties to a franchising agreement to act in good faith in their dealings with each other. Introducing a specific duty to act in good faith will finally answer the calls from the franchising community and numerous reviews. It will provide a malleable tool to deal with the diversity of issues that often stem from the unique interdependent relationships in franchising. 'Good faith' under the code will have the same meaning as in common law, but we will be providing some guidance for participants around what might be considered good faith.
The obligation to act in good faith and the introduction of pecuniary penalties will promote better conduct, enhancing the attractiveness of franchising to entrepreneurs and investors. These measures go to the heart of strengthening business relationships and will underpin the wider reforms that we are making to franchising regulation.
The new code will also:
improve disclosure, including the introduction of a short, easy-to-understand information statement for prospective franchisees;
cut red tape by clarifying and streamlining provisions;
improve the transparency of marketing funds;
make franchisors more accountable where franchisees are required to pay for significant capital expenditure; and
offer extra protection to franchisees by limiting, in a fair and balanced way, the enforceability of restraint-of-trade clauses at the end of a franchise agreement in special circumstances.
The proposed reforms will strike the right balance between the rights and obligations of franchisors and franchisees, while maintaining the freedom of the parties to make their contract as they see fit in order to provide certainty.
Further, they will result in an estimated compliance saving of $8.6 million annually for the sector.
The new code regulations will be progressed through the federal Executive Council later this year once the bill is passed by the parliament. The new franchising code is expected to take effect from 1 January 2015.
I would like to thank the officials, formerly in the Department of Industry and now transferred to the Treasury, for their ongoing and dedicated work in the development of this reform package. I thank them for their diligence and their expertise. I commend this bill to the House and welcome in a new era in franchising.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Amendment Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment Bill 2014 is an omnibus bill that proposes a number of minor changes to the Customs Act 1901, known as the Customs Act.
Firstly, the bill will amend the Customs Act to extend Customs powers of examination to the baggage of domestic travellers on international flights and voyages, and to domestic cargo that is carried on an international fight or voyage. Domestic travellers and their personal effects and domestic cargo are often carried on domestic legs of international flights or voyages between Australian ports or airports and places other than proclaimed ports and airports by approved ships and aircraft.
There is a serious vulnerability that dutiable or prohibited goods will be transferred where domestic travellers on international flights can access the sterile areas of airports and mix with international travellers during embarkation and disembarkation processing. The intermingling of domestic cargo and imported goods (or goods for export) also presents risks for diversion of cargo from one stream to the other.
The amendment will ensure that Customs control and powers of examination are provided for the goods of domestic travellers and of domestic cargo on international flights or voyages equal to the powers to examine the goods of international travellers and international cargo. This will close the gap in the treatment of identified border risks and reduce the advantage taken by criminal entities where domestic and international interactions can occur.
This bill will also extend Customs control to those places at which ships and aircraft often arrive in Australia that are not proclaimed ports or airports and where government agencies do not have a strong presence. International ships or aircraft may seek permission to bring a ship or aircraft to a place other than a proclaimed port or airport. For instance, the cruise ship industry regularly seeks permission to visit non-proclaimed areas of the Australian coastline. Industries involved in offshore resource activities do not utilise traditional port facilities and often seek permission to bring vessels direct to an offshore installation. The master of a ship or pilot of an aircraft may also bring the ship or aircraft to a place other than a port or airport due to stress of weather or other reasonable cause.
It is in these instances that vulnerabilities exist when ships or aircraft brought to non-proclaimed places as part of an international journey may also be involved in disembarking travellers or unloading goods in those locations. Extending Customs control and examination powers to these non-proclaimed places will minimise the risks that these activities may pose.
This bill will improve, and make consistent with other parts of the Customs Act, the application processes for permissions to load and unload ships' and aircrafts' stores, permissions to transfer goods between certain vessels and applications for a Certificate of Clearance. These amendments will also support initiatives to enable online applications for industry to seek these permissions.
The bill will also provide greater flexibility in relation to the reporting of the arrival of ships and aircraft in Australia and reporting stores and prohibited goods on such ships and aircraft. These changes will allow earlier assessment and the planning of resources required if the stores or prohibited goods reported present risks, including the management of firearms, weapons and narcotics.
The bill will also correct a technical error in relation to the interaction of Customs and Border Protection's Infringement Notice Scheme and the claims process for seized goods under the Customs Act.
Finally, the bill will also improve the administration of the appointment of authorised officers by class under the Customs Act.
Debate adjourned.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Keenan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (09:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will ban the importation of new psychoactive substances and deliver on the key government election commitment to implement tougher penalties for gun related crime.
The bill will also improve Australia's criminal justice arrangements by:
streamlining Australia's international transfer of prisoner scheme
clarifying that slavery offences have universal jurisdiction to ensure agencies are able to investigate and prosecute these offences wherever they occur, and
enhancing Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime.
It will also make minor edits to the Commonwealth's drug regime and arrangements for policing in certain airports.
NPS
New psychoactive substances are designed to mimic the psychoactive effects of illicit drugs, however their chemical structures are not captured by existing controls on those drugs. These substances are often presented as 'legal highs'. This may suggest that they are somehow safer than illicit drugs and that they have been tested or assessed by the government.
This is incorrect. These substances are potentially very dangerous. They have been directly linked to deaths and serious injury. They are untested chemical compounds which masquerade as illicit drugs but are presented as being legal analogues of those drugs.
New psychoactive substances have been a growing problem for governments in Australia and overseas in recent years. Governments progressively ban these substances as evidence about their use and harm becomes available, yet manufacturers can alter the composition of these substances to avoid the law. The large number of potential new psychoactive substances and their rate of appearance means that we cannot stay ahead of the market.
This bill changes the dynamic. From now, the government will be in front. The bill will introduce offences into the Criminal Code to ban the importation of substances based on their psychoactive effect and where they are presented as alternatives to illicit drugs. It will also amend the Customs Act to allow officers of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Federal Police to stop these drugs, seize them and destroy them before they can be put on the market.
It will be up to a person whose goods have been seized on suspicion of being a new psychoactive substance to show why they should be returned to them. If an importer cannot do this—for example, by showing that the goods have a legitimate use—their goods will be destroyed.
These measures will not apply to imports for a legitimate purpose. Foods, medicines, industrial, agricultural and veterinary chemicals may all be psychoactive, but they serve important functions in our society and economy. They should not, and will not, be caught up in this regime.
Stopping the sale of new psychoactive substances requires a cooperative effort between the Commonwealth, states and territories to ensure that health, law enforcement and education initiatives are all aligned. This bill will complement the national framework for new psychoactive substances that the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council announced on 4 July 2014.
The bill will stop people from importing these dangerous chemicals for use as alternatives to illicit drugs and pretending they are legal or safe. In combination with state and territory initiatives under the national framework, we can prevent new psychoactive substances from becoming as great a challenge as other illicit drugs.
Firearms
In the lead up to the 2013 election, the coalition undertook to implement tougher penalties for gun-related crime. As the government, we are following through on that promise by creating a more comprehensive set of offences and penalties for the trafficking of firearms and firearm parts.
The entry of illegal firearms into the Australian community can have a significant impact on the size of the illicit market. This growing pool of firearms can be accessed by groups and individuals to commit serious and violent crimes that can result in death. For example, in 2012 firearms were identified as being the type of weapon used in 25 per cent of homicides in Australia [Australian crime: Facts and figures 2013, Australian Institute of Criminology].
Currently, criminals could potentially evade firearms trafficking offences and penalties by breaking firearms down and trafficking their constituent parts. This bill will close this gap by enabling the conviction of those who engage in the trafficking of firearm parts.
This bill will also create a new offence in the Criminal Code for international trafficking of firearms and firearm parts, complementing those international trafficking offences already in existence in the Customs Act. This will extend the current cross‑border firearms trafficking offences in the Criminal Code, which are limited to trafficking within Australia, to capture the trafficking of firearms (and firearm parts) into and out of Australia.
Finally, the bill will introduce mandatory minimum sentences of five years' imprisonment for offenders charged for these offences under the Code. The introduction of this type of penalty is appropriate to ensure that high culpability offenders receive sentences proportionate to the seriousness of their offending. However, this mandatory minimum sentence will not carry with it a specified non-parole period, nor will it apply to minors. This will clearly signal the seriousness of the offence, while providing courts with discretion to set custodial periods consistent with the particular circumstances of the offender and the offence.
These amendments create a more comprehensive set of offences and penalties, reflecting the seriousness with which this government views gun-crime, and the gravity of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market.
International Transfer of Prisoner Scheme
Australia's international transfer of prisoner scheme promotes the successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society of a prisoner, whilst preserving the sentence imposed by the sentencing country in the prisoner's home country. The scheme is important for community safety as it ensures that prisoners can be reintegrated into that country's community and appropriately monitored, supervised and supported during the enforcement of the sentence.
The International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997,which governs our international transfer of prisoner scheme, came into operation nearly 20 years ago. While it has been effective in enabling prisoners to be transferred back to Australia and out of Australia to their home country, there are opportunities to make the existing processes governing this scheme more efficient, timely and simplified.
The existing processes will be streamlined by:
improving arrangements governing unviable transfer applications by removing the requirement for a decision to be made in unviable cases
implementing timeframes for reapplications so that the Attorney-General is not required to consider a reapplication within one year from the date of refusal, and
simplifying the process of notifying and seeking the consent of the transfer country.
These amendments will alleviate existing time and resource burdens whilst appropriately maintaining prisoner's rights.
Slavery
The bill also makes clear that the slavery offences in section 270.3 of the Criminal Code have universal jurisdiction. Slavery is amongst the most abhorrent of all crimes and this amendment will ensure that Australian law enforcement agencies have the appropriate tools to target this crime wherever it occurs.
Minor Amendments
This bill will also enhance Australia's anti-money laundering regime though amendments to the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 that will simplify the obligations of cash dealers under Australia's anti-money laundering regime, removing duplication and red tape.
The bill will also validate investigatory action, if any, of the AFP and special members, in relation to state offences having occurred in certain Commonwealth airports during the period between the repeal and passage of regulations. This bill will also make a number of minor amendments to correct inaccurate references and grammatical errors in the Code and the Customs Act.
Conclusion
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Drugs and Other Measures) Bill 2014 contains important measures that will ensure that Commonwealth criminal law remains up to date and effective in combating new and emerging illicit drugs, firearms trafficking and corruption, as well as ensuring existing processes for Australia's international transfer of prisoners' scheme are efficient and timely.
Debate adjourned.
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Robert.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (09:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present legislation that will benefit members and former members of the Australian Defence Force, and, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that you are in the chair, as this bill is presented to someone who has a longstanding regard for our fighting men and women.
By way of history, as a result of the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, a new methodology was implemented from 1 July 2013 to calculate the amount of permanent impairment compensation payable under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (MRCA).
This new methodology applies to persons who have an injury or disease already accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act (VEA) or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (SRCA).
Under these circumstances, the compensation payable under the MRCA is assessed taking account of conditions accepted under the VEA and/or the SRCA, to ensure that any compensation paid is assessed on a whole-of-person basis.
This compensation is referred to as transitional permanent impairment compensation.
The bill will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to retrospectively apply the new methodology resulting from the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements in circumstances prevented by the current legislation.
This is expected to result in an increased amount of MRCA compensation for some recipients. It should be noted that the retrospective recalculation is being undertaken on the basis that no person would ever be disadvantaged.
Where the new calculation would result in a lesser amount of MRCA compensation, the amount of the person's MRCA compensation would be maintained at the existing amount.
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission began the retrospective recalculations for transitional permanent impairment compensation in January of this year.
This highlighted a technical barrier in the existing legislation that prevents the retrospective recalculation of transitional permanent impairment compensation in certain circumstances.
These circumstances are where the person's claim for permanent impairment compensation was the subject of a claimant initiated review by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, or a review by the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Under the existing legislation, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission has no power to reconsider these decisions.
This meant that the MRCA requires amendment to enable the new methodology to be retrospectively applied to recalculate the amount of permanent impairment compensation payable in these circumstances.
The amendments in this bill will enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to complete these reviews.
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has now been in operation for 10 years.
The act commenced on 1 July 2004 and was the first compensation legislation designed to cover the whole spectrum of military service.
The amendments in this bill are an example of the ongoing finetuning that is necessary to ensure the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act continues to serve the needs of those who serve.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 4) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.
This bill delivers on the government's election commitment to introduce a tax receipt for individual taxpayers and continues the government's work in restoring the integrity of the Australian tax system.
Soon after the government was elected, we were advised that 96 tax and superannuation measures had not been legislated.
This backlog created significant operational uncertainty for businesses and consumers.
We acted swiftly to clean up Labor's mess, and to provide certainty and reduce red tape for all taxpayers: investors, small business and corporate Australia.
This bill furthers the government's commitment to eliminate uncertainty, and to restore simplicity and fairness to the Australian tax system.
Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill implement measures announced but never developed or legislated by the previous government.
Schedule 1 will improve the integrity and the fairness of Australia's taxation system by tightening and improving the thin capitalisation rules.
The thin capitalisation rules are designed to prevent multinationals from profit shifting by allocating a disproportionate amount of debt to their Australian operations, and claiming excessive debt deductions in Australia, thereby reducing their Australian taxable income. If the Australian operations are funded by excessive debt, they are said to be 'thinly capitalised'.
The rules consist of a number of statutory debt limit tests which calculate the maximum debt deductions allowed to be claimed for a multinational's Australian operations. The current limits were set in 2001.
This bill amends the statutory debt limits to bring them more closely into line with commercial debt levels or to regulatory requirements in the case of banks and non‑bank financial entities. Bringing the limits more closely into line with commercial debt levels reduces the incentive for multinational enterprises to allocate excessive levels of debt to their Australian operations, and claim excessive debt deductions in Australia, thereby reducing their Australian taxable income.
It also introduces a new test for inbound investors to restrict tax deductible gearing of the Australian operations to the level of gearing of the group worldwide. We are assisting those in the small and medium enterprise sector that have overseas operations by reducing the cost of determining whether they comply with the thin capitalisation legislation. The threshold for complying with the regime will be increased from $250,000 to $2 million of total debt deductions.
Schedule 2 will reform the tax exemption for foreign non-portfolio dividends paid to Australian corporate taxpayers. This exemption helps ensure Australian investments in offshore subsidiaries are able to compete on an equal footing with other businesses located in that country. The reforms will both modernise the rules to provide broader access to the exemption and improve the integrity of the tax system by ensuring the exemption only applies to returns on instruments treated as 'equity' for tax purposes.
This removes a significant tax-planning opportunity that has arisen from a flaw in the current tax law. This flaw has allowed multinational taxpayers to claim a tax exemption for interest income from loans to offshore subsidiaries, whereas this income should be assessable.
The government believes that the reforms contained in schedules 1 and 2 strike an appropriate balance between encouraging business investment to grow Australia's economy and protecting Australia's tax base.
Maintaining a secure and sustainable tax system is central to the government's efforts to repair the budget. The changes to thin capitalisation rules and the exemption for foreign non-portfolio dividends are expected to provide the government with $755 million over the forward estimates period.
Schedule 3 to this bill amends the income tax laws to improve the integrity of Australia's foreign resident capital gains tax (CGT) regime by preventing the double counting of certain assets under the regime's principal asset test.
The principal asset test applies to determine whether an entity's underlying value is principally derived from Australian real property.
Removing the double counting of certain assets will ensure that a foreign resident's interest in an entity that derives its value principally from Australian real property remains within Australia's tax net.
Under Australia's taxation laws a foreign resident is subject to CGT only either where the CGT asset disposed of is a direct or indirect interest in Australian real property or where the asset is used in carrying on a business through a permanent establishment (for example, a branch) in Australia.
The amendments in this bill extend the original 2013-14 budget announcement to include interests in unconsolidated groups as well as in consolidated groups held by foreign residents to ensure the principal asset test operates as intended.
Schedule 3 also makes a technical amendment to references to the permanent establishment definition to ensure the foreign resident CGT regime applies where assets are used in carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in Australia.
Schedule 4 to this bill amends the tax law to require the Commissioner of Taxation to issue a tax receipt to individuals following their income tax assessment.
During the last election, the coalition committed to introducing a tax receipt for individual taxpayers.
From 1 July 2014, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) started issuing tax receipts to individual taxpayers in Australia.
It is expected that around 10 million tax receipts will be issued. Up to 15 July 2014, the ATO had already issued over half a million receipts.
To make tax receipts a formal, ongoing feature of the system, the government is now introducing legislative amendments to the taxation law that are included in schedule 4 of this bill.
The tax receipt is a concise one-page personalised and itemised receipt which shows, in dollar terms, how much of a person's tax bill was spent on each area of the budget. It will also show information about the level of gross government debt.
In most circumstances, the tax receipt will accompany the taxpayer's notice of assessment.
The government understands that every dollar the government has it holds on trust for taxpayers. We believe taxpayers deserve transparency so they know how their tax is being spent and what the level of government debt is.
After $123 billion of Labor deficits, debt was projected to reach $667 billion in the medium term. This debt has to be paid back, and it is dead money the government cannot use to help families or to cut taxes.
This government is committed to living within its means. It is not sustainable for a government to continue to borrow money to pay for consumption today at the expense of generations of taxpayers into the future.
Our first budget outlined a path to return the budget to a more sustainable footing.
Because of this plan, in our first four years to 2017-18, deficits are now estimated to total $60 billion.
Our policies aim to reduce debt by almost $300 billion over the next decade.
These tax receipts enshrine the coalition's commitment to provide further transparency to taxpayers as we undertake this task to repair the budget. This initiative will ensure all governments are held accountable for spending tax revenue wisely and for the levels of government debt they maintain.
Costs for the issuance of the receipt will be met by the ATO.
Schedule 5 makes a number of amendments to ensure the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies and addressing unintended outcomes.
Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:44): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give the force of law to the new tax treaty signed by Australia and Switzerland on 30 July 2013.
Tax treaties facilitate trade and investment by reducing barriers caused by the double taxation of residents in the two countries. Australia has 44 bilateral tax treaties.
Australia and Switzerland share a close economic relationship and the new tax treaty—the Convention between Australia and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and its associated Protocol—will strengthen this relationship.
The new treaty will update the existing bilateral tax arrangements between Australia and Switzerland, to align them with current Australian and international tax treaty policy settings. This is expected to further encourage bilateral trade and investment.
The new treaty will fulfil Australia's 'most favoured nation' obligations, contained in the existing tax treaty with Switzerland, to reduce its withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties paid by Australian residents to Swiss residents.
The new treaty will also modernise the bilateral taxpayer information sharing arrangements and permit, for the first time, the exchange of taxpayer information for the purpose of preventing tax evasion. This greater transparency includes access to Swiss bank information that could help Australia better enforce its tax laws.
Maintaining a secure and sustainable tax system is central to the government's efforts to repair the budget and, consistent with this objective, the information sharing arrangements provided by the new treaty will enhance the integrity of Australia's tax system. The new arrangements are also consistent with the government's ongoing engagement with international efforts to improve tax compliance globally.
In addition to updating the rules that allocate taxing rights over certain income derived by Australian and Swiss residents, the new treaty will provide a number of benefits for taxpayers. These include rules to:
help remove double taxation of transactions between associated entities;
prevent the double taxation of fringe benefits provided to employees;
prevent tax discrimination against Australian and Swiss nationals; and
provide taxpayers with the option of referring unresolved tax disputes to independent arbitration.
The new treaty will enter into force following the last notification that both countries have completed their domestic requirements which, in the case of Australia, includes the enactment of this bill.
The bill will also amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to clarify the meaning of the term 'immovable property' for the purposes of both the new treaty and any future Australian tax treaties that also use that term.
This will align the term 'immovable property' with the Australian domestic law term 'real property', and provide for consistent treatment of income and gains derived from such property across Australia's tax treaty network.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Withdrawal
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:47): On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I move:
That the following order of the day, government business, be discharged:
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Repeal Bill 2014: Second reading—Resumption of debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Report
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (09:52): As required by resolutions of the House, I table the following document: Privileges and Members' Interests Committee—Register of Members’ Interests—Notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 27 March 2014 to 15 July 2014.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (09:49): I present a report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
BILLS
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (09:50): As I was saying yesterday, the Australian people expect their taxpayer dollars to go towards policy measures that improve our communities and benefit Australia as a whole. In its current form, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 fails to meet this expectation and its own objectives to ensure compliance measures are met at all times by those who receive income support. The amendments before the House today will significantly strengthen our employment welfare system and its intention for resources to be used efficiently and effectively. This is part of the Abbott government's overall strategy to build a stronger Australia, and to do this we need a skilled workforce, with everyone who has the ability to work contributing to its growth and prosperity.
In the budget, this government outlined key policy measures relating to job seekers including its new Work for the Dole program. The amendments before us today will go hand-in-hand with these policy measures to help young job seekers in particular move out of the welfare system and into gainful employment. This will benefit not only job seekers in the long term but their community and the nation as a whole. Under recent changes, job seekers aged 18-30 who have been unemployed for 12 months or more and receiving taxpayer-funded assistance from a Job Services Australia provider will be required to participate in work for the dole activities for 15 hours per week for six months, unless they are working part time. From 1 July next year, all job seekers aged 18-30 and in receipt of Newstart allowance and Youth Allowance will be required to undertake work for the dole for 25 hours per week when in receipt of payment. These rules will apply to new income support recipients with a full work capacity and who are not in education or a part-time apprenticeship. Alternative arrangements will apply to job seekers with a partial work capacity, significant barriers to employment or parent carer responsibilities.
These changes are aimed at supporting young people to get a job and deterring them from becoming reliant on welfare. Australians cannot afford to pay for those who abuse the system and take advantage of their hard work. And why should government let them? We are a nation that was built on the notion of the Aussie battler—a hard day's pay for a hard day's work. We are a nation that expects every Australian to contribute to the best of their ability to their individual communities and to the nation as a whole. We must ensure that appropriate rules and regulations are in place that allow government and its relevant service agencies to provide support to those who need it. We must also ensure that those who seek to take advantage and abuse our safety net are prevented from doing so. The amendments before us today will ensure this is achieved by creating stronger penalties for serious failures. They are necessary amendments to stop the waste and improve efficiency. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (09:53): A number of the measures contained in this bill would have to be some of the harshest measures outlined in the government's budget. They attack some of the most vulnerable in our community; they attack our younger people—people whom we should support. From what previous speakers from the other side have said, it seems that the government does not understand the very complex problem of youth unemployment. The reality is that our jobs market and our economy are changing. The previous speaker suggested that Australia was built on the Aussie battler—a hard day's work for a fair day's pay and for a fair go—but the problem is that we no longer have the notion of a job for life.
You cannot leave school at 16, 17 or 18 today and walk into a job. Those jobs do not exist. There has been structural change in the jobs market and in the economy. The reality for a young person is that they will not work one or two jobs in their lifetime; they will work 10 to 30 jobs over their life. The job turnover rate is increasing, and people are working more and more and in different jobs. At 34 I am one of the younger members of parliament and I am coming up to my 20th anniversary in the workforce. In that time I have had 16 jobs; most of those were when I was younger at high school or university—insecure jobs where you work multiple casual jobs to make up a full-time employment to earn a decent living.
This is not just my story; it is the story of young people today in Australia, because those jobs for life do not exist anymore. What I find particularly disappointing about the measures put forward by the government is that they dismiss a very complex problem. I believe government needs to be doing more to create jobs, but what we see in this bill is the government attacking those who are seeking work. Kate from my electorate wrote me a long letter after the budget about how this bill will affect her. She began by describing what it is like to be unemployed and being a young person in Bendigo where there are limited job opportunities.
People don't like it when you are unemployed. They think you are lazy and wasting their tax paying dollars. In the year that I have been unemployed I have applied for one hundred and seventy jobs. Less than ten bothered to reply.
Those 10 Reponses were all '"unsuccessful applicant" emails … sent out in bulk'. She says that by far the hardest thing about being jobless is being on Centrelink payments. The $316 she gets paid each week barely covers the basics: $180 on rent, $20 on petrol, $45 on electricity and gas, $25 on phone, $10 a week on car insurance and $5 for medication. That leaves about $31.50 a week for everything else—for food, rego, vet, mechanics, clothes and anything else she may need.
This is how the other half lives. Just imagine Kate's life when this government kicks her onto nothing. How will she pay her rent? Or put petrol in the car to get to job interviews? How does she apply for those 170 jobs when she has no financial support from Newstart? Kate wrote:
I've put my name down at all the retail places, magazines, newspapers, technical writers, creative writers and scriptwriters as well as at universities and TAFE for teaching roles in Screenwriting and I've had zero luck. The problem remains that to get a job I need experience but to get experience I need a bloody job.
The area of unemployment is complex especially for young people. It is not that young people are not seeking work, but that we as a society, an economy and a government are not creating enough opportunities or strengthening industries to create jobs and opportunities for young people.
The government should be focused on creating for young people and not punishing them with in a way we have not seen for generations. If this bill is passed by the House and the Senate, it will force people into poverty. Through this bill the government seeks to impose the harshest measures on young job seekers. In addition to making them wait six months before becoming eligible for Newstart or the mandatory work-for-the-dole scheme, the government will kick them off support after six months and they start the cycle again. This approach will actually discourage young people from participating in the process of finding work. The measures will do the opposite to what the government is seeking to do—they will discourage people from seeking work—because they have set the bar way too high.
The question remains: who will support these young people and who will pay their rent when they are receiving no benefits? was speaking to a number of the Bendigo welfare agencies at a recent meeting, and this is one of the major issues they face. They can help young people with food hampers and with emergency relief, but they cannot help them with accommodation. One of our local community leaders, Ken Marchingo, who is the CEO of Haven; Home, Safe, has been very vocal about this attack on people under the age of 30, about preventing them from receiving income support. He says of the notion that people under 30 are somehow so well progressed in their lives that they can afford to lose their job but pay their rent, meet the cost of their utilities and feed and clothe themselves whilst looking for work: 'Who on earth is the government kidding?' He says that it will increase the demand on his services as these young people exit the rental system, become homeless and seek help with accommodation. This bill will increase pressure on other areas of our welfare sector, whether it be through people seeking support in paying their bills or seeking emergency accommodation. This bill seeks to punish, not to help, those we should be helping—those most in need. Ken also wonders whether, in his role, he is going to have to look these young people squarely in the eye and say, 'I can give you a blanket and show you where the bridge is.' He says that he simply does not have enough emergency accommodation to help these young people if they find themselves unemployed and without the income to be able to support themselves.
The other thing we need to focus on is the idea that under 30 is young. Most people in their late 20s, if they have a job, are working towards purchasing their first home. My sister Angela has just turned 30. She said to me that if this bill had come in a few years ago, when she bought her home, and she had found herself unemployed for a period, who was going to help pay her mortgage? What would have happened? What will happen to people who may find themselves unemployed? How will they pay their mortgage? How will they get to and from their next job interview?
Since the introduction of mutual obligation by a former Labor government we have had in this country the idea and expectation—a social contract, mutual obligation—that if job seekers go out and actively seek work, if like Kate they apply for 170 jobs, if they do their best to get work then we will support them. We will provide them with a small amount of financial assistance to help them to seek work. The government's attack on these people suggests one thing, that it does not understand the complexity of the search for employment. Yes, there might be some people who are continually on unemployment benefits, the people that the government says are the people who constantly break the rules. But there is something deep and complex about why they break rules. The majority of young people want to find work, and we should be doing everything we can to support them in finding work rather than punishing them and forcing them into poverty. To force someone to receive absolutely no support but expect them to look for work every single day is ridiculous; it is laughable. How do you get yourself to and from job interviews if you do not have the basics of income support to put the petrol in the car? Kate said that it costs about $10 a week for that petrol. How can you put petrol in the car to get to job interviews if you do not have any financial support? Is the government also suggesting that a person under 30 could move home to live with their parents? That simply is not an option for a number of young people. In most cases people under the age of 30 have already left home. They have established their lives. But, just because there has been a change in their work circumstances, the government is ready to dump them on the streets and say to them: 'It's up to you to fend for yourself.'
The government needs to focus on creating jobs, on supporting industry in developing jobs that these people can get and that will last longer than a few months or a few years. However, we have seen from the government not a jobs plan but just more rhetoric, with the Minister for Employment suggesting: 'Let them pick fruit.' This policy idea, of letting them pick fruit, is not good enough; it is not a long-term plan. If we are serious about tackling the youth unemployment problem we need to be serious about creating good, secure work; jobs that people can count on. Our nation is at its best when people are working together for the common good. Self-interest alone does not create a fair and decent society. If we are truly committed to a society in which every person is treated with respect and dignity, we must support people when they need help and support. We are still a social-welfare state. To help people break out of the poverty cycle you support them when they need it. But this bill not only forces people into poverty it crushes their confidence.
On Friday nights, when I get the chance, I pop along to the Eaglehawk Saltworks dinner. It is a free community dinner that brings people together. It started on the basis of wanting people to be able to have a warm meal, so that at least once a week they could have a decent meal and a catch up. It has become more than that. It cuts across the age demographic; there are older people and younger people there. For most of them it is their social outing for the week, because they do not have the income or the means to get out. The community comes together and supports them by providing this meal. Most of the young people I have met them are homeless. Most of them are couch surfing. Most of them are trying their best to get back into the paid workforce, but in regional areas the opportunities for employment, if you are somebody who is down on their luck, are limited. How can you expect somebody to be ready for work if they do not have a permanent shelter over their head, if they do not have a permanent place of residence? When I talk to these young people about what it is like to couch-surf and how they go about applying for jobs, one of the first things they say is: 'Lisa, my first priority is to make sure I've got somewhere to sleep tomorrow night, next week, the month after. Really, I want to make sure I've got somewhere to sleep, and then I'm looking for work.' That is the problem with this measure. If you take away people's income support, which ensures that they have accommodation—that they have a roof over their head, that they can pay their rent—their priority is not to find work; their priority is to find somewhere warm to sleep at night.
In conclusion, I will read a letter to the editor on an issue that a number of people in my community have spoken out against. The letter, titled 'Don't demonise the young unemployed,' was published in my local paper, the Bendigo Advertiser, on Tuesday, 3 June. It reads:
In trying to legitimise proposed structural changes to unemployment benefits for young people under thirty, the minister for Social Services … has attempted to demonise—
young people—
saying, "they can no longer go on living on the couch for the dole". A spokesperson for his office recently said further that, "it is good for young people to work". Both of these statements presuppose that all young people are happy to be living on a paltry sum of money spending their days watching daytime TV … This is simply not the case.
Young people spend months and months looking for work. That has certainly been Kate's experience. That is why I call on the government— (Time expired)
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (10:08): I thank the House for the privilege to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014 which seeks to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Australia is called the lucky country by so many because it is a nation of hope, opportunity and reward. Most Australians believe that through hard work and fortitude they will have the opportunity to succeed in all aspects of life and thus be rewarded. I believe that individuals shape their own destiny by identifying opportunities that can enable them to learn, elevate them at work and prosper for their future.
As a fair society, our governments and policymakers have a responsibility to ensure a system of equal access to opportunity. Similarly, governments and policymakers also recognise that people, despite best efforts and through no fault of their own, may not always achieve equal outcomes. In light of this, Australia has created a welfare system that provides assistance and resources which are available to those who need it most. But this system is built on the concept of mutual benefit. A sense of mutual obligation within our welfare system has long been a feature of society, where job seekers who receive income support through taxpayer funds contribute back through activities such as Work for the Dole, active job seeking and meeting with job service providers. The system was built on the basis of offering individuals necessary interim solutions to help them get back on their feet. It has always been about a hand up and not a handout.
Individuals who may be down on their luck often do the right thing and want to work and contribute. Most individuals do so quickly and discontinue income support once an available job comes through. Others may have genuine and unfortunate circumstances in life which impede their aspirations to traditional forms of employment, but this bill is not designed to target those individuals. This bill is about tightening the rules for job seekers who refuse a job or persistently fail to meet the requirements that are part of the conditions of their income support.
As an active society of lifters, it is important for the integrity of our welfare system that there are strong deterrents in our arrangements for individuals who abuse taxpayer funded support. The coalition firmly believes that anyone in receipt of a taxpayer funded income support payment should be prepared to accept legitimate, suitable work that comes their way. All paid workers in Australia have started somewhere, and it is wrong to turn down legitimate paid employment. Individuals absolutely have a right to accept or refuse work; however, they do not have this right at the expense of the taxpayer unless the work offered is clearly beyond their capabilities. This bill is about safeguarding our welfare system to ensure it is sustainable and that individuals receiving income support are doing so on the merit of actual needs rather than choice.
I would also like to note that there are a multitude of benefits in working, and it is not just about receiving an income. There are studies which highlight the importance of work on the health and wellbeing of the individual and the flow-on effects to society. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, along with the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, produced in 2011 a detailed report on the effects of work and its subsequent positive impact on wellbeing. It said:
Work is an effective means of reducing poverty and social exclusion, including that faced by indigenous populations and other currently disadvantaged groups.
… … …
Good outcomes are more likely when individuals understand the health benefits of work, and are empowered to take responsibility for their own situation.
This is absolutely true for all Australians who are able-bodied and can work, especially our youth.
It is unfair to burden the taxpayer and our welfare system with unnecessary support at the indulgence of the few who can choose income support with no desire to reciprocate. The coalition are opposed to this in policy and in practice. As a government, we are responsible for supporting individuals through a system that actively helps and encourages employment and self-reliance rather than welfare dependency. It is by having stringent policy measures in place, without ambiguity or areas for exploitation, that people who are able to work must now do so.
This bill ensures that job seekers who refuse or fail to commence work without a good reason will be penalised in two ways. Firstly, job seekers who incur an eight-week non-payment penalty for refusing suitable work will no longer have the penalty waived. Secondly, those who persistently fail to comply with participation obligations will only be able to have the penalty waived once during each period of continuous receipt of their participation payment.
The current situation did not provide enough of an incentive for individuals to get off welfare, because there were significant areas of weakness in this social policy that allowed those who did not want to work to remain there. Under current job seeker compliance provisions devised by Labor, the non-payment penalty may be waived if the job seeker begins to comply with a serious failure requirement—for example, Work for the Dole, job search training or undertaking increased levels of job searches. The non-payment period may also currently be waived if the job seeker does not have the capacity to comply with any such requirement and would be in serious financial hardship if the non-payment period was not ended.
I stress that this bill encourages participation payment recipients to engage with opportunities to work, with appropriate incentives to do so. By implementing policies that provide incentives, we enable job seekers to experience the benefits of employment—not just monetary ones but, in particular, greater social and economic inclusion, which contributes to their health and wellbeing.
In alignment with the incentive to work is the penalty when actively choosing not to work. A policy which reduces the number of penalty waivers in place when job participation is nonexistent means that job seekers are more likely to be pressured to move off welfare and become a productive participant in the workforce. Having a strong deterrent to this type of behaviour and mentality will foster an attitude in job seekers to accept suitable employment.
As a responsible government, we must ensure the integrity of our policies, that our social security system is not haemorrhaging finite resources and that support is appropriately channelled to those who genuinely need it. Further, the coalition have to make these decisions and reforms, given the bleak economic landscape we find ourselves in. Given there are no funds left, after Labor's record six consecutive deficits, these important changes will save $20.5 million by 2017-18. Our commitment to restoring the budget and building a stronger economy goes hand in hand with individuals working and contributing to society.
I am certain that both sides of government believe in everyone being a part of our workforce, but the difference in how the coalition and the opposition has approached this is telling. Previously under Labor, individuals have been able to exploit the welfare system due to the weakening of the rules regarding the application of penalties for serious failures. This ultimately encouraged and manifested poor behaviour and a mentality of social dependence. Individuals could have their penalties waived by simply doing additional activities, such as intensive job searches.
Between 2012-13, there were 1,718 instances of serious breaches for refusing a job, of which 68 per cent of the cases had penalties waived. In these instances, 550 people experienced a financial penalty as a consequence of refusing a job. This is in stark contrast to the record in the year 2008-09 under former Prime Minister Howard, where 664 penalties were applied to instances where a reasonable job was refused. Similarly, there were also 25,286 serious failures for repeated noncompliance, such as failing to attend three appointments with their employment services provider in six months, where 73 per cent of cases were waived.
Labor's policies and systematic weakening of our welfare system meant there were no real meaningful consequences for repeat offenders and more job seekers were able to exploit the system and misuse taxpayer funds. Furthermore, Labor's record on employment has not been encouraging. Under their governance, unemployment went from 4.4 per cent in 2007 to 5.7 per cent in September 2013. By the time Labor left office, there were 200,000 more unemployed Australians than in November 2007, when the coalition were in office.
It is crucial that the now opposition supports this amendment, which will benefit all constituents in Australia. That is why the coalition is committed to helping people move from welfare to constructive employment through a number of key initiatives, including the Job Commitment Bonus for job seekers aged between 18 to 30, relocation assistance to help people move for work, the Tasmanian Jobs Programme and the restart wage subsidy for mature age workers.
Whilst most job seekers do the right thing, there are those who deliberately do not. It is not satisfactory to be content to remain on welfare at the expense of hardworking Australians. This bill will ensure that those on support may have their benefits withheld if they do not comply with their job search and income support requirements. This is pivotal to ensuring we have a sustainable welfare system that actively helps place people in employment rather than keep them in welfare due to convenience or complacency.
As mentioned previously, this bill will not impact on job seekers who cannot get work despite their best efforts, but rather targets those who refuse a reasonable and suitable job offer. It will reinforce the message that those who deliberately flout the rules will be appropriately penalised. Consequences of this bill will see a support system assume one of strict compliance, devoid of weaknesses created under the previous government. This bill will limit the number of times a job seeker may have the penalty for persistent noncompliance waived. This is for the good of job seekers and society as a whole.
The government knows that there is little tolerance in the community for those who do not fulfil their mutual obligations as part of income support. It is an unfair and unjust expectation on the hardworking Australian taxpayers to support those who have no desire to accept suitable work and repeatedly abuse the system. There are simply not enough resources to allow the unnecessary diversion of taxpayer funds for those unwilling or unprepared to help themselves. This bill will reinvigorate taxpayer expectations of mutual obligations and the government's commitment to restoring this accordingly. The previously identified savings of $20.5 million is money better spent elsewhere in society. Our society can only prosper when all participants contribute as self-reliant individuals. Finding and accepting suitable employment opportunities alleviates poverty and aids in the overall health and wellbeing of Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:19): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. Last night the member for Barton actually gave a one-hit punch to his constituents by voting to make it much harder for them to get good health outcomes in relation to the PBS—a $1.3 billion extra cost on Australian families and individuals. Here he is today in the chamber, representing his marginal seat in New South Wales, giving a speech on this bill—I think Sir Humphrey Appleby would call it 'political courage' to make such a speech—in which he is demonising young people and having a go at them.
Mr Bowen: It's extraordinary.
Mr NEUMANN: Yes, it is extraordinary. One time he crossed the floor and sat with us. He probably should do it again; but, after listening to that speech, I do not think he will do it. I wonder whether he has ever heard of the GFC—the global financial crisis—and its impact on government revenue, businesses, banks, Australian households, individuals and small businesses. He must never have heard of that!
I will quote the Queensland executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Tony Nicholson, who I think represents an organisation which shows tremendous compassion towards young Australian people—and I commend them for the work they do. We have seen an 88 per cent rise in youth unemployment in my home state of Queensland, and this is what Tony Nicholson had to say about it. He said:
Queensland is facing a generational crisis.... For young people caught up in this jobless spiral this can be a road to long-term poverty and reliance on welfare.
… … …
We know youth unemployment has a profoundly scarring effect on young people that will hurt their life chances, including the prospect of even holding down a job further down the track.
This is also bad news for the Australian economy. Future growth and productivity critically depends on the ability of our young people to develop their potential and aspirations. The current job market is a tough environment for all young people, especially those who are disadvantaged.
If you listen to the previous speaker, you would think that there is a job nirvana out there and a bunch of loafers and bludgers who are not looking for employment.
But the truth is that we have an unemployment problem in this country. In my home state of Queensland, we actually have 11,000 fewer jobs now than we had when Campbell Newman and his LNP government came into power. This is a mob that said they would reduce unemployment to four per cent. Let me tell you: it was 4.7 per cent in my home city of Ipswich when the coalition government came to power in Queensland. It is now, at the end-of-year term, 8.9 per cent, and youth unemployment in the last few months has gone up to exceed 18 per cent. So, we have seen a crisis in youth unemployment.
You would think that the government would therefore put a big emphasis on job training and programs. For example, when Labor was in power, since 2010 we invested over $700 million in Youth Connections, Partnership Brokers, national career advice—across the board, in terms of skills and training, $19.5 billion. But this mob, this government—who are demonising young people and never let an opportunity go by to demonise those on disability support pensions, or young people who are facing the challenge of unemployment—actually cut funding massively in the budget with respect to youth in training.
Mr Hutchinson: Why?
Mr NEUMANN: Extraordinary. Sunshine, you could go back to your constituents and tell them how you vote in this place. We saw massive cuts in funding programs. They have cut the following in the budget: the Accelerated Australian Apprenticeships program, the National Partnership Agreement on Training Places for Single Parents, the Alternative Pathways program, apprenticeships to business owners, the Productive Ageing through Community Education program, and STEP—the Skilling Through Enterprise Program. They even cut the trade training centre program—$950 million. One of their senators came to my electorate and said how great this program is—announced it and opened the Ipswich Region Trade Training Centre, which will allow 5,000 young people, the people who are likely to be hurt by this bill before the chamber, to get access to trade training in Ipswich. Senator Barry O'Sullivan said, 'It's great; we should continue the funding.' That was about an hour or so before he said, 'There's no budget crisis', when he spoke before the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce in debating me.
The legislation before this chamber is about hurting young people; that is what it is about. The speech we just heard from the member for Barton was dripping with sarcasm and scorn on young people—dripping with it. And that is exactly what we hear. This government will not listen to the experts. I wish they would listen to the Brotherhood of St Laurence from time to time. The Prime Minister and these ministers never miss an opportunity to be tough on young people. And Senator Abetz, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and a minister in this government, is permanently perplexed as to why young people are not picking fruit on farms as the avenue for getting full-time employment. He obviously considers that seasonal work in rural areas is a panacea for youth unemployment. But the government's most startling impact, of course, was in the budget, and I have announced a number of things that they have done. We would not have to have legislation like this if they kept all these programs to keep people in employment—get training and skills and opportunity for young people, so that their hopes, their dreams and their aspirations could be fulfilled, as Mr Nicholson said in his comments in March 2014.
Many young people will need to wait six months before they are able to access income support through Newstart or Youth Allowance. If you are under 25, after a six-month wait you will be entitled to Youth Allowance, not Newstart. They think this is somehow convincing people to learn or earn. ACOSS says that this will force many of the same young people into poverty. And we see that today with the bill that is before the chamber. They can barely restrain themselves from boasting about their toughness.
At 28 March this year there were 5,532 people in my electorate of Blair, many of them under 30 years of age, receiving Newstart, and 1,397 receiving Youth Allowance. This is one example, in one electorate, and it will be replicated around the country, of the people who are at risk from the bill before the chamber. This is the consequence in one electorate of the number of people who might be at risk. On 16 May this year the Australian reported that the nation's biggest business groups were critical of the government's harsh measures in relation to job seekers under 30 years of age:
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry policy director Jenny Lambert told The Australian the welfare plan lacked the investment needed in training and job support.
"The carrot's not good enough," she said.
"They've changed the welfare system, but we need to also change what influences the job market and that is by making the kids more work-ready and creating apprenticeships and traineeship opportunities."
Amen to that; I agree entirely with what she said. But the budget got rid of so much training. It got rid of the job support carrot and reduced it to basically a twig—it julienned it off. And what we have here is the stick, the legislation before the chamber.
And then they cut $2 billion in skills programs in the budget. What they need to do is have a really good look at the consequences of this type of bill. We see more of the stick in the bill before the chamber. It is not fair; it is just tough. We took steps when we were in government in relation to this issue. For job seekers in receipt of participation payments—Newstart, Youth Allowance, parenting payments or special benefits—there may be an eight-week non-payment period for serious failures, consisting of either refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance with participation obligations. However, we recognised that there could be some reasons for that, and the goal was to encourage non-compliant job seekers to re-engage with the participation process, which would more than likely lead them to employment opportunities. So we provided that a non-payment penalty may be waived if the job seeker begins to comply with a serious-failure requirement for eight weeks in lieu of serving a non-payment period—for example, work for the dole, job search training or undertaking more intensive job searches or if the job seeker does not have the capacity to comply with such a requirement and would be in serious financial hardship if the non-payment period was not ended.
These provisions successfully encouraged re-engagement as young job seekers continued to look for work. They encouraged people to accept suitable job offers, penalised them if they refused and allowed some discretion for waiver in circumstances of serious financial hardship. But this bill here before the chamber is the big stick. The government proposes to remove Centrelink's capacity to consider the individual circumstances of job seekers who have incurred a potential eight-week nonpayment penalty period for serious failures, preventing Centrelink from waiving the penalty, or allowing Centrelink to waive the eight-week nonpayment penalty for persistent failure to comply with participation requirements only once during each period of continuous receipt of their participation payment. This will only be granted if the job seeker complies with serious failure requirements or is unable to comply with such requirements and would be in severe financial hardship if the nonpayment period was not ended. So the government's measures are very harsh. They will discourage participation of job seekers during a nonpayment period. We must remember, as I said before when I quoted those figures, they will affect some of the most vulnerable job seekers.
In 2010 the Commonwealth Ombudsman produced the Falling through the cracks report, which considered how Australian government social security agencies responded to customers with a mental illness. The Ombudsman reported that Centrelink deals with about six million customers every year. It was difficult to quantify how many people had a mental health issue. Centrelink advised the Ombudsman that mental health was recorded as a primary or secondary health condition for a large number of its customers. The Ombudsman reported that the experience of Centrelink staff indicated that many of its customers were suffering from undiagnosed mental health conditions, and that should not shock anyone in this place. We know mental health is an important issue in this country and mental illness is very common in Australia.
The 2007 national survey of mental health and wellbeing indicated that 45 per cent of Australians aged between 18 and 85 would suffer a mental disorder at some stage in their lives. One in five Australians has had a mental disorder in the last year or so. So these are the kinds of customers that are likely to be in the firing line with this particular bill. Centrelink recognises this and their staff record a vulnerability indicator on the customer's file if they are identified as vulnerable due to mental illness. Vulnerability indicators are taken into consideration in relation to these issues currently, and we can see the types of vulnerable job seekers who this bill will affect in the breakdown of job seekers Centrelink applied nonparticipation penalties to in the last year, and that is the case.
I will just quote a couple of figures on the vulnerability indicators. There were 4,019 job seekers with psychiatric problems or other mental illness, 2,443 were flagged as homeless, 393 had been released from prison, 286 had experienced traumatic relationship breakdown and 276 job seekers had cognitive or neurological impairment. So we are talking about the most vulnerable people in our economy and our community. Under this bill, a great many of these types of job seekers will automatically lose income support for eight weeks. We understand this bill will prevent Centrelink from considering the vulnerability indicators when deciding on the enforcement of the eight-week nonpayment period.
In my area, as shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and ageing, Indigenous job seekers are overrepresented in those penalised by Centrelink. In 2012-13, 11,915 no show, no pay penalties were imposed on Indigenous job seekers compared to 34,409 non-Indigenous job seekers, and 6,895 eight-week nonpayment penalties were applied to Indigenous job seekers compared to 29,563 for non-Indigenous job seekers. So Indigenous job seekers had one-quarter of the no show, no pay penalties and about 19 per cent of the eight-week nonpayment penalties, in the context of Indigenous people being about three per cent of the Australian population.
The government has not considered the impact on Indigenous Australians, nor on the homeless, nor on the aged. It simply does not care, and this will have a disproportionate impact on those people who are vulnerable. It is a government led by a Prime Minister who said that he is the 'Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs'. It is just hollow talk and this bill is indicative of that.
Older Australians want to work. More and more Australians want to work and this government wants to make them work until they are 70 years of age. This type of bill will impact adversely on those people who need the kind of help and assistance a job will provide for them. At a time when the government is making every effort to make it harder for Australians to meet the cost of living and the cost of health care by in effect cutting their pensions in real terms in the years ahead and by freezing the thresholds, this legislation makes it harder for Australians to get by.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (10:34): The truth is, Member for Blair, that under Labor you failed young people. In fact, after six years of Labor government in Australia 200,000 more Australians were unemployed as a result of six years of Labor administration. The youth unemployment crisis that you described occurred under Labor. Labor members failed to mention the range of positive initiatives that this government has undertaken to address what is a blight on the landscape for young people in our country.
Australia is a proud country because we understand fundamentally what our culture is, what it means to be Australian—to have a go. These are things that most Australians, from whatever background, understand. They also need to know that their government understands and measures against a test of fairness. Indeed, this bill meets that test of fairness. Among Australians, in that context of fairness, in that context of having a go, there is an absolute rejection of what we might colloquially call the bludgers. We understand that actions do have consequences—or in this case the lack of action.
Most reasonable people can see that the changes proposed under this legislation, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, are reasonable and fair. This is not a draconian or over-the-top measure. It is a reasonable expectation in line with the Australian welfare system, which is based rightly on a principle of mutual obligation. It is not a 'shoot first, ask questions later' measure. It is about providing support wherever we can to help young people to find employment, to do the things that are good for them—for their families, for their future—to do things that deliver better health outcomes and better community outcomes but also to help themselves. Indeed, there are exemptions within the bill for those people with special circumstances. I acknowledge the member for Blair's interest in mental health and his commitment to supporting and looking at better policy in this area. But those are not the people this bill is targeting at all.
We understand that the taxpayers of Australian, who support those people looking for work, reasonably expect those people to do as much as possible within reason to seek paid employment if they are receiving benefits from other taxpayers. To improve their chances of being offered employment and where appropriate accept suitable offers of employment, activities that are expected of a job seeker include: appointments, naturally enough, with employment service providers to discuss progress; feedback from interviews; and strategies to enhance opportunities to get into paid employment.
Logically, they must undertake a job search process, be that knocking on doors—indeed, over the last few years there are a lot of doors that I have knocked on as a result of my campaigning and it is a great way to talk to people and businesses and understand what their needs are, and opportunities do present themselves; it is the same for job seekers—or reading newspapers and online services to look for suitable employment opportunities. Where appropriate, with the full and clear intention of trying to deliver more opportunities to be better prepared for paid employment, this government will make it obligatory for young people to participate in activities and programs such as the revised Work for the Dole program. Most Australians understand that these programs are designed to better equip people to get into the workforce.
Programs like Work For The Dole have shown their effectiveness over many years, particularly under the Howard government. This is probably one area that statistics do not always do justice; but most people in this place—and, more importantly, outside this place—would believe that, if we can have any success in encouraging and supporting young into paid employment, such programs are overwhelming justifiable. That is particularly so for those kids of families who have challenges around long-term welfare dependence.
In pockets of my state, there is 30 per cent youth unemployment. The Social Security Act sets out penalties in the event that job seekers do not comply with the requirements as outlined. What is designated as a 'serious failure' includes refusing a suitable job offer and persistent noncompliance in respect of appointments with employment service providers. The act provides for a non-payment penalty of eight weeks in the event of serious failures.
But at the heart of the issue are the amendments introduced in 2009 by the previous government that allowed for such penalties to be waived provided there is 'intensive activity' in job searching. Effectively, it meant in practice that job seekers who persistently refuse employment or are persistently noncompliant can avoid any financial recourse or penalty. By way of comparison, in 2008-09, as a legacy of the Howard government's initiatives, there were 644 penalties applied for refusing positions that were offered. In 2012-13, as a result of the changes made by the previous government, there were 1,718 serious failures, but in 68 per cent of these cases the penalty was waived. Even though there were three times as many serious failures, there were only 550 financial penalties applied compared to 644 in 2009. It does not meet the reasonableness test. In the instance of serious failures for repeated serious noncompliance in 2012-13, there were 25,268 instances but in 73 per cent of these cases the penalty was waived. In essence, the whole integrity of the system was undermined. The notion of mutual obligation with the taxpayers of Australia was compromised.
As a coalition, we are doing everything we can to support young people to get a job or, in the case of our trade support loans scheme, to provide appropriate financial assistance for those who choose to do an apprenticeship. The extension of the higher education reforms to sub-bachelor and diploma courses is truly a reform that will benefit my state of Tasmania. In many areas of regional Australia these are the courses that young people go to university for the first time to do. They may then go on to do a degree course—it is true—but these are the courses that are predominately used in universities around regional Australia, such as the University of Tasmania in my home state. There is the trade support loans scheme, as I mentioned, and the extension of the Higher Education Loan Program to diplomas and sub-bachelor degrees.
Incentives for employees include the job commitment bonus for job seekers aged between 18 and 30 and relocation assistance to support those needing to move more than 90 minutes away from home to take up work. My first job when I left school was 200 kilometres away from my home on a farm. Let me tell you, it was the longest eight months of my life. It was hard. It made me realise that I did not want to do that for the rest of my life. But I got a start, and I was really grateful for that. In my home state, the Tasmanian Jobs Programme offers employers $3,250 to take up someone who has been unemployed for six months. Additionally, under the Restart subsidy, employers may be eligible for a further $10,000 over two years on top of this $3,250 figure if the employee is over 50 years of age.
Most people do the right thing. Most people understand, value and appreciate the contribution being made to support them by Australian taxpayers when they are seeking employment. I do not want to be misunderstood: we are talking about the exception, not the rule. Most people want to get into work and this government is doing everything we possibly can to get more young people into paid employment, because a job is absolutely the best form of welfare.
Labor have a dismal record on employment. While they were in office, unemployment went from 4.4 per cent in November 2007 to 5.7 per cent in September 2013. When Labor were voted out of office last year, there were 200,000 more unemployed Australians than in November 2007, when the coalition were last in government.
Indeed there are nearly 18,000 people in my home state of Tasmania currently unemployed, looking for either part-time or full-time work. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, for May, reveal that Tasmania's unemployment rate is 7.8 per cent, still substantially higher than the national rate of 5.9 per cent. The youth unemployment rate for Tasmanians aged between 15 and 19 remains the worst in the country, with more than 4,400 looking for part-time or full-time work. The youth unemployment rate in some parts of the state is as high as 30 per cent. It is bad for the individual, it is bad for their family, it is bad for the community, it is bad for the nation, it is bad for health outcomes and it is bad for educational outcomes. It is just bad, and we must do and are doing everything we possibly can to change that—because employment is the best form of welfare.
We know most people aged 35 who are on Newstart—not all of them, but an overwhelming number of them—were on Newstart at 18 years of age. It is simply unacceptable that, as a nation, we expect, allow or condone young people leaving school and going immediately onto benefits. It is not good for them, it is not good for their families and it is not good for the community. We need as many people as possible to participate in this country's workforce to the extent that they can—to help turn Australia's economy around.
As a nation we absolutely need to have a serious conversation about the demographic challenges we face. In 1960, there were 10 working-age Australians for every person over the age of 65. Today—I sound like Prime Minister Abe, don't I?—there are five working-age people for every person over the age of 65. It is predicted that, by 2050, there will be 2.8 working-age Australians for every Australian over the age of 65. We need to have this conversation as a nation. We need to have this conversation about the demographic challenges for all of our systems: the health system, the education system and the welfare system more broadly—and we welcome the review of the welfare system being conducted Minister Andrews over the next few months and encourage submissions in this area. We know these things and we are up for the challenge.
This bill ultimately aims to stop the serious failures, those people who consistently fail to comply with the requirement to look for work. These regulations are tough because they have been developed to deal with one of the most difficult groups of unemployed Australians—those who have every opportunity to take up paid employment but ignore those opportunities. The rules will be tightened on the waiver of penalties for job seekers who fail to accept or start a suitable job. They will incur a mandatory eight-week non-payment period. Job seekers who are persistently noncompliant will be given one opportunity to become compliant, but any further episodes of noncompliance will mean an eight-week non-payment penalty. It is reasonable and it is what Australians would expect.
I know that in your electorate of Braddon, Deputy Speaker Whiteley, just on the boundary of my electorate of Lyons, there are many opportunities in the fruit-picking sector. There are also opportunities in that sector in Cressy and Longford in my electorate. In the member for Bass's electorate, at Hillwood, there are opportunities in, for example, strawberry picking. Strawberry picking in Tasmania extends over seven months. At the moment, most of those jobs are taken by backpackers. For seven months of the year they are employing backpackers from China, Taiwan and Korea. Why? It is not because they do not want to employ young Tasmanians. It is because young Tasmanians will not put up their hands. They come along and they get a start, but, after three or four days or after a week or after two weeks, they leave. I want to know why that is and I am having a conversation with the Minister for Employment about putting in place an exit survey for these people—to understand why it is that they are not prepared to keep those jobs, jobs which are available to give young people a start. I started at the bottom. I have not gone much further up the pole, but that is what we need. We need young people to take that chance and grab that opportunity. We need them to seek the opportunities that come from having paid employment.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (10:50): My first comment to the member for Lyons is: if you want to find out why people are not staying, take the time to go out and try it and see for yourself. Rather than stand here and ask questions, go and try doing the manual work. If you do that, you will see why. You will also see why, in fruit picking across this nation, people are not taking up the jobs. It is because this government has loosened the rules for 457 visas. Before, if you had a company and wanted to bring in 10 people on 457 visas, you had to apply and you got permits for 10. Now this government has loosened the rules. Now you can apply for 10 457-visa workers, but you can then bring in 50—and that is okay! That is a huge difference. People are able to come in, get a job for a certain period of time and then, as soon as it is finished—bang, lock the door and send them home. That is why a lot of these jobs are being taken by 457-visa workers. Companies that do not want to employ Australians and are happy to employ 457-visa workers now have an extra opportunity to do so.
Through the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, the Abbott Government is cruelly and heartlessly targeting vulnerable members of our community. Enforcing these stricter measures and harsher penalties for those receiving Centrelink payments is an action typical of this government. This is a government which subjects jobless people to punitive measures rather than helping them to address and improve their situations—and therefore their future prospects for financial independence. These amendments demonstrate very clearly the contempt this government has for the jobless. The Abbott government is obviously stuck in a time warp where it views absolutely everyone without a job as a dole bludger. Those opposite have no idea what it is like for people to be without a job. They have no idea what it is like for young people trying for the first time to enter a highly competitive workforce; for people with psychiatric problems or mental illness trying their hardest just to survive; for homeless people trying to break out of the cycle of poverty; for Indigenous people, who face a wide range of long-term employment barriers; or for sole parents, who are trying to make ends meet and at the same time juggle their family commitments. For some people, gaining employment does not happen quickly, especially with this government's systematic attacks on manufacturing jobs across this nation.
These vicious penalties for persons on Centrelink typify the hypocrisy of the Abbott government. They will slash and burn legitimate and essential payments for those who most need it, but, at the same time that they talk about how they will save $20 million in the budget by getting rid of the leaners and helping the lifters, this government is going to give people on high incomes $50,000 to have a baby. That is $1,923 a week, or $50 an hour to sit at home and have a baby, while those you can least afford it are the ones being hit. So the real lifters are the people at the bottom—the people on fixed incomes, the people on pensions, the people on low incomes—who cover those at the top end, who really can afford it. No matter whether you earn $200,000 a year or $30,000 a year, the cost of essentials is the same. The cost of electricity is the same, the cost of food is the same and the cost of petrol is the same, but of course now it is going to go up 1.7 cents a litre, despite the fact that this government said before the election that there will be no increases in taxes. In fact the foreign minister stood here and said, 'We are not doing it. It is all scurrilous. It is not going to happen.' What did they do in the budget? Just like everything else, they sneaked it in. People are now paying more for petrol than what they were promised by this government before and after the election.
On 14 November last year, the Abbott government admitted:
The data reveals the majority of job seekers do meet their participation requirements.
That was from someone whom you think would know—it was from the Assistant Minister for Employment, Luke Harsuyker.
Despite acknowledging this fact, this government still feels the need to make these cruel sledgehammer changes that will impact severely on the four per cent of job seekers who do not, for whatever reason, meet their obligations. And it is not always just as simple as not turning up. Out of the 2,687 non-compliance penalties last year, only 752 were concerned with job offers. The National Welfare Rights Network puts it eloquently in its submission on Indigenous jobs and training review:
A small number of people wilfully flout the rules and their behaviour potentially stigmatises all other job seekers. However, it is costly and unwise to build an entire compliance framework on the basis of incorrect assumptions that unemployed people are individually and generally 'malingerers'.
This out-of-touch government does not understand the difficulties for people living in areas such as my electorate of McEwen who are already doing it tough and are likely do it a lot tougher because of the cruel and heartless measures in this budget, including the fuel tax increase, which makes it more expensive for people to travel from A to B. The walk-away by this government from the automotive industry, from SPC, from Qantas and from other manufacturing in this country, in particular in regional and suburban areas, limits the opportunity to gain or regain employment.
Just last week, my office was trying to assist a couple who for health reasons and for other circumstances outside their control find themselves in their 50s and dependent on Centrelink payments. To fulfil their obligations, which for one of them is a five-minute face-to-face meeting with staff, twice a month they have to drive from Kilmore to the Centrelink office in Seymour, a round trip of about 100 kilometres. It is a hefty expense on top of other added costs they now face, such as the $7 GP tax, and the costs for some diagnostic services and medicines, all thanks to this government's budget of broken promises—and, of course, the fuel tax.
Through this bill the government is seeking to impose harsher measures on job seekers. This is on top of the six-month waiting period of no income support whatsoever before they become eligible for Newstart and the mandatory Work for the Dole program. Under the former Labor government, the non-compliance measures introduced allowed job seekers the opportunity to re-engage in the participation process. We were successful in helping job seekers re-engage with their job service providers, and in the process of participation, while they looked for work.
These provisions also encouraged job seekers to accept suitable offers of employment, penalising them if they refused such work, while still allowing discretion to waive the non-payment period if there were mitigating circumstances. That is the key point here. Under Labor there was still some flexibility to give those who, for legitimate reasons, were unable to fulfil their requirements—it might have been something out of their control—an opportunity to state their case and continue to receive these payments. Under this Liberal government, these people will now be without money and will not have the means to pay bills, put food on the table, or go to the doctor.
The Abbott government is turning its back on vulnerable Australians. The Prime Minister is refusing to help those who need it most. Labor believes the measures proposed by the government are unnecessarily harsh and actually discourage participation by job seekers serving non-payment periods.
In McEwen, there are about 25,000 young people in the 18 -29 year age bracket. According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence's 'Our chance, my future' report, youth unemployment is as high as 17 per cent in some areas, particularly in the regional areas. This is the fifth highest in Australia.
These amendments are going to directly affect people living in my community. There are so many ways in which the Abbott government is making life difficult for our young people. It is stopping welfare assistance and it is cutting services like Youth Connections, which helps young people find jobs.
These amendments also ignore the reality for people with mental illness, and indeed add to their problems. The job searching requirements for Newstart payments are onerous for people referred to mental health support services, and those who are struggling with organising daily routines in their life. The consequences of these amendments will cause a serious downward spiral for these people. Take, for example, a gentleman we have been dealing with in my electorate. He is aged 24 and must submit to regular work testing. The young man suffers from anxiety, depression and borderline personality disorder. This young man is demeaned and what little confidence he has is further undermined by work testing.
Rather than feeling like he is getting help and more confidence to try gain employment, he feels disempowered by the continual tests and feels locked into a cycle of hopelessness. This young man is doing what he can to address his mental health issues, but he knows they are long-term issues that he has to learn to manage. He worries that he may never be well enough to work and he struggles to get by on a basic income. The proposed amendments will undoubtedly forever lock this young man into that cycle of hopelessness, as the penalties will knock him down hard, both financially and emotionally.
The government's amendments will also have a heavy impact on women fleeing domestic violence. Take for instance a lady who is a sole parent with three children, working part-time. She was in receipt of parenting payment single. She was subject to violence in the home and so did not return Centrelink compliance forms on time. Her payments were terminated. She rang the call centre to attempt to have payments reinstated but ultimately had to attend Centrelink to sort it out. This meant she had to take time off work. Her employment was already compromised because of these escalating family violence issues, and her employer began to lose patience. She had to seek food vouchers to feed her children until her payments were re-instated.
Overall, these harsh amendments are going to be detrimental to all those receiving essential payments through Centrelink. It is categorically unfair to target and punish all because of the apparent dishonesty of the few. I refuse to let this government ruin the lives of the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. I will stand up for people in my community who need support. If you truly believe in a valued society, then your values should be to support the weakest and the vulnerable in their times of need.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:01): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties For Serious Failures) Bill 2014, because it goes to the question of how the government manages people's money and how we as a society place requirements on people who receive welfare benefits to do the right thing by society, who is paying the cost. It is a really important issue.
There is widespread support for helping people in genuine need, and I certainly support that, as do the government and the vast majority of Australians. But there is an equally important principle, which is that if you are getting benefits from the taxpayer you should be doing the right thing by the taxpayer. The Australian people will not support a system where people who are abusing the system or not taking their obligations seriously are putting their hand out and accepting a cheque without actually doing the right thing and trying their absolute best to get a job. That is entirely understandable, and that is why we are making these changes.
Social security is an enormous part of the federal budget. It is by far the largest expenditure item. In the 2014-15 budget it is estimated that there will be about $415 billion of Commonwealth spending. Of that, about $55 billion in GST payments flow straight through to the states. So the amount that the Commonwealth effectively allocates is $360 billion. Social security and welfare make up $146 billion of that $360 billion. That is about 41 per cent of the discretionary $360 billion that the Commonwealth has to spend. So it is an enormous amount of federal expenditure. There are many important programs in the social security area, but those numbers really underscore how important it is that we manage this area very effectively.
As a government, we spend more than twice as much on social security as we do on health; we spend five times as much on social security as we do on education; and we spend about six times as much on social security as we do on defence. So it is an enormous area of expenditure and therefore it is very important that we administer these programs in a sensible way. We spend about $10 billion a year on job seeker income support, in its various forms. That works out at roughly $1,000 per household per year, spread across about nine million households. So it is a lot of money. We absolutely owe it to the people of Australia to manage this area effectively.
This bill ensures that people who are not complying with the rules under which they receive benefits suffer a consequence. That sounds pretty obvious. If you do not face a consequence for inappropriate actions then there is not much incentive to stop those actions. But, under the previous government, that is what happened. An extraordinary amount of people were in breach of the rules as they existed, but the penalty that they should have suffered was waived time and time again. In 2012-13, 68 per cent of people in that category had their penalty waived. That does not make any sense at all. Why have a system of mutual obligation when in fact the obligation is only on one side? There were over 25,000 failures for non-compliance with the job seeker rules. Most of those failures relate to not engaging with employment service providers, as required under the act, and basically not working hard enough at getting a job. But 73 per cent of the time—almost three out of four times—the penalty was waived. What sort of message does it send to a young person in particular who suffers no consequence when they receive benefits but consistently do not show up for interviews or to see their job service provider?
That just does not make any sense at all, and that is why we are making these changes.
Under the bill, job seekers who fail to accept or commence a suitable job will incur a mandatory eight-week non-payment period. Again, it is a very simple principle—if there is a job for you and you do not accept it then it is absolutely right that there should be a consequence. If you are consistently noncompliant with the rules under which you receive your benefit then, similarly, you will face that eight-week suspension of your payment. There is still the capacity for one waiver if there are exceptional circumstances, but as a general principle you will meet your obligations or you will face that eight-week non-payment period. That is a very, very powerful incentive for job seekers to do the right thing by the taxpayer and to do everything they can to try to get a job.
Those measures will save about $20 million over five years—a significant amount. But as important as the amount of money involved is the principle of mutual obligation—the fact that, if you are going to accept welfare, you have to do your bit. You have to put your hand up and get out there and try to find a job. As I mentioned before, the problem in this area was the previous lack of enforcement. That created a scenario where people would just flout the rules, frankly—and that is what we will be putting an end to through this legislation.
The legislation is part of a broader package of measures which the government has introduced in this whole area of encouraging people to go from welfare into work, because we all benefit when that happens. Obviously the benefit primarily goes to the person who gets the job, but it is also good for the economy to have people in jobs and it is good for our society to have people with the dignity and focus that work brings. Getting people out of a welfare situation and into work is absolutely critical.
There are three important areas where the government has taken measures in this space. One is the job commitment bonus—a payment of $2,500 for young people aged between 18 and 30 after 12 months of continuous employment and being off welfare and a further $4,000 if they remain in continuous employment for another 12 months. This is a really powerful incentive. On the one hand, we want to make sure that people do the right thing, which includes the difficult measure of removing their assistance for eight weeks to encourage that. On the other hand, we offer some bonuses and incentives to further encourage people to get into work.
Relocation assistance is also important as, particularly in rural and regional Australia, jobs are not always nearby and the cost of moving away from friends and family to take a job is a very significant impost. So the government has moved to assist people who are relocating to take up a job, with up to $6,000 available for people who relocate to a regional area, $3,000 for people who go from a metropolitan area to a regional area and an additional $3,000 in the case of people with families with children—so up to $6,000. These are really positive measures to encourage people to get back into the workforce.
Another similar program is the Restart program, which will provide employers with a payment of $10,000 for taking on people who are over the age of 50. I was recently at the Peakhurst fruit market in my own electorate for a meeting with the owner. He is very enthusiastic about this particular program because older workers have so much experience, so much expertise and tend to be very reliable. This $10,000 incentive for hiring workers aged over 50 is going to be a real godsend for small and large businesses all around the country.
There are two sides to the coin. On the one hand, we need to be very clear with people who are accepting social security benefits that they have to put their hand up and do the hard work and that, if they consistently fail to comply with the rules, there will be a consequence. On the other hand, we want to provide incentives to individuals and businesses that are assisting in getting people from welfare into work.
All of this is a huge contrast with the efforts of the previous government, or lack thereof, where we saw a failure to enforce the rules and a record on employment generally that was really quite appalling. We talk so much in this place about the economy, big numbers—billions of dollars—and so on. At the end of the day, though, why does all of that matter? Why do we care about the economic measures of the country? The basic reason we care is that it means jobs—economic growth means jobs. But, under the previous government, unemployment rose substantially from 4.4 per cent in November 2007, when they came to office, up to 5.7 per cent in September 2013—a very significant increase. Those opposite so proudly claim to be the friend of manufacturing workers, but we actually lost one in every 10 manufacturing jobs in the country under Labor. In that six-year period, 10 per cent of all manufacturing jobs were lost. There were 200,000 more people unemployed at the end of Labor's reign than at the beginning, which obviously is very poor testament to the Labor government.
Our welfare initiatives will give people an incentive to get in and work. They will require people to play by the rules. We will also drive employment through good economic management, because there is no greater indicator of employment than economic growth. How do you grow the economy? You manage the budget sensibly so that people know they can have confidence in the financial future of the nation. You get free trade agreements, as we have with Korea and Japan, and we are working on one with China at the moment. You get silly red tape out of the way, and you build things like the WestConnex extension in my electorate and other fantastic infrastructure projects right around the nation. You also get the environmental approval process working effectively, as we are doing with the one-stop shop. Prior to Christmas last year projects worth some $400 billion of economic activity were approved. You have to undertake a wide range of measures to grow the economy and develop a culture where the people of Australia know that their tax dollars are being used wisely. About 41 per cent of all of the discretionary spending of the government is in social security and welfare—that money needs to be managed effectively, and that is what this legislation is about.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:16): The member for Banks, in the last sentences of his speech, made part of a very good point—one of the things that government does in order to build the economy in a country is build infrastructure. That is certainly true. But you also build people. You reach down for people who cannot find a way through the problems they have and who need to be lifted, and you become a government of lifters that reaches down and helps those who are most in need. Unfortunately this government that wants everybody else to be lifters is not one itself.
I remember when John Howard was first elected in 1996. For me it was a very sad day because I saw in John Howard, in the first years, a person who I thought quite cynically reached down inside people and brought out in them some of the least generous characteristics—characteristics of envy and of fear of the rest of the world and things that were different. I remember watching John Howard in those first years, from 1996 to about 2000, and thinking what a dreadful characteristic that was in a person. Towards the end of the John Howard years, though, I became more forgiving of him because I realised that he was not deliberately doing that—that was just what he saw in people; he saw fear and he saw envy and he responded to what he thought people were. This government are perhaps an extraordinary extension of this—when they see an unemployed person they do not see a person who perhaps cannot find a way through, who has perhaps lost hope or who perhaps does not have the skills needed. They may have mental health problems; they may have social inabilities to hold down relationships of all kinds. They may have issues that have prevented them finding a path to a better life. Rather than seeing someone who we need to reach down and help, those opposite see people who are deliberately rorting the system. The response is not to help but to punish. They are not a government of lifters—they are a government of punishers of people who quite often need help.
At first glance you might think the changes in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill are minor, but they are incredibly significant changes. The current Social Security (Administration) Act already contains job seeker compliance provisions. If you are receiving assistance from the taxpayer because you are unemployed, there are requirements that you have to meet. If you do not meet those requirements, there are penalties for serious noncompliance which may include an eight-week nonpayment period for serious failures, which consist of either refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance with participation obligations. The current act provides that a nonpayment penalty may be waived if the job seeker begins to comply with the serious failure requirement. In other words, if a person who has not been applying for jobs—who has not been participating in training or has not been doing the things that the taxpayer requires of them in order for them to receive this payment—starts to meet those requirements the nonpayment period can be waived.
The purpose of that system is to allow Centrelink to identify people who are not meeting the requirements and encourage them to reply by removing the payment and then reinstating it when they begin to comply. There is no question that a person who does not comply does not receive a payment, but under the current system once they start to comply the payment is re-established. That has been working quite well. According to the second reading speech, in 2012-13 the Department of Human Services waived 68 per cent of the refusing a job cases and 73 per cent of cases of repeated noncompliance, because job seekers undertook the intensive activities that were required. In other words, 68 per cent of people who refused a job and 73 per cent of serious noncompliance cases improved activity and met the requirements to receive Newstart.
The rules as they currently stand have been working. The reason you need to give people the opportunity to improve their circumstances is that many of the people who do not meet those obligations have reasons in their life for that. I am not making excuses for these people, but often there are reasons why a person is not able to meet their obligations. For example, last year Centrelink applied 13,296 smaller daily no-show pay penalties to job seekers with known vulnerability indicators. This included 4,019 with psychiatric problems or mental illness, 2,443 with a homelessness flag on their file, 393 who had been released from prison, 286 who had experienced a recent traumatic relationship breakdown and 276 job seekers with a cognitive or neurological impairment. There were 5263 eight-week non-payment penalties incurred by unemployed people with a Centrelink vulnerability indicator, including 1483 with psychiatric problems or mental illness, 1149 with a homelessness flag, 131 released from prison, 107 who had experienced a recent traumatic relationship breakdown and 102 with a cognitive or neurological impairment. Many of the people who were failing to meet those obligations without the incentive of having their payment re-instated are people who have issues in their life or in their health that make it very difficult for them to meet the obligations.
It may surprise you, Deputy Speaker, and it certainly surprised me that I received a noncompliance notice once. I received a letter at my home telling me that I was in serious breach of my obligations to Centrelink as a job seeker and that, if I did not report to Centrelink the next day, my dole would be suspended for an eight-week period. The difficulty was that I was not on the dole; I was actually a member of parliament at the time. I obviously shared a name with someone else who had failed to meet the obligations. I received the penalty notice, I contacted Centrelink and said it was not me. I assume that the Julie Owens they were seeking continued to be non-compliant. That Julie Owens may have been one of those homeless people; this person may have been a person living in a home where the mail did not reach them for some reason; this may have been a person who was illiterate. There were all sorts of reasons why this person might not have met their obligations, but on that day she did not meet her obligations, because they sent the letter to me. If this person, this other Julie Owens, lives a life of great instability—she moves from home to home or she has no home—how easy would it be for her to fail to meet the obligations more than once? Yet the changes that the Liberal Party are making here would mean that even if that Julie Owens managed to explain that in this case it was because she did not live there, the next time it happened she would not have her payment reinstated because the changes only allow for the reinstatement of a payment once—once only.
The other thing we need to consider is that the vast majority of people who are given noncompliance penalties are under the age of 30. In fact, over 70 per cent of people who receive noncompliance notices are under the age of 30. Combine this new punitive measure with the other changes that the government is making for unemployed people under the age of 30 and you have a recipe for an absolute disaster. We have a situation where people under the age of 30 will have to wait six months before receiving Newstart or youth allowance and the moving of people from Newstart onto youth allowance when they are under the age of 24—which means a reduction in their payments. We already have a circumstance where people who find themselves out of work under the age of 30 are going to be put under the incredible pressure of having to live effectively for up to six months without any income at all. Some of those will be able to rely on their parents; many will not be able to rely on this their parents and they will find themselves without any funding at all for up to 6 months.
Add that to the cuts that this government has made to the programs that help people under 30 to get jobs. In my electorate we have Youth Connections, an extraordinary organisation which helps thousands of young people who have lost their way back into work or training. Youth Connections cannot force anybody to participate in their program; young people find their way there through referrals or through contact with Youth Connections staff out in the community. They join programs—sometimes for one year, sometimes for two years—that assist them to find their way through whatever issues that have caused them to lose their way. By that stage, they may be into drugs, or they may be hanging around with gangs, or they may be into petty crime, or they may just be people who have completely lost hope and are living a life of despair, or they may be fleeing family violence.
Youth Connections is incredibly effective. In fact of the people who participate in their program, 80 per cent are still in work or training two years after they leave the program. That is a success story, yet this is one of the many programs which support young people finding their way into work that this government has cut. When this government looks at them, they do not see people who are struggling to build a better life; they see people who are deliberately and maliciously rorting the taxpayer and having a bit of a break. That is not who these people are; that is not the people I know; and that is not what the evidence says these young people are.
The evidence says that these young people will do well if the government of the day is a lifter and reaches down to provide the assistance they need to find a path to a better life. We have also seen the axing of AUSSIP, the industry partnerships program in my electorate. It will finish up at the end of this year along with Newstart. Again, it is an incredibly successful program that builds relationships with schools in some of the most disadvantaged areas of my community and local business, so that, when young people leave school, the pathway to employment is already there. It is an incredibly effective program, particularly for small to medium businesses that can find it incredibly difficult to work their way through the job network to find low-skilled or semi-skilled workers.
The government has also abolished the employment coordinator position in Parramatta, which is an area of high youth unemployment. Narelle Nelson finished up on 30 June, and, in the last days of Narelle's work, I was able to use her services and I became aware that in two days time that service would cease. One of my very good local manufacturers came to me, almost in despair. It is an incredibly good manufacturer of a very high quality product. It uses all-Australian inputs. You name it, Australian steel—all of its components are Australian. It needed a machinist but had not been able to find one. It was starting to consider using a 457 visa. This is a company with an absolute commitment to Australian products that was in despair at being unable to find a machinist, was having regular difficulty in doing that and was considering going offshore. I phoned the employment coordinator, who told me of a company that had made 300 machinists redundant in the last few months. She told me which Job Network provider they were working with. Fortunately, the company found a person who it believed it could work with and train. That person is now gone. Again, in that circumstance, there is a young person who probably would not have had that connection with a firm, who had a job and who lost it through no fault of their own. They had been doing good work. They had been working for a company that they thought was secure. They had a full-time job. They were under the age of 30. A company retrenched 300 of them and so they found themselves with a rather long wait for unemployment benefits and with all of the programs that would help them find their way back into work cut by this government.
The government is absolutely on the wrong track. You cannot punish into finding work a person who is in despair or without hope or who has a mental illness or a cognitive disability. If, when they fail to meet the obligations, you remove their payment and refuse to reinstate it even if they re-engage you provide no incentive for such a person in that situation to do what is required of them to meet their obligations. (Time expired)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:31): There is surely no more important mission for a government than to provide opportunity. If you could distil the job of everyone of us in this chamber down to a single word, that word 'opportunity' is the task that we devote our energies to. It is a disappointment to this side of the chamber that most of the debate focuses on punishment and punitive measures, because that is not what the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014 is about at all.
Let us look at the broader picture. We are a leading economy and our job is to maximise workforce participation in a nation that has a small population, with a relatively large capital to labour ratio. It is extremely hard to fill the high-skill jobs with our own population, but that presents us with a challenge—a lack of low-skill jobs for many of those who are entering the workforce for the first time. It is that skills mishmash that we as a wealthy economy with a high minimum wage and excellent working conditions grapple with. We are in the company of great economies around the world that are grappling with the same question: how do we make sure that everyone can have a chance of better future? Our job is not to take money from people; our job is not to pick winners. But our job as a government surely is to give every citizen opportunity. If we can do that we are doing our job well.
In the Job Network framework we rely on highly skilled, professional people who work on the task of matching need with expertise, finding opportunity and giving it to those who are best capable of filling it. In the merit based employment arrangement that we have—I cannot ask a boss to take the second-best employee, nor can I ask any job seeker to take a job for which they are not suitable—we are in a race to identify and guide people to the best possible professional path. All of this is underpinned by a debate going back centuries, which has identified that being in work is far better for one's health, far better for one's social circumstances and far better for families. We know that families without an individual engaged in real work genuinely struggle, that the odds are stacked against them. Unfortunately, when you rank countries identifying those that have the highest proportion of households without a single person working you see that Australia keeps popping up on the top. It is Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Malta. The light flashes; they hit the screen. These are the economies that continue to cultivate and support large proportions of our working population having no work at all. Families that have no-one working and creating generations of future families where nobody works. We cannot rest until this problem is sorted. We cannot rest until we have done our very best to make sure that every person in these particular households has had a crack at a job. I cannot put it much more simply them that.
We identified that of the hundreds of thousands of matches made by professionals in our RTOs and our Job Service providers every year in most cases these are bilaterally beneficial and welcomed arrangements, where both the boss and job seeker are fulfilling mutually satisfying and encouraging arrangements. In many cases they have had a tough period to find a job but once they have it they are set for life. Government's only task should be in that period of highest need. Government should not be getting involved in an arrangement between employees and employers, because that should be the domain for those to make the rules and make sure that there are productive arrangements without interference from unions or government.
Let us focus on the difficult time that is unemployment. I have had a time when I did not have a job and life looked pretty precarious. I cannot even pretend to know what it is like to be a long-term unemployed person. But I know that, short of losing your family home, short of losing a first-degree-family member, not having a job is probably one of the most precarious phases in one's life. I think that the job of government is to make sure that that period is as short as possible. The opposition makes a fair point when it says that the government should be doing all it can to make that a supported period rather than one where a person feels picked on, rather than one where someone feels that there is futile activity that is not actually leading to employment at all.
We as publicly funded officials might feel that we know what the job environment is like. But let me tell you that young people on the ground know a very different picture—a picture where it is incredibly hard to find suitable work. It does not matter what part of Australia you are in. I could cherry pick some areas where there is very, very high youth unemployment, but even in my fairly average outer metropolitan area that very much represents middle Australia it is extremely hard for young people to find a job at the right time. Next week they might well find the opportunity that sets them on a trajectory for life, but nothing can really help them in that one period where they are looking for work except the best possible and most responsive government services. That is what we are debating today.
Today we are focusing really on what we call the hard end of the spectrum, where it is proving most difficult to get people a suitable job. The system can do only so much. It can only put a prospective job seeker in front of an employer. There is nothing we can really do to make that relationship work. We cannot really ensure that both parties are acting in good faith, although I hope they do. Ultimately, all we can do is match that range of opportunities with the job seekers that are chasing them.
We want to hope that if someone goes as far as turning up for a job interview they will take it seriously. If someone does not even turn up for those meetings then there has to be a very good reason why. As a former GP, I know that often health issues undermine attendance at those meetings. That is why both sides of politics recognise that over a six-month period you should have a couple of shots at it. We give you three chances to meet your obligation to attend those meetings and seek a job. If there is suitable work identified, you get one shot to take it. If there is an utterly suitable job for you then there really are no excuses not to take it. Government should not spend its time intensively case-managing people that have given up on a perfectly suitable job.
It is worth responding to the previous speaker, the member for Parramatta, who almost exclusively devoted her 15 minutes of parliamentary time on this debate to what I would call stories of grief and inability to meet basic requirements. I say to the member of Parramatta: I am not sure you have actually gone to your local Centrelink office, as I have, sat with the workers, talked to them about case management and watched what is required of someone attending intensive case management with a job-seeking provider working for them and on their behalf. She provided a list of exceptional circumstances faced by job seekers, all of which I accept, such as recently having left prison, having an extremely traumatic family event in the time you are looking for work, having a major medical condition and—one that we all tend to forget—having major mental health issues that make it difficult to make a sustained commitment to seeking work. I concede that this is one of the greatest challenges that Centrelink and our job service providers face, but we have a disability support pension arrangement specifically for people who cannot do four hours of work a fortnight. That is what the DSP is for.
If I am going to take up parliamentary time today, I want to confine my comments to areas where I can add some benefit to the debate in this chamber—and those are the health reasons and parenting reasons why someone cannot hold down a long-term job. Before going to those issues, I want to note that we are, at the moment, working in the context of what other major economies are doing. The UK is making significant advances in this area of maximising everyone's attempt to find a job. New Zealand has brought in extraordinary reforms; information on them is available on their Beehive website. They operate in a single-government environment where they can share job-seeking payment information more easily than we can. Their extraordinary reforms mean they can pick up the people who are persistently evading opportunity, and evading work is clearly contrary to our basic expectations of a citizen.
The intellectual corollary of this debate comes from ACOSS, whose view is that government should not in engage in any form of social engineering—that is, using a welfare payment to in some way change someone's behaviour. There is a simple response to ACOSS, isn't there? The paying of welfare is in and of itself social engineering. Paying welfare is trying to obtain a different social outcome using a payment. It is utterly reasonable to strike an agreement with recipients that there are certain social norms that we expect of people in receipt of a payment. I tell those on the other side of the chamber: that is the way it is going. Get used to it, because all other OECD economies are moving that way. We having now a conversation that we could not have 20 years ago—that is, if you are in receipt of a public payment, it is not acceptable to beat up your wife; if you are destroying your tenancy, it is not acceptable to just keep taking your public payment; and, if you are not sending your kids to school, I do not see why any level of government should continue paying you welfare payments. These are basic rules that operate right around the world. It is utterly reasonable that they are enforced here, and I am glad to see that they are. They were not always enforced, but they are now.
There are still more challenges ahead. These are not policies of any one major party but, ultimately, we need to look at parenting orders that are flagrantly and persistently abused. If you are not adhering to court ordered sharing of your children with another partner, I do not see why you should then be receiving public payments unfettered. I do not see why you should then capture all of the parenting payments because you are refusing to share custody of the child with the other parent, who loses their payments. But that is how it works at the moment. It is just not right. If you thumb your nose at state authorities and are on the run with an arrest warrant out for you, I do not see why on earth you should keep getting public payments. In New Zealand when they changed this law they had people turning up to the police station saying, 'I have just had my payments stopped.' The police asked, 'Why are you here?' and they responded, 'It's an arrest warrant. I'm on the run. Can I sort it out?' Why on earth in this country do we pay people on the run to stay on the run? Why wasn't this ever picked up in six years of Labor government? They were quite happy to keep paying people who were on the run with an outstanding arrest warrant. I concede that we should give people on the run 14 days to get to Centrelink, but why should we pay those people who are on the run for months and months?
Lastly, I want to pick up the issue of not looking after vulnerable children. At some point the state has to take the fearful step into a home and say, 'If you cannot support your children in a safe environment, we have to ask you for some mutual activity in return.' That may well be ensuring that kids are immunised. That is noncontroversial and we do it already. But what about the other health care measures that I think a completely dependent child should be able to trust the state will deliver? I do not see that children's health should be compromised or that welfare should be paid without some concern to the fact that at a child at the age of five should be able to turn up at school healthy enough to cope, able to hold a pencil, knowing which side of a book to open and able to sit in the class with 20 other kids and not throw chairs through a window. Basic emotional self-regulation is something we should be picking up with our Medicare system, making sure that every child has a chance. Education is a train. If you cannot make that back carriage when you are five, it is bloody hard to get back on again. These will be challenges for future governments. They are challenges for all governments.
It is time in the context of stronger penalties for persistent evaders of what we regard as reasonable behaviour—caring for a child, preventing all forms of domestic violence, not damaging a public tenancy and not running up massive debts to a state government while having the federal government still paying you—that we looked at these areas. I am glad that we now have a government that will do that.
Most of the state entities are not recognised under the act and cannot activate a mandatory deduction from Centrelink payments. At the moment, it is optional through Centrepay. I concede that that works in a number of cases and fails in others. That is a debate for the future, but it is not very far off.
I return to persistent evaders of work. I say to these people: if there are genuine reasons, they will be picked up in compulsory conferencing. This trigger is activated the minute three activity requirements have been breached in a six-month period. Anyone on that side of the chamber who says that our highly expert Centrelink staff and their associated specialists—and I am talking about social service specialists—cannot identify when someone has a genuine illness, when someone genuinely needs to be streamed out of this kind of activity, completely underestimates the capacity of our officials to do that.
I have a slightly different concern: just how many people can Centrelink be expected to intensively case manage? We have a number of people in the gallery today listening to this debate. I ask: realistically, how many people can we conference for hours on end at taxpayers' expense? In the end, we need a system that finds those who can be easily directed back to work and gets them there. There is nothing more effective than saying: 'You face a significant penalty if you don't show up. If you've got a problem, you have to let us know.' It is not that hard to get a Centrelink office in the country and to make it clear that you cannot make it. It is a basic tenet to say to someone: if you cannot meet an obligation, let them know in advance. We can make excuses about people's social inability to do that sort of thing, but that is taken care of by doctors. Doctors are quite able to diagnose that kind of inability: where someone is continually unable to look for or turn up to work. If you have got a problem, go and see a doctor. If your family doctor cannot do that then Centrelink doctors should also be able to make the decision in a case where a person persistently uses medical certificates to evade work.
If someone has a medical condition that only flares up on the day they are meant to show up to work, let it be determined by a Centrelink doctor. I anticipate that there will be a tightening up in this area, too. We have the obvious improvement where you can no longer use a family doctor to get your DSP—'thank you' to the opposition for introducing that piece of legislation. Why shouldn't it apply in this situation as well? I do not expect to see a Labor Party opposing the important measure of independent medical advice where there is frequent use of medical certificates by a person to avoid finding work. All of this happens on a platform of trying to get young people back into work using the Job Commitment Bonus, a platform of trying to get people to move for work— (Time expired)
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (11:47): I follow my neighbour from South-East Queensland and rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. As the House now knows from earlier speakers, the bill does legislate some of the harsher measures designed to attack job seekers that were introduced in the government's budget of broken promises and twisted priorities. I think it does show that the government are more interested in ideological hits on vulnerable people than they are in helping people to get jobs. They are so quick—and we heard it from the previous speaker—to demonise people; they are so quick to tear them down; they are so quick to think the least of them. We heard the member for Bowman refer to welfare recipients as criminals, that all welfare recipients are people who do the wrong thing, rather than think about them as job seekers—the people who we need to tool up, the people who we need to get the skills to succeed in the modern market economy. We get from those opposite this sort of sneering and snobby dismissal of people who are doing it tough in this community, which encapsulates their whole budget and their whole inability to put themselves in the shoes of other people who are doing it tough.
By contrast, of course, the Labor Party believes in giving people the skills to maintain their own prosperity through the right training, work experience and incentives, as well as with the appropriate support from the government. That is why Labor cannot support the ideological attacks on job seekers that were introduced during the budget, and that is why we are opposing the bill before the House today.
It is an important time to be discussing our social safety net, given the state of the Australian labour market today and the substantial uncertainty that is central to that labour market. We had some unemployment figures released last week, which showed that the unemployment rate had ticked up again to six per cent—that is the equal highest, I think, at any point in the last decade and higher indeed than during the global financial crisis. Youth unemployment—as I hope people on both sides of the House would recognise—has hit a 12-year high of 13.1 per cent. In my own electorate of Rankin, it is even higher than that—probably something like 16.5 per cent in some areas. That figure is a 12-year figure; so the member opposite probably does not have a good grasp of what he is talking about. These headline numbers conceal some of the even more concerning aspects of the current labour market. We have a whole range of job losses that have been announced and not yet factored into the figures. So there is a bit of uncertainty in the workforce. The reality is that some of the full-time jobs that have been lost from some of our industries will not be coming back in a hurry, and that means supporting displaced workers into new jobs and supporting young people into careers in modern growth industries will be crucial in the years ahead.
One of the key differences between the members on this side of the House and the members on that side of the House is that we believe that a strong and fair social safety net is part of the solution and not always part of the problem. We believe in a social security system which can help build people up, while this government chooses to operate a social security system which will tear people down. I think the Minister for Social Services is a repeat offender when it comes to demonising people who need government support. We hear all this stuff about the blowing out of the welfare rolls and all that sort of stuff, when, in reality—and the people at the Melbourne institute have shown it—the welfare rolls are not blowing out. We do not have a substantial problem in terms of growth in payments outside, of course, the age pension, which is a function of our ageing society. So I think that sort of data and that sort of analysis really shines a light on the political strategy that is being operated by those opposite in terms of demonising people who are looking for work or doing it tough. The legislation before the House today is a clear example of that philosophy from the government when it comes to social security.
Currently, under the act, job seekers in receipt of a participation payment may incur an eight-week non-payment period penalty for serious failures, consisting either of refusal of suitable work or of persistent noncompliance with their participation obligations. Labor introduced that non-compliance measure, but we did it with an important additional consideration, which is that the job seeker could apply for the non-payment period to be waived if they agreed to participate in intensive job seeking activities and if the job seeker would be in serious financial hardship if the non-payment period were not ended. The result was that job seekers were incentivised to accept suitable offers of employment, with penalties if they refused such work but still allowing discretion to waive the non-payment period in certain circumstances.
The bill before the House today removes many of these important considerations from the legislation. Job seekers who turn down suitable work will in no circumstance be able to have that eight-week penalty waived, while job seekers who fail to abide by participation obligations will be able to have the penalty waived only once. There will be two effects of this. The first one is that job seekers will lose any incentive to go back into serious job-seeking activities if they make a mistake and are penalised with that eight-week no-payment period. The original Labor non-compliance measures were designed to encourage people to get serious about job seeking after a serious failure. This government is seeking to remove that encouragement and will in fact be effectively prohibiting job seekers from re-engaging with their participation obligations during that non-payment period. That shows again, as I was saying before, that this is really about punishing people rather than helping people back to work. Secondly, job seekers who turn down suitable work will entirely lose access to their means of subsistence, even in cases of severe financial hardship, which seems to me to be counterproductive. Labor believes in encouraging people back into work after serious failures, but forcing people into eight weeks of possible starvation, homelessness or even petty theft to get by is not going to help in this endeavour.
These are draconian measures. They will do nothing to encourage people back into job-seeking activities. They will serve only to punish the most vulnerable job seekers in our community. For example, of the almost 27,000 'serious non-compliance' penalties applied last year, almost one in five were applied to unemployed people with a 'vulnerability indicator' on their file. That includes something like 1,500 people with mental illnesses, almost 1,200 people with homelessness flagged on their file and others who had been released from prison or had experienced a recent traumatic breakdown. That gives you a sense of the types of people we are talking about. And almost 19 per cent of the eight-week non-payment penalties were levied on Indigenous job seekers. This legislation will remove any capacity for social workers to waive the non-payment period in these cases, even if the job seekers realise their errors and seek to re-engage in intensive job search activities. These measures will hurt real people and make it almost impossible for some of them to survive day-to-day. No failure is serious enough to warrant that kind of punishment.
It is worth reflecting on why we have a social safety net in the first place, why we have unemployment benefits, why we have the Newstart allowance in Australia. First of all, it goes to the very principles of justice that we value as a society. As humans, we naturally feel uncomfortable and unhappy when we see others in society doing it tough—at least, most of us do—living below the poverty line, without a job or without a place to live. It is part of a natural altruistic urge that we have—or should have—as members of the human race. The philosopher John Rawls describes this phenomenon with reference to a 'veil of ignorance': that if we were judging the world without knowledge of our own personal circumstances—our place in society, our class position or our social status—it would be possible for any one of us to fall into a situation of poverty or joblessness. In simpler terms, as humans we know 'There but for the grace of God, go I.' The result is that our natural sense of justice should urge us to fight for a minimum safety net for all people.
The second reason we support a social safety net in Australia is that it is good economic thinking. Supporting people through periods of unemployment and back into the workforce has many important benefits for the economy at large. First of all, international evidence has shown definitively the association between long-term unemployment and heightened levels of crime, homelessness and health problems. The evidence is indisputable that countries like Australia, with targeted and effective social security spending—what the experts in this field say is the most targeted welfare system in the developed world—are less likely to suffer from these problems that have effects for everyone in our society.
The other substantial impact of long-term unemployment is what economists call the hysteresis effect of unemployment. In essence, unemployment today causes heightened levels of unemployment tomorrow. The intuition behind this is simple: the longer people spend out of the workforce, not developing their skills or work experiences, the less likely they are to be able to re-enter the workforce in the future. It is one of the key reasons Labor's record of job creation during the global financial crisis is so remarkable. It is something I am personally proud of, having played a small part in some of those policies during the GFC, because we helped keep people in jobs, working with business, for a whole range of reasons, including government policy—working with people to keep them in jobs during the peak of the GFC and still keeping people in jobs today. Avoiding unemployment hysteresis is also a key reason a social security system, with a strong employment services program, is so vital for our economic success today and into the future.
The legislation before the House today will lessen the effectiveness of our social security system to achieve these two goals of welfare—the social one and the economic one. It will deprive people of any means of subsistence for eight-week periods after serious failures, even if they commit to re-engaging in intensive job-seeking activities. It also degrades the economic power of the welfare safety net itself, removing an important incentive for people to engage in those intensive job-seeking activities. So, Labor cannot support this measure that will lessen the effectiveness of the social safety net in Australia, one of the most effective social safety nets in the developed world. Nor will we be supporting some of the other cuts to the safety net that the Abbott government has discussed and implemented since coming into office. The changes in this bill come on top of the $1.2 billion cut to Newstart that was proposed in the recent budget, where young people under 30 who do not have a job and cannot find a job will have their Newstart payments cut off for six months. If we think about that for a moment—no income, no support for half a year—it is not only a bad idea; it is a bad idea based on cruel and mean-spirited ideology. How does the government think young people will be able to support themselves and survive after six months without any income or without any support at all? I think that when one of my colleagues the other day called out that he considered this policy to be 'earn, learn or starve', and a couple of the Liberal backbenchers nodded and said, 'Too right', it really did shine a light on the alternative approaches—this side of the House and that side of the House.
All these attacks to unemployment benefits come at the same time as this government will make it harder for young people to get the skills they need to get jobs. In less than a year they have cut $128 million from Youth Connections, Partnership Brokers and the National Career Development Strategy. They have cut $1 billion from apprenticeships. They have cut $1 billion from trade training centres, which were doing such a good job to prepare our young people for a career in the trades. They have cut $800,000 from local employment coordinators. The cumulative effect of these cuts will be fewer avenues to work for our young people.
And the punitive measures introduced in this legislation, alongside the cuts to young people that I have just outlined, are entirely indicative of the government's philosophy when it comes to jobs: their lack of a long-term plans; their willingness to blame job seekers for their inability to find employment; the way that they demonise people, the way they run them down, the way they think the least of people in our community. Our side of the House, the Labor opposition, is more interested in supporting people to support themselves, to give them the tools of success that they need to prosper in a modern market economy. It is for this reason that Labor will not be supporting this bill: because these attacks on our social safety net are not only cruel and cold-hearted, they will also hurt our economic prosperity in the long term.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (12:00): I also rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. I would like to talk first about the opportunities available for job seekers in my electorate of Solomon. As I have said many times before in this chamber, northern Australia is the undiscovered jewel of the country, a wonderful resource bursting with potential and opportunity for anyone who is prepared to make an effort to go there. For me, I had good fortune on my side: my parents settled in the Northern Territory, Alice Springs to be precise, before I was born and as a result I have lived in the Territory all of my life. After I left secondary school, I had the choice of commencing my tertiary studies in Darwin or Adelaide. I chose Darwin because I believed there was a need for local people to stay in the Territory, to help build the place going forward. Twenty-five years later I can honestly say that I have not regretted that decision even for a moment.
My specialty area was is information technology and project management. I was fortunate to work with some fantastic people and for some wonderful organisations in both the public and the private sectors in the years before I entered politics. But my story is just one of countless numbers of people who have made the most of the opportunities that the Territory, Darwin and the Top End have offered up to them. It is a story that, with the passing of time, has become something of a cliche: the traveller who popped into Darwin en route to Brisbane or Broome or some other far flung spot or the southerner who moved to Darwin to work for six months and who have stayed there forever. What is surprising is that more people do not do it.
The coalition government's northern Australia strategy in many ways is about identifying ways to unlock the potential that I spoke of earlier. Economic growth brings with it challenges, such as the need for housing and infrastructure, but they are far preferable to the alternatives of stagnation and recession. A look at the recent Australian Bureau of Statistics unemployment data shows the extent to which Darwin and the Northern Territory are prospering at the moment. Our jobless rate of 3.9 per cent is the second lowest in the country, only just behind the ACT. More importantly in some respects though is the participation rate of 75.7 per cent—by far and away the highest in the country. In the big three states of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland the participation rate is 63 per cent, 64.1 per cent and 66.3 per cent respectively. In Western Australia it is 68.4 per cent, Tasmania 61 per cent and in the ACT it is 70.8 per cent. Put simply: our unemployment figure is low even though the highest percentage of the population in the country is actively looking for work.
While it might be overstating things to say anyone actively looking for a job in Darwin will find one, it may also not be far short of the mark. A look at the 2013 skills shortage list gives just a taste of the opportunities in the Northern Territory for those with the wherewithal to pack their bags, kiss their loved ones goodbye and head up north. Employers report they have difficulty recruiting: teachers, physiotherapists, midwives, occupational therapists, nurses, motor mechanics, sheetmetal workers, metal fabricators, welders, panel beaters, painters, bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, cabinetmakers, childcare workers, geologists, geophysicists, optometrists, locksmiths, stonemasons, floor finishers, glaziers, plasterers, tilers, lines workers, bakers, pastry cooks, butchers, chefs, arborists, gardeners, hairdressers—just to name a few. Unskilled workers can tap into jobs in hospitality, fishing, horticulture, agriculture, construction and the mines.
I am not sure of the number of workers in the Territory on 457 visas, but at a guess I reckon it would run into the hundreds. Big projects like the Inpex development currently underway in Darwin rely heavily on fly-in fly-out workers because Darwin's relatively small population base is unable to meet the demands of major construction projects on that scale. But with the real prospect of ongoing gas developments on the back of Timor Sea exploration in coming years and decades, more significant energy projects are expected to emerge, which will require skilled and unskilled workers. The picture I am trying to paint here is of the opportunities available in Darwin and the Northern Territory for those who are struggling to find work. On that basis, I say to anybody on unemployment benefits, faced with sporadic employment or retrenchment: please give thought to starting afresh in the Northern Territory. Not only will you be helping yourself but you will also be helping northern Australia, and for that matter the entire country. It is where the future is—northern Australia.
And while I am on the subject of the Territory, it really is a truly fantastic place to live. Certainly in Darwin it is rarely cold. Even at this time of year when everyone down here is shivering, it is 20 degrees overnight in Darwin and 30 degrees during the day. There are no traffic jams, no toll roads, great things to do at the weekends, a range of sporting options for kids and adults, educational options, magnificent natural beauty and Asia is a couple of hours to the north if you are in the mood for a break. If you want to catch up with the family, it is a few hours' flight home. So I absolutely recommend the Territory as a work/lifestyle option to anybody. Even the member for Lingiari, who is not in here at the moment, would have to agree with me on this one, I am sure.
To turn to the bill at hand, for those who are unable to find work, Australia has a welfare system designed to provide income support until the recipient is able to find a job. Our welfare system is based on the principle of mutual obligation—that is, people who receive taxpayer funded income support are asked to actively seek work, undertake activities such as training to improve their chances of being offered a job, and accept any suitable job offer. While it is a hand-up during tough times it is not intended to be a lifestyle choice. It is not meant to be a handout. There are a number of safety nets which underpinned the coalition's commitment to helping move people from welfare to work. There is the Job Commitment Bonus for job seekers aged between 18 and 30; relocation assistance to take up a job to help people move for work, which is very much available to anybody who takes my advice to move to the Territory; and then Restart Wage Subsidy for mature age workers.
The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 sets out the penalties that apply in the event that a job seeker does not comply with these requirements. Under this act, serious failures include refusing a suitable job offer and persistent noncompliance. The definition of 'persistent noncompliance' is when a job seeker fails to attend three appointments with their employment service provider in a six-month period or incurs three no show, no pay failures in a six-month period. The existing act provides for an eight-week non-payment penalty in the event of such serious failure.
The bill before parliament today introduces two changes to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework by tightening the rules regarding the waiver of penalties for serious failures. One of those is that for a job seeker who fails to accept all commence a suitable job will incur a mandatory eight-week non-payment period. Why, you may ask, are we apparently replicating a provision that is already in the act. The answer is simple. Labor were soft on people who broke the rules. Under Labor, amendments were introduced in 2009 to the act that allowed the non-payment penalty to be waived by engaging in intensive activity, such as an increased level of job search. That meant that job seekers who refused a job or were persistently non-compliant could repeatedly avoid a financial penalty. In 2012-13, for example, after Labor's changes were introduced, there were 1,718 serious failures for refusing a job, of which the penalty was waived in 68 per cent of the cases. So in almost two-thirds of the cases where a job seeker receiving taxpayer funded benefit refused a job penalties were waived. Of the 1,718 serious failures for refusing a job, only 550 people copped a financial penalty.
The second change contained in this bill applies to job seekers who are persistently non-compliant. For them there will be a provision of a once-off waiver of the non-payment period. All subsequent episodes of noncompliance will incur the eight-week non-payment penalty. Again, when it comes to enforcing penalties for noncompliance, Labor went to jelly. In 2012-13 there were 25,268 serious failures for repeated noncompliance, and of those the penalty was waived in 73 per cent of the cases.
The government understands that most job seekers in receipt of income support do the right thing by the taxpayer and make a concerted effort to look for work and accept a job. In no way does this legislation target the vast bulk of benefit recipients. But, unlike Labor, this government is not prepared to tolerate the actions of those who take a flippant view of their requirements as a job seeker. This bill sees a return to a more substantial job seeker compliance regime and addresses weaknesses in the system. This bill will ensure that job seekers may have their benefits withheld if they do not comply with their job search and activity test requirements.
These amendments are targeted, fair and necessary. They are not a savings measures—over five years they will only save about $4 million a year. What they are about is ensuring that everybody who receives a job seeker benefit does the right thing by themselves and by the broader community. I will just repeat that: these are about ensuring that everybody who receives a job seeker benefit does the right thing by themselves and by the broader community. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:13): The cruelty of the Abbott government's budget knows no bounds. This legislation is just another example of how out of touch those opposite are with what goes on in the real world. I have just come from a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and a couple of constituents from the ACT, Michaela and Lauren and, between them, their three children. In that meeting we discussed the impact of the budget on their day-to-day lives—on their cost of living, on their futures, on their education. Those women expressed considerable concern about a range of measures that are in this budget.
First up, was the deregulation of higher education and also the costs that are going to be imposed to those seeking to improve their lives, who aspire to higher education. Lauren talked about the fact that she is really concerned about this. She can cope with a $50,000-HECS debt, but what she is really concerned about is the prospect of a $100,000- or $200,000-higher education cost where the interest goes up. She is very, very concerned about what that is going to mean. She is a single mum. She is aspiring for a better future for her son and herself. She is doing all the right things. She has a part-time job and is seeking a degree through the higher education system—she is starting a law degree. She is fearful and terrified about the prospect of her HECS debt being in the range of $100,000-$200,000.
Just recently—last week, actually—I held two community forums. One was in Griffith; the other was in Woden. One of the messages that came from those community forums was concern by one woman whose daughter is aspiring to study medicine. She is incredibly concerned about the fact that her daughter's degree is not going to cost the $50,000 that Lauren mentioned but in the vicinity of $400,000. She is really concerned about the fact that a $400,000 debt means that her daughter will be incapable of ever aspiring to own a home. With a debt of that magnitude hanging over your head, how can young Australians—those who are undertaking higher education—expect to save up for a home with a debt like that? This is the concern that this woman has expressed about her daughter's future—not just because of the fact that she has a huge debt hanging over her head but also that she could potentially not aspire, like most Australians, to own her home. Also, this woman is concerned about the fact that this debt is probably going to be dogging her daughter until she is in her 50s.
The women I met today also expressed great concern about the fact that the fuel tax is going to have a huge hit on their cost-of-living expenses each week. As Michaela said, 'It is not just the fact that I use the car to go to and from work—and that is going to have a hit on my day-to-day, or weekly, budget—but also the fact that I do a lot of running around, dropping the kids off at child care and running around town dropping kids off at the doctor.' It is going to have a huge hit on her cost-of-living expenses.
They are incredibly concerned about the GP tax and also the increase in the costs of scripts. Like any parent with young children, they are at the doctor quite frequently. Each time they go to the doctor, there is going to be an extra slug on the cost of those expenses. They are very concerned about what is going to happen to them. They understand that the budget that the Abbott government has imposed or wants for the Australian people and wants for the people of Canberra is completely out of touch with reality. It is completely out of touch with the real lives of Australians and of Canberrans.
The bill we are debating today is a bill that seeks to punish people for being unemployed rather than support them back into the workforce. This bill—Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014—amends changes that Labor made in government to ensure that job seekers who suffered a penalty for not actively seeking work or training were encouraged to re-engage in their search for a job and to seek employment and training. Under the current job seeker compliance provisions, job seekers receiving a payment such as Newstart may incur an eight-week non-payment penalty for serious failures consisting of either their refusal of suitable work or persistent non-compliance with their participation obligations. However, these non-payment penalties may be waived if the job seeker then begins to comply with the serious failure requirement, such as by working for the dole, doing job search training or undertaking more intensive job searches. The non-payment period may also be waived if the job seeker did not have the capacity to comply with the serious failure requirement and would be in serious financial hardship if the non-payment period was not ended.
These provisions are important as they encourage job seekers to re-engage in the process after non-compliance by allowing the non-payment period to be ended if the job seeker re-engages with their participation obligations. The decision on when to waive his penalty is at the discretion of the Department of Human Services. It is not a one-size-fits-all model. And the department makes a decision on the individual circumstances of each job seeker. This bill provides that job seekers who incur an eight-week non-payment penalty for refusing suitable work will no longer be able to have the penalty waived at all. Job seekers who persistently fail to comply with participation obligations will only be allowed to have the penalty waived once using the same criteria during each period of continuous receipt of their participation payments.
In other words, these changes discourage job seekers from re-engaging in their search for work. In fact, as the government has confirmed, job seekers will actually not be able to re-engage at all during the eight-week non-payment period, and their participation obligations will cease during this period. Even if a job seeker wanted to re-engage during the non-payment period, this government has effectively prohibited them from doing so.
The Abbott government, despite all of its rhetoric about earn or learn, is essentially giving up on these people and on these job seekers. Who are these changes going to affect? In the true form of the Abbott government's budget, these changes, like so many others, will have the biggest impact on those who can least afford it. Many of these job seekers who are likely to have a penalty applied will already have been identified by Centrelink as having some vulnerability indicators—that is, they are likely to have a mental illness, be at risk of homelessness, have experienced a recent traumatic that relationship or have some other vulnerability. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and these are the people whom this government wants to punish for being unemployed rather than encourage to re-engage in the search for work.
We should be helping and providing more support, not less, to our most vulnerable job seekers. It should be noted that the numbers we are talking about here are very small: 1,718 out of more than 600,000 people on Newstart and other payments have been deemed to have refused a suitable job. This is not some sort of chronic problem plaguing our welfare system, as those opposite would have you believe. It is very small number of job seekers. Labor believes we should be working to re-engage these people, not encouraging them to sit back and do nothing for eight weeks.
This bill must be taken in the broader context of the Abbott government's attack on job seekers and the unemployed, the worst aspect of which is, in my opinion, the Abbott government's proposed draconian measures preventing young people from accessing Newstart for six months. Those opposite believe unemployed people under the age of 30 should survive for six months with no income, while applying for 40 jobs a month. How they can do that I do not know. How do those opposite think someone can apply for 40 jobs a month when they do not have enough money to feed themselves, let alone pay for their internet connection or the local paper, or pay for the petrol or bus fare to get to the interview. I just do not know how they expect that to happen. This government also proposes to push young people under 24 from Newstart onto the youth allowance. This is a cut of $48 a week or almost $2,500 a year and is yet another attack on young people. For those people shifted from Newstart to youth allowance, this represents an almost 20 per cent cut in support.
Last week I held two community forums, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. One was in Griffith, the other was in Narrabundah. At both forums there was real concern about these two measures, which are seen as an attack on our youth and on the fabric of Australian society. Australians, Canberrans, understand the fact that the support mechanisms we have established in the system are designed to help those in need. Australians understand that we need to reach out and provide support to those people who are doing it tough. It is part of the Australian DNA. It is part of our social democratic system, part of our values, part of who we are as Australians. Those opposite do not understand that at all. You can see that from the attacks they have made on the quality of life and the cost of living of the women I met today. The Newstart proposals we are debating today underscore those attacks. There is no concern for the vulnerable. There is no concern for those most in need. There is no concern for those who are disadvantaged. There is no concern for the youth of our country who are our future.
At my community forums, my mobile offices and the doorknocking I have been doing since the budget was released but also prior to the budget, the two major issues raised apart from jobs are the attack that this government has made on the Public Service and the attack that this government has made on Canberra, our nation's capital. The government has a complete disdain for the nation's capital and wants to move jobs out of Canberra.
The nation's capital was set up as the seat of government and the seat of parliament. It was set up specifically for the purpose of having government agencies here to advise government as part of our nation's capital. This government has complete disdain for Canberra. Apart from under Sir Robert Menzies, conservative governments in recent years have always had a complete disdain for Canberra. We see it in the fact that they want to get rid of 16½-thousand public servants. In 1996 the Howard government got rid of 15,000 public servants here in Canberra and 30,000 public servants right across the nation. Do you know what that did to Canberra, Deputy Speaker? What it did to Canberra was send us into an economic slump for five years. It saw house prices plummeting. It sent bankruptcies, both personal and business, skyrocketing. People left town. It had a huge impact on the region. It had a significant effect on businesses—businesses went under, local shops closed down. That is the future that this government wants for Canberra, for our nation's capital.
At my community forums, real concern was expressed about this government attacking the notion of Canberra as the nation's capital and also, through that, attacking public servants. They are the servants of democracy. They choose a career in the Public Service, they have an altruistic purpose in their life, they want to make a difference to this nation, and all this government does is attack and attack and attack their home town as well as their jobs by cutting, cutting, cutting. At the community forums and the doorknocking, the job cuts were very much front of mind for the community.
I also found through my doorknocking and mobile offices and my community forums that Canberrans have expressed significant concern about the fact that higher education for their children could cost between $100,000 and $200,000. As I said, one woman mentioned that her daughter is potentially facing a $400,000 debt. People are particularly concerned about the cuts to Newstart. This is a cut to the social fabric of Australia. We have a society that allows people to have aspirations, to reach out for opportunities and reach their full potential, but our society is also one where we have a safety net to support those who are facing tough times. This government is attacking all of that. People are very concerned about the higher education changes. They are very concerned about the Newstart changes. They are very concerned that this government wants to impose a GP tax every time they go to the doctor. They are very concerned about the increases in the fuel tax. They are very concerned about the changes that will increase the cost of scripts. The key message that came from my community forums, my doorknocking and mobile offices is that Canberrans are not happy with this government. They are very unhappy, in fact, with the attacks that this government has made on Australia's social fabric and on Canberra's social fabric. They are also very unhappy about the complete disdain the government has for this nation's great capital.
Unemployed people should not be punished for being unemployed. They should be supported into work, training and education for future work. Unemployment is a serious issue, but this government's policy seems to be to punish the unemployed, without any focus on actually creating any jobs. Programs by government should be focused on job creation, on ensuring people have the right skills, the right training and the right education for jobs now and for the jobs of the future. Governments should be continuing programs that worked, like Youth Connections and the partnership brokers program, both of which have been cut in this budget. Labor does not support this bill, because we recognise that punitive measures designed to force people into employment will not work where there are no jobs available. It is simply punishment for punishment's sake. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The member for Canberra's time has expired and it was nice of her to touch on the bill a couple of times. I call the member for Shortland, from whom I am expecting a similar contribution.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:28): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, I do strongly hold the same views as the member for Canberra. I would like to congratulate her on an excellent contribution to the debate and for highlighting all those issues that I intend to highlight, maybe in a different way but, nevertheless, it is very much the same in the Shortland electorate as in the Canberra electorate. It is probably a little bit worse because it is probably a little bit harder for people who are unemployed in the Shortland electorate and looking for work.
I have been a long-term advocate of helping people move from unemployment to work. I actually worked in that space in a former life. I know how difficult it is to bring about that change. It might seem a very simple answer to the problem—if you cut people's money off they have to work—but there are a few other things that come into play. There need to be jobs, and people need to have skills to work in the jobs that are available.
Unfortunately, the legislation before us today is all stick and no carrot. It is all about punishing people. It is not about facilitating their movement from unemployment into work. This legislation tightens the rules for job seekers who refuse a job. In an area like Shortland, if a person who lives in Swansea is asked to work in Maitland the impost is very great. It would mean catching a number of buses and a train, and many hours travelling. If a person without a car and living on the Central Coast were to seek employment in another area of the Central Coast or even Sydney or Newcastle it would mean a minimum of 1½ hours to travel a very short distance, because transport is very spasmodic and not of a very high standard. There is basically one bus in and one bus out in the morning, and one bus in and one bus out in the evening. People have to get to the hub and then travel some distance. So for somebody living in a place like Gwandalan it might take an hour and a half to get to a railway station.
There needs to be an understanding that people who are unemployed need support in a number of areas so that they are able to obtain a job and maintain a job. This legislation punishes people who are unemployed. This legislation makes it harder because there is no longer an opportunity for Centrelink to waive a preclusion period for non-compliance. Currently, Centrelink can do that. And there are many reasons why a person may not have attended a job interview or missed an appointment. I will give you one example. A woman came to me back when the Howard government was in power. She worked part time and received part Newstart payments. An appointment was arranged for her but it coincided with a day that she worked. She was faced with the prospect of either refusing to go to work or attending the appointment. So she contacted the agency and said, 'I can't come to the appointment today. I have a job; I'm working.' That was fine. They next time the agency called her in the same thing happened. That resulted in her Newstart payments being cut. We were able to talk to Centrelink and negotiate. Centrelink understood that there was a sound reason for her not having attended the appointment. They were able to waive her preclusion from Newstart. That cannot happen now. This punitive piece of legislation is going to make it impossible for people that are unemployed to manage their work commitments as well as meet the requirements that this government is putting in place.
For those people who do not have any work and who are looking at going from full-time unemployment to part-time or full-time work, it is even worse. As I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution to this debate, this legislation is all about penalties; it is not about facilitating a move to employment. There is nothing in the legislation about helping people develop the skills they need to get a job. The answer that this government has is either work for the dole or work for the Green Army. Where is the training component in that? How will a mutual obligation put in place by this Abbott government do anything towards helping a person get a job? If you are unemployed the one thing that you need is a job. To get a job you need skills. To get skills you need assistance along the way. This government is saying, 'You either work—you jump through our hoops—or you get no financial assistance at all.' To be quite frank with you, that is not good enough.
Coupled with this harsh approach to Newstart and compliance is the lack of support for people. The government are getting rid of Youth Connections and all the pre-employment programs that have helped people to become work ready. They are even getting rid of simple things like the Job Guide—which people used to research jobs—and other resources that people can use to obtain employment and information about work. That is all gone.
As well, this government is looking at putting a GP tax in place. What alternatives does a person, who is unemployed and precluded from receiving any sort of Newstart payment, have if they become ill?
They are getting no money. If they want to go to the doctor they have to come up with $7—'Not much,' I hear the members on the other side of this parliament saying, but it is a heck of a lot if you have no money at all. Those on the other side of this House stand condemned for the harsh nature of their budget, for the cuts they are putting in place and for their attack on unemployed Australians as well as their attack on pensioners, the sick, families and every section of our society in Australia that looks to government for support.
To be quite honest, the one thing this government has done is increase the number of people who contact my office complaining about government. This budget was supposed to be the answer to everything. I say: people are coming into my office regularly to complain about the government's budget. They are emailing me regularly to complain about the government's budget. They are coming up and talking to me when I have my regular mobile offices, complaining about the government's budget. Along with complaining about the government's budget, they are complaining about the harsh treatment of people who look to government for support.
I know there are some good people on the other side of this parliament. I know there are people in the government who must really be upset about this attack on the most vulnerable people in our society. I know that they must feel the pain that their constituents are feeling. I know that my electorate office is no different to the electorate offices of government members. I am sure that they are being contacted by their constituents complaining about the harsh nature of the budget as well about the harsh nature of changes contained in this legislation and similar legislation.
This legislation is unconscionable. It is cruel, it is hard, it is harsh and it attacks those people who are most vulnerable. There are a number of reasons that a person may not meet the compliance rules or fail to meet an appointment. I gave the example earlier of the woman who was working, but there are many, many others. They could have a family member who is ill. They could have other commitments. People, for a number of reasons—
Mr Zappia interjecting—
Ms HALL: Yes, family commitments, as the member for Makin mentions. There can also be deaths in the family. One constituent came to see me—the member for Makin reminds me of this—who missed an appointment because they had to attend their father's funeral. Centrelink waived the preclusion period but will no longer be able do that under this legislation.
Also, a major problem that exists is the fact that a number of people who miss appointments miss them because they have problems with literacy and numeracy. I do not see this government moving to address that issue in any shape or form in the legislation before us. It will increase the reliance that people have on charities. Local welfare agencies such as the Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army are all organisations that give 100 per cent in Shortland electorate. They are all organisations that constantly struggle for donations to be able to support the growing number of people—the army of people—visiting them. That army will increase in size once this legislation becomes law.
Along with that, you have the churches. A number of churches within Shortland electorate are now running kitchens where they provide meals, groceries and support to families that just cannot make ends meet. This is already a problem and will become bigger and bigger. These measures are arbitrary and unfair. In an area like Shortland, there have been slowdowns in the mining industry and major construction, with the assault that this government has made on the manufacturing industry and the shipbuilding industry. A number of people living within the Shortland electorate work in those areas. This says to me that, with this draconian legislation, this government is forcing more people into a situation where they will need to rely on charities for support.
What should happen? The government should be trying to facilitate every means possible for people who are unemployed to re-engage. They should be working with job service providers to ensure that people who are unemployed get the skills they need. They should do everything they can to help them develop their skills, rather than just punishing them. There needs to be much more of a carrot approach than a stick approach. There needs to be an approach where the government take people with them—where they actually identify the reason they are unemployed and then try to work to resolve the problem, rather than punishing them and being cruel and harsh in the way that they are in this legislation.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:44): Can I commend the member for Shortland for her contribution to this, because I believe in her comments she touched on some real issues that affect families when they are dealing with matters relating to the welfare system of this country. I endorse the comments of those speakers from this side of the House who have already spoken on this legislation. It is my view that this legislation is simply another example of a consistent theme that we see from members of the government, a theme which would have you attack those who are the most vulnerable in our community—the young people of the country, the elderly, the Indigenous people, the people with disabilities, the homeless and, in this case, the unemployed.
It is a theme that resonates not only in respect of this legislation but in what the government has done with respect to a whole range of other pieces of legislation, where we have seen health cuts, cuts to housing which affect the homeless, cuts to education and cuts to other social programs. It is always those people who are in the worst financial situation—the people on low incomes, the people who are already doing it hard—who are hit even more so. It is a theme that I believe is also consistent with the policies of this government, which are driven by those within the Abbott government who have an extreme right-wing ideology when it comes to implementing policies on behalf of the Abbott government. These measures are in addition to a whole range of other measures that are already making it difficult for people who are unemployed, on parenting payment, on special benefits and the like.
I note that not too many members from the government side were prepared to come into the chamber and speak in support of their legislation, but those that did did two things. They stuck to the scripted lines that were obviously given to them by their party office, by their minister's office. They also tried to paint this as a measure that was good for the unemployed because it was about mutual obligations, it was going to get them back into the workforce and it would assist them to get back into mainstream life within Australia.
There is nothing further from the truth than those remarks, because this is not necessarily good for the unemployed at all. It is essentially another measure aimed at trying to make it tougher for anyone who has not got a job to get any kind of welfare support from this government. We have already seen other changes making it tougher for them. We already know that, if you are under 25, you will be taken off Newstart and put onto youth allowance. You will have your benefit cut by $48 a week. If you are under 25, the cost of living is no different than if you are just over 25, and yet you will be entitled to $48 a week less.
I will come back to that, because the argument there is that you should be earning or learning and if you cannot get a job then you should perhaps go back to education. There are a number of young people in this country who have already had their education. They have the qualifications. They have done the studies they need to but they simply cannot get a job. Yet, because they are under 25, they are not even entitled to the Newstart allowance. But it goes further than that. It goes to the heart of one of the other policies of this government, to make education more expensive for young people, and I will come back to that if time permits.
The other serious change to the provision of unemployment support to people in this country is that anyone who is between 25 and 30 years of age will only get Newstart allowance after they have been unemployed for six months. Then, if they are entitled to it, after another six-month period it will be reviewed again and they will be taken off the benefits and allowances for another six-month period, after which they can then reapply to go back on it—in other words, six months on, six months off. So, even though they might be getting a little more than the youth allowance, the reality is that over a period of 12 months they are getting half the amount of the Newstart payment that they would otherwise be getting.
I do not know how anyone in this House can seriously suggest that someone can live off Newstart allowance for six months of the year and have it carry them through for the full 12 months. In terms of how they will manage to survive, it is bad enough for the six months when they are not getting anything. But, when you consider that you really only get a six-month payment for a 12-month period, the real question is: who on the government side has done the costings to work out how these people are meant to survive? I would challenge any member of the government who is supporting this policy to come into the chamber and say that they could do it, because with today's cost of living I personally do not believe it is possible. It simply highlights just how cruel and how callous some of these policies are.
Government members have come to the chamber and tried to create an impression that the unemployed of Australia are unemployed because they want to be, that they are simply rorting the system and if they really wanted to they could go out there and get a job. I do not think anyone from either side of the House will deny that there might be some people who fit that category, but there would be very few by comparison to the broad number of people across this country.
I want to quote some statistics. Currently we have unemployment across Australia running at around six per cent, and youth unemployment sits at around 13.5 per cent. So youth unemployment—and this is the group that is going to be primarily the target of these laws—is already running at more than double the normal unemployment rate. In my own region, where I come from, the north-east and northern suburbs of Adelaide, unemployment is sitting at just over eight per cent and youth unemployment is almost 19 per cent. The actual figure is 18.9 per cent. So almost one in five young people are looking for a job. Across Australia right now, I understand that there are some 740,000 people who are looking for work, and around 280,000 of those—in other words, a third of them—are 15- to 24-year-olds.
The reality is that the jobs are simply not out there. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for every vacant job in Australia there are five unemployed people. So even if they all tried to get that job, even if they were forced to do so because they had to get a job or be taken off their unemployment benefits, the jobs are simply not there. There are five unemployed to every job going. In South Australia the figures are even worse because there are seven unemployed for every job going. I understand in Tasmania—and I see my colleague Julie Collins, the member for Franklin, in the chamber right now—the figure is 22 per cent. I can recall a young person on Q&A being asked this very question and coming back with the response, 'I am educated. I am looking for a job. The jobs are simply not there.'
I will quote statistics on some of the examples that have occurred in only the last year or so about people trying to get work. I understand that there were 25 police officer positions available in Tasmania, and there were 800 applicants for those 25 positions. There were some 40 warehouse positions available in Davenport, and I understand that hundreds of people applied for those jobs. Acting Deputy Speaker Mitchell, in your own state of Queensland, there were about 70 positions going for an IGA store in Bli Bli and hundreds of people lined up to try and get that work. These are only some of the examples that I have heard of in recent months where people have genuinely and desperately been trying to get work, but the jobs are simply not there.
I also turn to a comment made by one of the coalition members—in fact, he is the Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator Abetz. He said something to the effect of, 'These people can go out and pick fruit if they really want a job.'
Mr Hartsuyker: What is wrong with picking fruit?
Mr ZAPPIA: There is nothing wrong with picking fruit, if it is practical and possible for you to do so. The reality is that it not always is. The member for Shortland touched on this. There are often family circumstances where people cannot leave home or should not leave home because they are in some way contributing to the household from which they come. A good example of that is a young person living at home who partially cares for one or both of the parents in that home. The young person does not get paid for it but without that care that household could not continue. I have spoken to people who fit that very category.
I have another example and I say it to the member opposite who interjected: if you had a young daughter and you were living in South Australia and there was a fruit-picking job going in Western Australia or Queensland, would you suggest to her, 'Look, just leave home, get your backpack and go there to pick fruit.' I certainly would not ask my daughter to do that if she did not feel comfortable doing so, yet my daughter may well be one of these people who is genuinely looking for a job. It is not always possible or practical for these people to simply go and pick fruit or do those kinds of jobs. Quite frankly, that kind of heartless comment is based on nothing but ignorance and arrogance.
Mr Hartsuyker: You are just making excuses.
Mr ZAPPIA: I will take that interjection from the member opposite, who says that we are just making excuses. What I say to the member opposite, who I believe should know better, is that he should go and speak to some of these families and he should go and speak to some of these people who are genuinely wanting to get a job but who are not prepared to leave their family home for very good reasons. Quite frankly, I believe he is totally out of touch with some of the communities that I have gone through when he says that young people, and in particular vulnerable young people, should simply leave home if that is what they need to do to get a job. The better answer is to try and help those people to get a job within their own homes by providing additional kinds of support and job opportunities in the industries that there are there.
We know that, as a result of these kinds of policies, the people who are going to be hit the hardest are those who already have some kind of problem within their lives, whether it is a mental health issue, whether it is homelessness or whether they are Indigenous people living out in rural and outback Australia. These are the people who are most likely going to be in a situation where they find themselves having breached their Centrelink requirements. These are the people who are most likely going to be hit the hardest.
I note that over 13,000 notices were issued last year to these very people who had known vulnerabilities. My concern is that it is these people who are going to be hit the hardest under this legislation. If you are homeless or have a mental health problem, it is not always possible or practical for you to respond to the obligations that are put upon you by Centrelink. If you are homeless, you may not have access to an IT system to be able to respond and get your forms back. You may not have even received the very notices from Centrelink that will be sent to you because you do not live in any particular location. All of this makes it very, very difficult for someone who does not live in and does not fit into what I call normal society. It is all well and good for those who do; but, for those who do not, it makes it very, very difficult. Certainly, it can be very, very difficult to always get rational thinking from someone with mental health problems such that they comply with the responsibilities that are put upon them.
I want to quickly talk about one more matter in the time that I have—and that is that this all comes down to people having to go to Centrelink and comply with all of the requirements. In recent weeks, I have had numerous people contact my office about the difficulty they are having contacting Centrelink. They have been asked to telephone Centrelink and, when they do, it rings out or they get no answer at the other end. If they do manage to get through, they are kept on hold for hours on end. I have been told by some that it is for hours on end. How can they comply when, on the other hand, the government, I suspect, is cutting staffing levels in Centrelink and making it almost impossible for people to get through to them? That is the clear message that is coming back to my office—that people are finding it almost impossible to get through to Centrelink.
If they go to Centrelink, as the member for Bowman suggested earlier on, they are told, 'We will not deal with you at the front counter. There is a telephone over there. Here is a telephone number: ring it.' When they ring it, they are kept waiting for hours—if they can get through. We are asking them to comply but then making the office that they have to comply with impossible to get through to. This legislation, as I said from the outset, hurts the most vulnerable in the community and is another example of this government attacking those who can least afford to be attacked by the government.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Deputy Leader of the House and Assistant Minister for Employment) (12:59): I thank those members who have spoken on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. The government is committed to enhancing the integrity of our social security system so that it is fair and sustainable into the future. The government understands that most job seekers do the right thing and meet their participation requirements. However, there are some job seekers who flout the rules and are not serious about moving from welfare to work. This bill will ensure that there are appropriate consequences in place for those job seekers who do not do the right thing by the taxpayer.
The changes in this bill apply only to what are called 'serious failures'. For someone to have committed a serious failure, they would have had to have refused a suitable job without a reasonable excuse or to have been persistently and wilfully noncompliant. These are not the behaviours of someone who is genuine about moving from welfare to work. These are people who, by their actions, are saying, 'I am not prepared to do my bit in return for income support.' These are people who deliberately do not meet their mutual obligations, not because of a disability or a vulnerability but because they choose to flout the requirements that are placed upon them. These are the people that Labor wants to let off the hook—those who deliberately do not meet their mutual obligations.
The bill introduces changes to ensure that the existing eight-week non-payment period is actually applied in these cases. The protections for vulnerable job seekers remain in place. I will repeat that because there has been a lot of misinformation circulated by members opposite: the protections for vulnerable job seekers remain in place. If a person had a reasonable excuse or was a vulnerable job seeker—for instance, a person with a mental illness or an intellectual disability— these factors will continue to be assessed before a decision is made to apply a penalty. That is a very important point.
It is not surprising, however, that Labor oppose the bill and are seeking to confuse the debate—because the need for these amendments arises because of the actions of those opposite. The previous government watered down the job seeker compliance framework by allowing those job seekers who do the wrong thing to avoid a financial penalty. Those opposite were happy to allow taxpayer funds to continue to go to those job seekers who had no respect for the rules. The government does not think it is reasonable that a job seeker on income support can keep on promising to do the right thing 'next time' but never actually deliver on that promise. That is what Labor's waiver provisions allowed. They allowed those job seekers who were intent on doing the wrong thing to keep on getting a benefit at the taxpayers' expense simply by agreeing to do some additional activities. Labor's waiver provisions allowed them to make promises time and time again—without an appropriate sanction for breaking those promises.
Ms Collins interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: The member for Franklin claimed that there was no evidence for the measures in this bill. I must say to the House that it just goes to show how out of touch the member really is. To the contrary, there is clear evidence of the need for the measures in this bill—clear evidence indeed. Labor's approach was an unmitigated failure. In 2008-09, under the Job Network approach, there were 644 penalties applied for refusing a suitable job. In 2012-13, after Labor's new waiver provisions were introduced, there were 1,718 serious failures for refusing a suitable job. That is a trebling in the number of people refusing a suitable job under Labor's watch and, because of Labor's lax approach, the penalties were waived in 68 per cent of these cases. Over the same time frame there were 25,286 serious failures for repeated noncompliance—repeated noncompliance, not just noncompliance—and the penalties were waived in 73 per cent of these cases. This is simply not acceptable.
Labor needs to explain why they think it is reasonable that a job seeker can elect to stay on welfare rather than take a job. Why should a person who refuses a suitable job—and a suitable job is a job for which they have the skills and ability—be allowed to turn it down and continue to ask the taxpayer to fund their lifestyle? Why should they be able to turn down a job and still expect the taxpayer to pay them benefits? Those taxpayers who get up every morning, who have a long commute to work and who juggle the demands of family should not have to pay their taxes so other people can be picky about the jobs they choose—or simply choose not to work at all. If people turn down a suitable job or are persistently noncompliant, it is reasonable that they should lose access to taxpayer funded income support for a period of time.
Most people understand that there comes a point when people who do the wrong thing should pay a financial penalty. The job seekers who are the subject of this legislation have already had plenty of opportunities to engage with the system and receive support from employment services. These job seekers are making a decision that says, 'I prefer welfare over work.' The coalition, unlike those opposite, does not think that is legitimate choice. Last night and today we have had members opposite saying that the government should be focusing on job creation. The coalition, unlike those opposite, can do both—we can focus on job creation and we can ensure compliance with the requirements of the job services system.
It is this side of the House that has a plan to grow the economy in order to grow more jobs. To build a stronger economy, we need to get taxes down and cut red tape. That is why we scrapped the carbon tax—no help from you, Member for Franklin.
Ms Collins interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: We scrapped the carbon tax this morning—you voted against it—and we are scrapping the mining tax. We are cutting company tax, we are slashing red tape and we are making the employment services system more efficient.
To build a stronger economy, we also need to get the budget under control. That is why the government introduced a range of important structural changes in the May budget. What has happened? Labor of course is standing in the way. Labor is standing in the way of these very important reforms. To illustrate the hypocrisy of those opposite, you need look no further than the bill introduced by the Treasurer yesterday, a bill that included the budget savings announced by Labor before they were kicked out of office by the Australian people. Not only is Labor standing in the way of the savings measures introduced by the government; they are also blocking their own savings measures. We have a Labor Party that does not even agree with itself, so confused is the Australian Labor Party. Labor says they support job creation, but everything they did in government made it difficult for Australian businesses to grow and employ people. On their watch unemployment increased by more than 200,000. On their watch youth unemployment increased by 55,000. On their watch the rate of youth unemployment increased by almost three per cent.
Labor left Australia on a path to $667 billion in debt and left us with $123 billion in cumulative deficits. After being thrown out by the Australian people you would think members opposite would allow the government to get on with the job it was elected to do. Instead, Labor is standing in the way of the very reforms that will free up Australian business to grow, to employ people and to create the opportunities that are so much needed around the country.
Labor liked to claim that they support mutual obligation and clear rules for job seekers, but their actions suggest otherwise. In a media release on 13 June 2014, the member for Gorton said:
In return for receiving support, of course young people should complete certain duties and look for work.
But Labor is opposing this bill, which would reinforce the importance of mutual obligation. This is clearly another backflip by Labor.
The coalition government is not afraid of providing strong deterrence so that more job seekers will do the right thing first time around. This bill will ensure that the existing penalties for serious failures are applied more rigorously, in keeping with taxpayer expectations. Regrettably, those on the other side of the chamber are happy to let the minority of job seekers continue to rort the system. The coalition government stands firm in our expectation that people in receipt of income support are asked to undertake certain reasonable activities in return for that support, and that, where they do not, appropriate penalties should be applied.
This bill will only affect job seekers who refuse a suitable job without a reasonable excuse or are persistently and wilfully noncompliant. Safeguards will remain in place to ensure that where a person has a reasonable excuse, or a particular vulnerability, such as a medical condition, these factors are appropriately considered before the penalty is applied. These amendments will help restore the integrity of our social security system so that it is fair and sustainable. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [13:14]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Vasta)
Third Reading
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Deputy Leader of the House and Assistant Minister for Employment) (13:21): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (13:22): I rise to speak on the Social Services and other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014, and I acknowledge the member for Jagajaga, who would normally be speaking on this bill directly but who unfortunately has lost her voice. But it is with great pleasure that I speak on this bill.
Labor will be opposing this bill, and we will vote against it both in this House and in the Senate. This bill extends eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health card by indexing the income threshold currently set at $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. This means that people earning above these thresholds will gain access to the Commonwealth seniors health card. This is an expansion of entitlement to the Commonwealth seniors health card—so much for ending 'the age of entitlement'. Over time it is expected that this bill will expand access to the Commonwealth seniors health card by about 20,000 people. The Treasurer and the Liberals are not ending the age of entitlement; they are ushering in an age of hypocrisy.
Let me be clear. Labor does support the Commonwealth seniors health card. The Commonwealth seniors health card was established by the Keating government in 1994 to give low-income self-funded retirees access to similar Commonwealth concessions as holders of the pensioner concession card. We accept that many holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card are not rich and that the assistance they receive as a result of the card significantly assists them with their costs of living, especially the costs of pharmaceuticals.
But it is important that we look at this bill in the context of the current budget—it cannot be taken in isolation. The bill before the House today is an extension of entitlements for people on higher incomes at a time when those at the bottom are having their income support dramatically reduced. That is why we will not, and cannot, support this bill. At the same time as the Abbott government is ripping money away from pensioners and seniors, it is expanding entitlement to people at the top. That is just not right.
Let me be very clear about what the Abbott government is cutting. It is cutting the age pension. It is cutting the disability support pension. It is cutting the carer payment. It is abolishing the seniors supplement. It is abolishing the pensioner education supplement. It is increasing—and did so in this House yesterday—co-payments for pharmaceuticals, making medicines more expensive for our older Australians. It has already cut $1.3 billion in Commonwealth funding for concessions for pensioners and seniors. It is abolishing the schoolkids bonus. It is abolishing the income support bonus. It is abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution. It is slashing support for young job seekers. And it is slashing family tax benefits.
This budget is a savage attack on low-income Australians, and senior Australians will be amongst the hardest hit. This budget represents a cruel betrayal of Australia's 3.2 million pensioners, who were promised by the Prime Minister before the election that there would be no changes to their pensions. These cruel cuts to pensions will see the living standards of age pensioners, disability support pensioners, veterans and carers dramatically decline. The budget is disastrous for all Australians who believe in a fair, tolerant and compassionate Australia.
The changes in pension indexation arrangements in the budget are a cut. They are a very direct cut to the living standards of Australia's 3.2 million pensioners. The pension is benchmarked to wages for a reason—so that pensioners' standard of living keeps pace with the standard of living of the working population more broadly. John Howard knew that—that is why he legislated for it. Indeed, the current minister explained to this House in 2011 how the wages benchmark enabled pensioners to keep ahead of cost-of-living increases.
According to the Australian Council of Social Services, pensioners will be $80 a week worse off within a decade because of these changes. This is a cut in anyone's language and about as big a broken promise as you could get. The Council on the Ageing, COTA, understands this. In a media statement released following the budget, COTA said:
Moving to CPI as the only indexation of the pension takes the pension back to the Fraser government of earlier. From September 2017 the value of the pension will decrease every six months.
But that logic does not seem to make sense to the Abbott government, those opposite, or the Abbott government's inept Treasurer, who declared that this government is 'the best friend Australian pensioners have ever had.' What an absolute joke. What an insult.
The Liberals are such good friends to pensioners that they did not even turn up to a Fair Go for Pensioners rally at the Perth Town Hall. No fewer than 20 Liberal senators and MPs were invited, but they refused to attend that rally. None of those 20 Liberal senators and MPs wanted to explain why the Abbott government is cutting pensions by $450 million. They did not have the guts to front up to pensioners about what they are doing to the indexation of the pension. Some friends they are.
The budget also seeks to increase the pension age to 70. It is clear that the Prime Minister's only plan for older Australians is for them to work longer and to retire with less. How else would you explain the government's decision to abolish the low-income super contribution, a measure that reduces the tax burden for 3.6 million Australians who earn $37,000 or less a year—two-thirds of whom are women? How else would you explain the government's decision to further delay the increase in superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent and, at the same time, reverse the proposed changes at the top to tax earnings of over $100,000?
Measures in this budget will see more people being reliant on the pension in the future. And it is not just pensioners who are bearing the brunt; self-funded retirees have been betrayed by this budget, too. Hundreds of thousands of senior Australians who have worked hard all of their lives— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! I thank the honourable member for Ballarat. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Budget
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (13:30): This Treasurer's budget is a shambles. The Treasurer has lost control of his agenda and his anger, and in his anger he has lashed out—prepared once again to punish those who can least afford it. Enough is enough. The Treasurer needs to rule out further cuts to the services and payments that our most vulnerable Australians rely on. One such person is Mirelle, who writes:
I am on the DSP, I have a chronic mental illness and rely on my pension card to pay for my medication and bulk billing at my GP. I am afraid that I will be cut from the DSP and forced on Newstart. I also have three children who I am also bulk billed for. I am deeply afraid that my pension will be taken off me and I will be paying $80+ per family member. I go to the doctor regularly, but if these reforms go through, I will not be going to the doctor. I will have to reconsider my medications and I can forget about my psychiatrist. What will happen to me when I am psychotic? What will happen to my children? My husband?
These are vulnerable and already frightened people—frightened about the impact of this budget. But there could be more, as the Treasurer has threatened. He needs to rule these terrible things out. This budget has already impacted upon people like Mirelle—an already vulnerable individual in our society who is managing to cope because she can rely upon her Medicare card and her bulk-billing and her low-cost pharmaceuticals, but once they go there will be no hope for her. The Treasurer must rule out further unfair cuts on families and our most vulnerable citizens, and he must do it now. (Time expired)
Trade Agreements
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (13:31): I am going to talk about something positive—the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the more recent Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Admittedly the Korea-Australia agreement was catch-up cricket; it was levelling the playing field and allowing Australia, an exporting nation, to catch up with nations such as New Zealand and North American and other countries that already had agreements in place with South Korea.
The Japanese-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement is truly groundbreaking. It gives a clear advantage to agricultural producers in Australia, not least our beef producers. For example, Tasmanian Feedlot in my electorate of Lyons exports chilled and frozen beef, and they have already said they will increase the export of frozen beef as a result of the immediate quota and tariff reductions that come into place in this groundbreaking agreement with Japan. There has been some criticism in the case of dairy, but for cheese the tariff-free quota has gone from 4,000 tonnes to 20,000 tonnes. That benefits my state and my electorate. Seafood is also important. Everybody in this place knows what a wonderful product Tasmanian salmon is and how good Tasmanian oysters are. If you have never tried Tasmanian seafood products, I encourage you to seek them out and try some.
Minimum Wage
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:33): This government must reject the disgraceful and economically inept proposal from the Commission of Audit to cut the minimum wage. The minimum wage is $622 a week, which is 56 per cent of average weekly earnings. But the commission wants it cut to 44 per cent of average weekly earnings, or about $480 a week. It wants to phase in the change over 10 years. This would mean that the minimum wage would drop to below its 1998 level, and Australia's minimum wage would be one of the lowest in the OECD.
Economists are increasingly understanding that decreasing the minimum wage does not result in greater employment. This year more than 600 US economists, among them seven Nobel laureates, publicly advocated for a significant increase in the minimum wage in the US. They said that the weight of evidence now shows that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative impact on the employment of minimum wage workers. In Britain, the Low Pay Commission commissioned more than 130 pieces of research which overwhelmingly found that minimum wages boost workers' pay and do not harm employment. Cutting the minimum wage will not create more employment but it will cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Australians. Reject this lunacy now.
Carbon Pricing
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:35): I want to talk to the people of Western Australia and my electorate of Swan about the carbon tax repeal legislation that has passed the parliament today. This delivers on a major commitment the coalition made to Australians at the last election. Scrapping the carbon tax will make households, on average, around $550 better off next year alone. The repeal of the carbon tax has been welcomed by WA Treasurer Mike Nahan, who has just put out a media statement saying that the repeal of the carbon tax is a win for all Western Australians—electricity bills for Synergy and Horizon power customers will decrease. Mr Nahan says:
The repeal of the Carbon Tax, to be backdated to July 1, will see electricity bills fall by about 8 per cent … a year, for an average West Australian family living within the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), depending on their total consumption.
The price of electricity for residential households in regional WA … is expected to fall by approximately 8 per cent …
That will be a welcome relief to many people who were fearing that the carbon tax repeal benefits would not be passed on through reduced electricity costs. I congratulate the Western Australian government on doing that. To the people at AMCA, in the refrigerant sector, they have worked closely with me and I know they have been waiting for this repeal to come through for a long time, as has the mining sector in Western Australia, which has been hamstrung by this job-costing carbon tax.
Education
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:36): There are a large number of university students in my electorate of Griffith as well as a large number of school-aged children. Like many people, I am very concerned about the effect of university deregulation and cuts in this government's rotten budget. When the budget was announced the vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland expressed concerns that many students would be hit by a double whammy of more onerous loan provisions due to changes in HECS-HELP, coupled with higher fees due to cuts to Commonwealth grants support. I assume that a lot of people have been raising similar concerns about that and many other aspects of this rotten budget, because yesterday Treasurer Hockey said in relation to the budget: 'There are other alternatives that we can take.'
The government should now turn to its Commission of Audit recommendations—that Commission of Audit that it set up to recommend the cuts to be made—and should now rule out the cuts in that Commission of Audit report as part of those budget alternatives that the Treasurer mentioned yesterday. The government should rule out the commission's recommendation for a slower rollout of the NDIS; it should rule out the commission's recommendation of an increase in the GP tax to $15; it should rule out abolishing Family Tax Benefit Part B; and it should rule out cuts to the minimum wage. I call on the government to do so when it comes to this government's priorities—they are twisted.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:38): Today's vote to repeal the carbon tax is fantastic news for families and small businesses right across Australia, and particularly on the Central Coast. Scrapping the carbon tax was a commitment that we made to the people in my electorate of Robertson before the last election. Today we have honoured this commitment so that we can help reduce the cost-of-living pressures for people on the Central Coast. Abolishing the carbon tax will save the average household around $550 a year, including around $200 on the average household electricity bill and around $70 on the average gas bill. Scrapping the carbon tax will also take significant cost burdens off businesses, like cafes in Terrigal, Gosford and East Gosford, and small businesses in areas like Woy Woy and Erina. This will make it easier for them to compete and generate more local job opportunities for people on the Central Coast. It has been a great grassroots effort to scrap the carbon tax, led by our Prime Minister Tony Abbott but helped by the thousands of small businesses and families in my electorate who told me emphatically that they did not want a carbon tax. Today I rise to thank the people in my electorate of Robertson for their efforts in joining a nationwide campaign to axe this toxic tax.
Budget
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:39): The Treasurer said yesterday in relation to the budget: 'There are other alternatives that we can take as a government.' Does the Treasurer mean that he will re-introduce some of the nasty measures in the Commission of Audit's recommendations. I call on the government and the Treasurer to rule out one of the recommendations—cuts to the minimum wage. For those who do not know what it is like to live on the minimum wage, let me remind you. The minimum wage in this country at the moment is roughly about $640 a week. When you take into account the average rent, which in the Bendigo area is $250 a week, and add in all of the costs of living—like education costs for your children or putting petrol in your car—and then the costs which this government seeks to increase through their nasty budget measures, a further attack on the minimum wage would push more and more families into poverty. The government must rule out this and other recommendations from the Commission of Audit. Will they now be recommending to slow the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Will they be recommending a GP tax of $15, rather than $7? The government needs to come clean and be honest and start telling the people of Australia what they plan to do next.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:41): I rise to congratulate and thank the Australian people on their efforts to have the carbon tax repealed. It is through their efforts that the cost-of-living pressures will be reduced for Australian households and, more importantly, those households in my electorate. Over its lifespan of two years the carbon tax cost the Australian economy $15.4 billion, and yet for all the pain domestic emissions were projected to rise through to 2020. The carbon tax was an unfair slug on the hip pockets of everybody in my electorate—a slug that was aided and abetted by the Labor Party members and their lapdogs in the Northern Territory. The member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, and the Northern Territory senator, Nova Peris, were right behind the atrocious tax, which they wanted to keep, and in doing so they were flying in the face of public opinion and the clear mandate delivered at last year's election. We said before the election that we would scrap the carbon tax, stop the boats, get the budget under control and build the roads of the 21st century. That is exactly what we are doing: we have stopped the boats; we have axed the tax and we are building the roads of the 21st century. This is a government that is honouring its election commitments and we are building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
Indi Electorate: Red Tape
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:42): There is a red-tape problem in my electorate. A group of winemakers from the Rutherglen district recently met with me. The wineries are constantly looking for ways to promote their excellent blends, and one of the most effective tools is to appear at wine shows. Winemakers in Indi regularly travel interstate, but they face a major issue: the necessity for multiple responsible service of alcohol, or RSA, certificates, as each state has its own regulations. This impacts on the wineries through added costs and paperwork. It also impacts on the people, many of them young, who serve at wineries, because of the cost in time and money to obtain several RSA certificates, which imposes more red tape. The cost to obtain an RSA varies from $70 in Victoria through $80 in South Australia and Queensland up to $150 in New South Wales. The government has strongly committed to getting rid of red tape for business. The good news is that this would be a very easy fix. I call on the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, to talk to the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, to look to the potential for a national RSA certificate. Let us rationalise the RSA as a demonstration to all Australians that the government really is keen to get rid of red tape, listens to young people and is particularly passionate about supporting the winemakers of Australia.
Boothby Electorate: Trichloroethylene Contamination
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:44): Earlier this week, I spoke on the Clovelly Park contamination scandal in my electorate of Boothby. Ever since this news broke I have had residents calling me for help because they simply do not trust the state government to look after them, and with good reason. It has now emerged that a toxic lake of contaminated groundwater has spread from under Clovelly Park towards Mitchell Park. Twelve groundwater monitoring wells have just been bored in Mitchell Park to check for elevated levels of the cancer-causing chemical trichloroethylene, or TCE. What beggars belief is that the EPA has known about this groundwater contamination since 2009 but is only now starting to act. The contamination is from the same source as the toxic chemicals that are causing houses in Clovelly Park to be evacuated. What has the South Australian government been doing for the last five years? Why didn't Premier Jay Weatherill, the then South Australian environment minister, act? The state government has been playing Russian roulette with the health of my constituents. Air testing in one Housing Trust home returned a reading of 84 micrograms of TCE; the widely considered acceptable reading is just two. A public meeting on the contamination is being held this Sunday. I will be there. I strongly encourage residents and others with an interest to come along and call on the state government to be up-front about the scandal.
Budget
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:45): Yesterday, the Treasurer threatened the people of Australia with even harsher budget cuts, saying, 'There are other alternatives that we can take.' The Treasurer must come clean on what these other alternatives are. Specifically, can the Treasurer say whether its harsh Commission of Audit recommendations are on the table? The Commission of Audit recommend reducing the staff at Defence headquarters in Canberra to 1998 levels, which means cutting over 2,100 civilian Defence jobs in Canberra alone. The Commission of Audit recommended outsourcing the entirety of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Commission of Audit recommended huge and sweeping changes to the Public Service, changes that will ultimately result in a significantly smaller APS and, therefore, a significantly smaller Canberra. It recommended outsourcing and privatising many functions of the Public Service. It recommended devolving functions of the departments of health and education to the states and territories, something that would result in thousands of Public Service job cuts. The Commission of Audit recommended a GP co-payment of $15, more than double the government's current cruel co-payment. Are these the other alternatives the Treasurer is talking about? If they are and the Abbott government is so arrogant that it genuinely thinks it can threaten the Australian people into accepting its horror budget then it has another think coming at the next election.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:47): Today marks the day when the Australian people have won. Businesses, organisations, families and individuals are now all free from the Labor-Greens carbon tax. I commend the Senate for finally making the responsible decision and voting the way the Australian people mandated at the 2013 election. Families will be better off by as much as $550 a year, and it will now be easier for businesses to compete and create more jobs. Residents of the Brisbane City Council area were forced to pay the $65 million carbon tax bill. That was not fair. The cost of living was forced to increase because Labor and the Greens thought that snatching money from the hands of families already doing it tough was environmentally friendly.
The tragedy is that without a tax Brisbane City Council was already leading the nation in green initiatives. The coalition made the pledge to scrap the carbon tax, and we delivered. While today all Australians can breathe a sigh of relief, the job of undoing Labor's legacy of chaos and debt is still far from over. The coalition government is getting on with the job, and we will not rest until it is done.
Budget
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:48): While the flat-earthers that inhabit the coalition are too busy high-fiving each other's foreheads for pushing Australia into reverse gear on climate change, if they let the ringing in their ears die down for a bit they would hear the protests of the general public about the budget they have inflicted on Australia. The coalition have not been content to spare any part of society from the cuts they have inflicted on people, but yesterday we had the Treasurer walk in and deliver the biggest dummy spit that we have seen a long time, because he cannot get his changes through. Those people on the opposite side promised all things to all people. They said there would be no cuts to health and no cuts to education. They said they would not increase taxes, they would not cut spending further and they would bring in a surplus—nice try. The PM was also asked whether he would use the condition of the budget as an excuse to break promises. He said—exactly right—that he would not. Now we have the Treasurer threatening more people in Australian society and threatening to do the types of things that the Commission of Audit recommended: slowing down the rollout of the NDIS, increasing the GP tax to $15, abolishing family tax benefit part B—further cuts, further hurt to the Australian public. None of you guys said you would do that. You should go back to your electorates and explain why you are dudding the people who voted for you.
Tasmania
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:49): The dynamic duo of duplicity descended on downtown Launceston a few weeks ago. The member for Gorton and the member for Jagajaga came with a big bag of scary spiders and fake skeletons but very few facts to share with my community. The member for Jagajaga had the audacity to say that concessions for pensioners were going to be cut. Yet the Premier of Tasmania has made it quite clear that the Commonwealth contribution to these concessions was quite small and that there would be no change to concessions. The member for Gorton had the audacity to stand up and talk about the high youth unemployment rate in Tasmania. Can you imagine that, Deputy Speaker Scott? He said nothing about the fact that the unemployment rate in Tasmania rose to the highest in the country under 16 years of Labor and Labor-Green government in Hobart and six years of Labor and Labor-Green government here in Canberra.
All of these scare merchants that we see parading themselves today and in my home town of Launceston are all scare and no solution. On every occasion, they fail to mention the damaging economic legacy that Labor left behind for this country. The scare merchants that I mentioned came to Launceston are at the heart of Labor-Green decision making over the last six years. They are the reason we borrow $1 billion every month just to pay the interest on the debt that Labor created. Rather than engage in these pathetic scare campaigns they should get on with letting us fix— (Time expired)
Defence
Budget
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (13:51): The government must rule out the recommendations of the Commission of Audit to reduce Defence staffing to 1998 levels. Before the election, the Abbott government promised that there would be no cuts to Defence, but the Commission of Audit has in fact recommended massive cuts to the number of civilian Defence personnel who support the Australian Defence Force. The Commission of Audit ignores the fact that over the past 10 years, under successive governments, there has been a deliberate decision to civilianise some 1,000 ADF positions, helping the department run more efficiently and, indeed, more cost effectively.
The Secretary for Defence, Dennis Richardson, said:
Try telling someone in Special Operations Command that a civilian in the Australian Signals Directorate is 'back-end' and, by implication, not particularly essential to the task in hand. Try telling a fighter pilot that civilian engineers and technicians are not essential to their operational capability. Try telling ADF personnel on operations that civilians responsible for their pay and allowances are less than essential.
The fact is that these massive cuts to civilian Defence staff will be felt by the entire Australian Defence Force. Civilian staff are vital to the overall capability of the ADF and they include highly skilled, highly specialist staff. The government must rule out the recommendations made in the Commission of Audit, and it must guarantee that these cuts will not impact on the intelligence, ICT or technical divisions of the department. We have already seen $120 million cut from Defence intelligence capabilities. That is your work.
Gilmore Electorate: New Enterprise Incentive Scheme
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:53): Recently I had the privilege of hosting 11 local entrepreneurs who were graduating from our local New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, or NEIS, which is delivered through Illawarra ITeC. I was proud to see such a passionate group of Gilmore locals, after eight weeks of intensive business management and training, ready to contribute to local employment and economic development. As someone from a small business background, and indeed as someone who grew a local small business from a back-kitchen operation to an international export standard—all based in Gilmore—I know far too well the importance of small businesses to our region. I know how much the repeal of the carbon tax will increase employment.
I particularly congratulate Margo Courtney of Seachange, Mark Luccinelli of Thunderbird Sound, Keith Stevenson of Imow Grass, Andy Dodd of Webthrive, James Ross and Julie Lewis of Wombat Woods Jams and Preserves, Tania Bezzina of Beautiful Coats and Tails Grooming Services, as well as Allira, Michael, Jillian, Brian and Margo. I also commend the efforts of Rhonda McGuire and Lynnette Kearney, who have been the teachers and mentors for this inspiring group.
In Gilmore especially, as we are a region with very high unemployment, we are crying out for new business ideas and investment. I sincerely wish all our NEIS graduates the best of luck for the future, and I look forward to seeing their businesses become some of Gilmore's best stories yet—particularly now that they will have less of a burden with the disappearance of the carbon tax. Their electricity costs will be less and they will have more money to spend on employing people.
Budget
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:54): I rise to speak about the budget the whole country is still talking about some months after it was delivered. The Treasurer was talking about it yesterday as well. He said that, if we on this side of the House and those on our side in the other place continued to block the nasty measures, there were alternatives he could take. I assume that these will be alternatives that were not talked about before the election, much like the budget we have in front of us was not talked about before the election.
Today, I rise to say that we have seen some of the recommendations from the Commission of Audit and we want to know which of those are in and which of those are out. Are the government going to slow down the rollout of the NDIS? This is a question that is hot in my electorate. Are they going to increase the GP tax to $15 rather than the $7 that is on the table now? That question is hot in my electorate too. Are they going to abolish family tax benefit part B, as the Commission of Audit suggested? That question is hot in my electorate. Are they going to reduce the staffing size of Defence headquarters in Canberra? That question is certainly very hot in Canberra. Or will they rule out the rolled gold PPL, save themselves some money and deliver a fairer budget?
Carbon Pricing
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:56): This is a great day for Corangamite—for Colac, Geelong, Bannockburn and Winchelsea. Today's vote by the Senate to repeal the carbon tax is great news for Corangamite families and small businesses. This has been a terrible tax on jobs and manufacturing. It has been a $1.1 billion a year hit on manufacturing, including $400 for the manufacture of every car, which has cost Ford dearly. Consider the damage the carbon tax has done to the aluminium industry. Scrapping the carbon tax will save the average household around $550 a year, including around $200 on the average household electricity bill and $70 on the average gas bill. This will reduce cost-of-living pressures for all Australians.
I repeat: this is a great day for Geelong. It is a great day for Corangamite. Scrapping the carbon tax is so positive for our region and for manufacturing. We have a great positive future in advanced manufacturing. It is a terrible reflection on the member for Corio that he has not spoken out against this shocking tax. I commend our government.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:57): I rise in relation to the Treasurer's comments yesterday on the budget that there are alternatives, apparently, that the government is now thinking of taking. I rise today to call on this government to rule out any plans that it might have in place to slow down in any way the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The former Labor government had the great foresight to introduce the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Members opposite might recall that the Productivity Commission concluded in its findings that Australia simply could not afford any further policy inaction in this space.
My electorate of Newcastle is one of the national launch sites for the NDIS rollout. The NDIS is making a profound difference to the lives of thousands of Newcastle and Hunter residents living with disabilities, their families and their carers. After one year of operation in Newcastle, 2,000 people now have individual plans and are being serviced under the NDIS launch. Mr Nicholas Gleeson spoke yesterday on behalf of NDIS partner Ability Links. He said:
From all reports I’ve heard it’s definitely helping people to have greater access to services and improve their lives. We need to be speeding up the rollout, not slowing it down.
This government must rule out any attempts to slow down the NDIS.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Rotary Clubs
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (13:59): I rise today to recognise the wonderful efforts of Rotary clubs in my electorate. My grandfather was a Rotarian. I commend these clubs on their fantastic commitment to the community. I recently attended the change-over dinners at the Somerton Park, Kidman Park and Glenelg rotary clubs. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate outgoing presidents Carolyn Lelliott, Paul Valenta and Maxine Spencer and also welcome new the new presidents: Brenley Milsom, Ron Harris and Allan Scott. I wish them all the best for next year. The rotary clubs in the electorates do great work for the Blind Sporting Council, Meals-on-Wheels, the Hutt Street Centre and Driver Education, for which Trevor Andrew, a family member, has been doing great work for many years.
A few months ago I attended the West Torrens Rotary Club and the Henley Beach Rotary Club—they do a great sausage sizzle, which my children Sascha and Joshua love attending every Saturday morning—
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member's statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): Madam Speaker, I inform the House that the Foreign Minister will be late to question time today while she winds up a meeting.
CONDOLENCES
Lance Corporal Todd Chidgey
The SPEAKER (14:00): I report that the order of the day relating to the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Lance Corporal Todd Chidgey has been debated in the Federation Chamber and is returned to the House. I present a certified copy of the motion. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the matter immediately. The question is that the motion moved by the honourable the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places, and that includes the people in the gallery.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
The SPEAKER: I thank the House and those others present.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given that the Treasurer has spectacularly failed to justify his unfair budget, given that the Treasurer is threatening to hurt Australians even more if he does not get his way in the Senate and given that senior Liberals are now questioning the Treasurer's judgement, does the Treasurer still have the confidence of the Prime Minister or will the Treasurer be another victim of this unfair budget?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it gives me an opportunity to say that I am proud of this Treasurer. The government is proud of this Treasurer and, frankly, the country should be pleased and grateful that at last we have a Treasurer who is serious about delivering a debt and deficit repair job that so completely eluded members opposite when they were in government.
No-one said that it would be easy to cure the debt and deficit disaster that this government has inherited. No-one said it was going to be easy to deal with the decade of debt and deficit that members opposite gave to this country, but I am proud and honoured to have as my colleague the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer of Australia, who has done so much already to restore this country to economic health. What the Australian people understand is that governments, like families and like businesses, cannot continue to live beyond their means. The Australian people understand that members opposite ran up the six biggest deficits in our history when they were in government. They left this government a legacy of $123 billion in prospective deficits. They gave every Australian man, woman and child a prospective debt of $25,000. That is what the people of Australia understand. They know that the rescue package is being put into place by this government, by this Prime Minister and, above all else, by this Treasurer. Thank you, Joe Hockey.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I realise it is the last day of the sitting, but I will not tolerate the caterwauling that is going. It means that the ringleaders of that degree of caterwauling will leave quickly. There is a general warning in place. I call the honourable member for Bennelong.
Carbon Pricing
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how all Australian families and businesses will benefit now that the world's biggest carbon tax has been scrapped. Are there any circumstances under which the carbon tax could return?
Ms Collins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Franklin will desist or leave!
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. As everyone in this House should know, this government went to the election promising to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia, and at the very heart of our plan for a strong and prosperous economy is scrapping the carbon tax. The carbon tax is gone. This destructive, useless tax that damaged businesses, that damaged jobs and that damaged families' cost of living and this useless destructive tax that did not actually help the environment is finally gone. Four years after the former Prime Minister said that there would be 'no carbon tax under the government I lead', 3½ years after the former Prime Minister gave us this toxic tax—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta is warned!
Mr ABBOTT: the carbon tax is finally gone. And with the carbon tax has gone a nine per cent impost on power prices, a $9 billion-a-year handbrake on our economy and a $550-a-year on the average household's cost of living. This has gone, thanks to this government. And I want to thank the Minister for the Environment and the Leader of the Government in the Senate for the work they did to bring about this good day for Australian families and this good day for Australian workers and businesses.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: The carbon tax is gone, but it is not forgotten. The carbon tax is unloved by the Australian people, but it is still loved by members opposite, still loved by the Leader of the Opposition—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith: one more utterance and you will leave.
Mr ABBOTT: who just this morning was saying on national radio, 'There will be a carbon tax under a government I lead if I ever get a chance.' The only way to keep the carbon tax out is to keep Labor out, because Labor is in love with tax. Labor is particularly in love with the carbon tax. Before the election this government made a series of commitments to the Australian people: we would scrap the carbon tax, we would build the roads of the 21st century—
Mr Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: we would get the budget back under control and we would stop the boats. And every day this government is working calmly, purposefully and methodically—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: to honour our commitments to the Australian people.
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:08): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's new approach of pursuing alternative savings measures. Will the Treasurer consider the following alternatives: (1) scrapping the Prime Minister's signature $20 billion Paid Parental Leave Scheme, (2) scrapping the $2.6 billion Direct Action Policy, (3) dropping his $1.1 billion tax break for multinational companies and (4) stopping his reversal of Labor's measures to ensure that high-income earners pay a fair tax on superannuation?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:09): I really appreciate that question. I do so because obviously it is starting to dawn on the Labor Party that they have to have an alternative to their approach. And the alternative is the embarrassment associated with them voting against their own savings from their last budget. Labor cannot even keep their promises from before the election, so how would you expect them to keep their promises now?
Ms Collins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Franklin, if there is one more utterance, is gone.
Mr HOCKEY: But one promise we can be absolutely sure of is that they will bring back the carbon tax; we can be absolutely sure of that. And I say to the member for McMahon: on paid parental leave, we believe, for a whole lot of reasons, that women should have the same pay as men. We believe that a mother and her family should not be financially penalised for having a child. We believe that it is a workplace entitlement. We believe that small business should have the very same opportunity as large business—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will cease.
Mr HOCKEY: and as the public sector to pay their employees the same amount of money when it comes to paid parental leave. We believe that women should not be financially penalised for having a child.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I presume the member for McMahon wishes to have his matter of public importance today. He will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: Secondly, the Labor Party made a huge number of announcements in relation to taxation savings in the last budget, and when we came in to government the Treasury advised us that they could not be legislated. And why? Because Labor was so incompetent at drafting taxation policy that they were undeliverable policy announcements. Look no further than the mining tax, which under Labor had five different drafts and then, at the end of the day, raised just three per cent of what it promised.
So, Labor is a complete fraud when it comes to taxation policy. They do not know how to write it, and when they introduce the taxes all they do is harm the Australian economy. And the third key thing about Labor that the Australian people ought to understand is that you can never trust what Labor says; you can only look at what they do. And when it comes to Labor, they will promise to have surpluses—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned.
Mr HOCKEY: They will promise to fix the debt and deficit, but the fact is that they do everything they possibly can to ensure that the budget is worse off, and they do everything they possibly can to ensure that at the end of the day every Australian pays for the incompetence of bad Labor governments.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:12): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the benefits to the economy that will flow now that the world's biggest carbon tax has been abolished?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:12): I thank the honourable member for his question, because today is a great day for Australians. This burden of the carbon tax—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber—
Mr TRUSS: has been lifted from their shoulders. They have had to wait nine long months since giving a government the mandate to get rid of this carbon tax for it to actually happen, because Labor has resisted it to the end. Labor has resisted it even though they promised in Townsville before the election that they would get rid of the carbon tax. Labor is a friend of the carbon tax and will stay that way well and truly into the future. They have declared that. If they promise at the next election that they are going to get rid of it, that promise will be just as empty as the promises in 2010 and 2013.
But at last it has happened: Australian householders will have the burden of a $550-a-year cost lifted from their bills. The $9 billion hit on Australian jobs will be gone. These are the sorts of things that make a real difference to our economy. Our power bills go down, our business becomes more competitive, and we are able to supply products more efficiently and more competitively to the rest of the world. This is going to deliver real benefits to the Australian economy and to Australian consumers. And I congratulate the mayor of Brisbane, Australia's biggest local authority, which has been amongst the first off the block to make the commitment that they will reduce rates—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
Mr TRUSS: as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax—reduced rates. The next rate bill that the people of Brisbane receive—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo can join her.
Mr TRUSS: will include a $36 refund. The people of Brisbane will receive a $36 refund because the carbon tax is gone. Their costs will be lower. The cost of disposing of garbage will be lower and they are passing on that benefit to the Brisbane ratepayers.
Other local authorities, I hope, will take the lead. Other businesses also are obligated to take the lead, and this government, as promised in the election, has committed extra resources to the ACCC to make sure that these benefits are in fact passed on. The men and women of Australia know they voted for this tax to be eliminated, they wanted it to happen and now this government has delivered.
Budget
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to an email I received from Marie Kinniburgh in my electorate and her 23-year-old daughter with a disability. Marie said: 'We will be affected by all the constraints imposed by the new pension indexation, health payments, student loans, petrol excise, utilities concession defunding and rebate freezing.' On top of this, Marie tells me her daughter will lose the pensioner education supplement, which is worth more than $1,600 a year. Can the Prime Minister advise what further cuts he is now planning that will hit Marie and her family?
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable Prime Minister and I would advise this is a very broad ranging question, and therefore there will be no points of order on the question of relevance.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:16): I do appreciate—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is anxious to leave and get an early plane, is he?
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The choice is yours. You can leave now.
Mr Husic: Can I? Thank you! Better than hearing another Truss answer.
The SPEAKER: The member will withdraw—
Mr Husic: Of course I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: and leave quickly under 94(a).
Mr Husic: I'll be quicker than Warren's answer.
The SPEAKER: I think the member is named.
Mr Pyne: I move:
That the member for Chifley be suspended from the service of the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [14:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
The SPEAKER ( 14:24 ): The member for Chifley is suspended from the service of the House for a period of 24 hours.
The member for Chifley then left the chamber—
Mr ABBOTT: I do not pretend that the decisions that this government have made are going to be cost-free for members of the public. I do not pretend that for a second. Obviously, we have changed the indexation system for various social security benefits and, obviously, we are seeking to introduce a co-payment for doctors visits. I absolutely accept that. I accept also that this will impact on the people of Australia. But I simply make the point that there is no cost-free way of dealing with Labor's debt and deficit disaster. I do hope that the member who asked the question was honest with Marie and said to her—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide will desist, as will the member for Sydney.
Mr ABBOTT: that the government do not particularly want to do these things, but the government have to do these things in order to deal with the debt and deficit disaster which the Labor Party—the party that the member who asked the question represents—created. The difference between the government and the opposition is that we have a plan to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that Labor created and Labor is in denial about the debt and deficit disaster that it created.
Labor used to think that a surplus was important. As soon as they moved into opposition, they thought that a surplus was unimportant. As soon as they moved into opposition, they abandoned even the rhetorical commitment to achieving a surplus. This is the problem with members opposite: they were incompetent in government and they are irresponsible in opposition. They were wreckers in government and now they simply want to wreck government generally.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: You could not even put out a fire in your stables!
The SPEAKER: Whoever said that last comment will withdraw it.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: I withdraw.
Telecommunications
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Communications. It is hard to believe that we might aspire to be like Bhutan and Thailand, where there is national mobile phone coverage. I am sure I speak on behalf of all the rural and regional representatives when I say our demand for mobile phone infrastructure far exceeds the $100 million budget commitment. We have our national reputation to protect. Minister, what is your plan for national mobile phone coverage?
Mr Watts: Tell us about the ETS while you're at it!
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand can leave, under standing order 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:27): I thank the honourable member for her question. I note that her concern for better connectivity in rural Australia is shared by all of my colleagues here, but it is not shared by the men and women on the opposition benches. For the six years of Labor government, not one cent of Commonwealth money was spent on rectifying or addressing mobile phone black spots in regional Australia. Tens of billions of dollars were committed to the NBN. Yet they knew—as we all know—that when you are out of the big cities the biggest telecommunications issue is invariably black spots for mobile telephony, wireless broadband and wireless voice services. That is the biggest issue.
Under the Howard government, over $100 million was spent on dealing with those black spots and, under the Abbott government, $100 million has been committed over the next four years to address those black spots. The honourable member has nominated a number of black spots in her electorate. I note that my parliamentary secretary, Paul Fletcher, has gone the length and the breadth of the country. He has been to 50 public meetings in 32 electorates to hear from people about mobile phone black spots. The wide, open spaces of Sydney's North Shore cannot constrain him! He has gone all over the countryside and he has found out that there are many, many deficiencies in our mobile coverage.
I am not sure that I would be as confident as the honourable member is that Thailand and Bhutan have 100 per cent mobile coverage. I am sure there are a few black spots there too. But, nonetheless, while we do have very good mobile coverage overall in Australia, there are many areas where it is not good and we are addressing them. This is what we are doing: we are spending $100 million over four years. We have a process underway which will shortly be released for consultation with the industry and then, very soon after that, made public. It will be a fully transparent, competitive process.
We are looking, naturally, for the mobile network operators to make contributions to these new towers. We expect that we can fund between 250 and 300 of them. We are delighted by the interest being shown by the government of Victoria, which is promising to commit $40 million—and that should become part of the co-funding with us—and the government of Western Australia, which has committed $45 million. We are also looking forward to support from local government, whether it is in cash or in kind, such as providing land and access. This is a serious commitment to addressing the biggest telecommunications deficiency in regional Australia and it stands in marked contrast to the six years of neglect by Labor.
Carbon Pricing
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (14:30): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the economic significance of scrapping the world's biggest carbon tax? What will the scrapping of the carbon tax mean for jobs and growth?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for Forrest for her question. It is a hugely important question, because abolishing the carbon tax is part of our Economic Action Strategy to strengthen the Australian economy and help create more jobs. We can do that by getting rid of taxes like the carbon tax and the mining tax and by allowing our nation to be more competitive when in head-to-head challenges with economies that do not have a carbon tax or a mining tax. According to Treasury analysis, as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax, the Australian economy will be larger and inflation will be lower. Ultimately, that means that more jobs will be created. The abolition of the carbon tax will save the Australian economy $11 million a day, it will lift a $9 billion yearly burden off the shoulders of everyday Australians and it will on average benefit every household by around $550 this year alone—$550 per household as a result of getting rid of the carbon tax.
The Labor Party, or at least some of them, should be celebrating the abolition of the carbon tax, because just over a year ago they promised the Australian people that if the Labor Party were re-elected they would terminate the carbon tax. But, within their nature, they do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. They do not know what their position is, but what we know is that today the Leader of the Opposition has pledged to reintroduce the carbon tax. Today the Leader of the Opposition has pledged that, should you vote for the Labor Party at the next election, you will get another carbon tax. Whatever it may be called, the Australian people will get another carbon tax that will increase the cost of living for everyday Australians—because that is what it was designed to do.
The carbon tax was designed to increase the cost of everything in the economy that uses energy. Australia is not only one of the world's leading exporters of energy; it obviously also consumes energy. As a result of getting rid of this tax on energy, our economy will be stronger, our population will be wealthier and there will be more job opportunities. The only problem is—the only threat is—that if anyone ever votes for the Labor Party again, we will see the carbon tax back again.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:33): I inform the House that we have with us in the gallery today the Hon. Fiona Simpson, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, and former senator for Western Australia Ross Lightfoot. We also have with us two people, John and Myra Cooper, who between them have given 32 years of service to this parliament—and they are today retiring. We wish them every success and happiness in that retirement and thank them for their service.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's claim that 'Whyalla will be wiped off the map' as a result of the carbon price. Can the Prime Minister advise us of a date when reconstruction of Whyalla will begin?
The SPEAKER: That is a very curious question and it almost evokes the opposition bursting into song, which we did hear on a previous occasion. I do not think we need that again. If the Prime Minister wishes to answer the question he may, although it is a curious one.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:34): I simply point out to the member for Charlton that, under the modelling the former government produced for its carbon-tax-cum-emissions-trading-scheme, our iron and steel production was forecast to reduce by 20 per cent.
Mr Conroy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. To be relevant, the Prime Minister needs to mention that wiped-out Whyalla butchers are now selling legs of lamb—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat and put down his prop. If the Prime Minister wishes to continue to answer the question, he may.
Mr ABBOTT: I simply remind the member that the modelling the former government produced for its carbon-tax-cum-emissions-trading scheme showed that it would reduce Australia's iron and steel production by some 20 per cent and reduce Australia's aluminium production by some 60 per cent. Cities like Whyalla, dependent upon these industries, were in big trouble—but now they are not, because the carbon tax is gone. I am looking forward to visiting the people of Whyalla and reassuring them that at last they have a government that is on their side.
Budget
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (14:36): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the economic imperative of fixing the budget? How will fixing the budget lead to more and better jobs?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:37): I say to the member for Cowan that as part of our economic action strategy of getting rid of the carbon tax and fixing the budget—as a result of those initiatives and many more—we can build a stronger more robust economy where more jobs are created and every household has the opportunity to enjoy greater prosperity.
In the interim, the best way to do that is to pass the budget. Why pass the budget? Because it is a credible plan that has been laid down to start the repair job on the horrible legacy of Labor—$123 billion in deficits, $667 billion of debt, and rising unemployment in an environment where you have falling terms of trade. I am not the only one saying this. We have had the Governor of the Reserve Bank saying 'Get on with it.' The Secretary of the Treasury is saying, 'Get on with it.' Moody's credit rating is saying, 'Get on with it.' The Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying, 'Get on with it.' Then there are John Edwards from the RBA, and Angel Gurria from the OECD. Even Wayne Swan, who described the budget position as 'ruinous' said that you have to have budget repair.
The starting point for budget repair must be for the Labor Party to stand by its own promises to implement savings from the last budget. The Labor Party was so concerned about the state of the budget last year that they introduced a whole lot of savings measures. Even today, the member for McMahon had the chutzpah to stand up here and say, 'Back us on our former savings measures.' The only problem is that Labor is not backing their former savings measures.
This morning we saw the Leader of the Opposition on the AM program. When Chris Uhlmann was speaking to him it was like listening to Clarke and Dawe. Chris Uhlmann asked:
… why won't you even back your own cuts?
Bill Shorten replied:
Chris, we're the Labor Party.
Oh, I understand now! He won't back his own policies, because he is in the Labor Party. Chris Uhlmann then asked:
… you're now not even agreeing to cuts that you proposed yourself … . Why's that?
Bill Shorten replied:
Well, Chris, first of all, the world has changed a lot in the last 12 months.
Chris Uhlmann then asked:
… why won't you back the cuts that you proposed yourself?
To which Bill Shorten replied:
… how can we agree to what this rotten Government is doing?
It is your government that proposed the cuts. How can anyone have sense like this. Bill Shorten was asked how you fix the budget. He said:
Well, the budget task is always to make sure you've got a proper balance between expenditure and revenue …
Well done! An economic genius—a budget idiot! (Time expired)
Disability Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is the Prime Minister. The government is already cutting support for carers and Australians living with a disability. Now, the Treasurer has confirmed the government is looking at further cuts. Will the Prime Minister be cutting the National Disability Insurance Scheme, as recommended by his Commission of Audit, and will the NDIS be another victim of this rotten government?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:40): I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that contrary to his assertions there are no cuts of the nature that he suggests. None whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition should stop scaring vulnerable people.
Mr Shorten: It is in the budget.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call and the Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: As for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, it will be delivered by this government. It will be delivered competently and sustainably. That is more than anyone ever could have said about anything done by members opposite, because everything that members opposite touched they destroyed. They could not help themselves.
Mr Dreyfus: You are the greatest wrecker we have had in years.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: They were incompetent in government and they are irresponsible in opposition. They were wreckers in government, and now they just want to wreck everything. That is what they do. They just want to wreck everything. Frankly, the members opposite should have a good, long, hard look at themselves. They should have a chat to Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and ask themselves how decent, responsible Labor people should behave. That is what they should do.
Mr Shorten: I seek leave to table page 203, which shows the cuts to carers payments and the DSP.
The SPEAKER: I have ruled that public documents may not be sought to be tabled, and that is a public document.
Mr SHORTEN: But the Prime Minister just misled the House.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: The Leader of the Opposition made an unparliamentary statement about the Prime Minister, and I would ask him to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: If the Leader of the Opposition made an unparliamentary statement—which I did not hear—
Mr Pyne: There are motions that can be moved in the House if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make those assertions, otherwise they need to be withdrawn.
Mr Burke: References as to whether someone is misleading are always taken in the full context of the remarks. In the past, similar remarks have not been expected to be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER: I did not hear the remark, due to the noise in the House. But if it would assist the House, would the Leader of the Opposition withdraw anything that was considered unparliamentary.
Mr Shorten: Madam Speaker, I did say that the Prime Minister was misleading about the details in the budget, but if it assists you I am happy to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. I would say that if one wishes to make those sorts of cases in the parliament there are other forms in the House.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Albanese: Deliberately misleading.
The SPEAKER: Both are unacceptable.
Carbon Pricing
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on international approaches to taxing carbon? How will scrapping the carbon tax bring Australia into line with our trading partners?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:44): I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. He knows, as do other members on this side of the House, that the coalition is taking strong and effective action on climate change. We are delivering on our target to reduce emissions through our Direct Action plan.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Scullin can excuse himself.
The member for Scullin then left the chamber.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: We are working constructively with others to secure a new global climate agreement, in 2015. If measured against the same benchmarks, our target of five per cent reduction in emissions on 2000 levels is a comparable commitment across a range of measures to the United States and Canada and Korea and our other major trading partners. In fact Australia's commitment means that we will have the highest emissions reduction per capita in the world. Australia and the United States also have comparable policy approaches on carbon emissions. Just as we have rejected a tax on carbon, the United States Climate Action Plan, like our Direct Action Plan, does not include a carbon price, nor emissions trading, nor a carbon tax. Likewise, G20 members including Argentina, Brazil—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton will desist.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Canada, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey do not have nor plan to introduce an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. In fact there is no arrangement anywhere in the world which mirrored the economy-wide fixed carbon tax imposed by the Labor government. Until it was repealed today, the carbon tax was a fixed $25.40 per tonne. Even the European Union's emissions trading scheme was only $8 a tonne. Labor's carbon tax was a $7.6 billion hit on the economy in its first year and it did virtually nothing to reduce global greenhouse emissions.
The repeal of the carbon tax today will be a relief to many businesses. I quote from Tourism Accommodation Australia, which has a number of small businesses in its membership. It spoke of profit reductions of up to 12 per cent attributable to increased costs related to the carbon tax. We know that Labor's tax was actually designed to drive up prices and make Australia less competitive. Its own report warned that some regions of Australia would be vulnerable to large-scale loss of livelihood as a result of the implementation of a carbon price. That is not even code. That meant massive job losses attributable to the carbon tax.
This government will take a responsible approach to the issue so that we play our part in protecting the environment without unnecessary and punitive taxes which were so out of step with the rest of the world. Every time energy prices went up under Labor's tax, it increased pressure on our small businesses. That has now gone. We have repealed the tax. We are in line with the rest of the world.
Budget
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Dell Stagg, a full-time carer for her daughter, in the electorate of Boothby. Because of the government's budget changes, Dell says her family will be up to $600 per fortnight worse off. Dell writes, 'Not only am I already doing the heavy lifting because of my caring role for my daughter, I'm buggered if I'm leaning on anyone. I also have cancer now.' Why is the Prime Minister making life even harder for carers like Dell by cutting the indexation of the carer payment and disability support pension?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:47): For the benefit of the member who asked the question and for the benefit of the carer she has been talking to, I want to reassure her, the House and the Australian people that there are no cuts to the carer payment, the carer allowance or the carer supplement in the budget. There are no cuts to those payments in the budget.
Ms Plibersek: It's in here—it's in your own budget.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has asked her question and will listen to the answer.
Mr ABBOTT: The only cut that has been proposed to carers in recent times was back in 2008, when members opposite attempted to scrap the carer bonus altogether. The only cut that has been proposed to carers in recent times was by the Labor Party back in 2008, when they attempted to abolish the carer payment, and it did not happen, because the coalition successfully opposed it.
I just say again to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who really should be better than this, who really should be above scaring vulnerable people—yes, we have had to make a range of difficult decisions, but we have only made these difficult decisions because someone had to clean up Labor's mess. Given that Labor was incapable of cleaning up its own mess, the people of Australia voted for the coalition to do the job that Labor was incapable of. And we will do this job. We will do it in a competent, trustworthy way and in a way which is as compassionate as it can be under the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Education representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister explain how scrapping the carbon tax will support jobs in the economy. Why is it important that the carbon tax never be reintroduced?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:50): I am very pleased to get this question from the member for Dobell today, because today is a great day for Australian families and Australian businesses because the carbon tax has finally been abolished. It has taken the government a great struggle because of the opposition of the Leader of the Opposition to listening to the Australian public. The message from the Australian public at last year's election was that they wanted the carbon tax gone. Since the Copenhagen conference, since the collapse of those talks, every reputable published opinion poll has indicated that the Australian people do not support the job-destroying, price-increasing carbon tax.
If that were not enough, in the election last year the Australian public voted in a referendum to abolish the carbon tax. At the Griffith by-election they sent the message to the Labor Party again that they wanted the carbon tax gone by swinging to the coalition—the best swing to a government since 1984 in a by-election in an opposition seat.
Ms King: Keep telling yourself that!
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will desist.
Mr PYNE: In the Western Australian Senate by-election, when Labor and the Greens thought they would do well, their vote went backwards. In Western Australia they voted again to abolish the carbon tax.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will desist and the member for Charlton will desist.
Mr PYNE: So, time and again, the Australian public have indicated that they want the carbon tax scrapped, and today the Senate scrapped the carbon tax.
But someone is not listening, and that is the Leader of the Opposition. He refuses to listen to the Australian public. I can tell Bill we will hang this around his neck like a rotten, stinking carcass right through to election day at the end of 2016. You have given the coalition a whole new lease of life, Bill, because we can now tell the Australian public with great confidence that if they vote Labor at the next election the carbon tax will be reintroduced—the job-destroying, price-rising carbon tax that cost Julia Gillard her prime ministership, Kevin Rudd his prime ministership the first time and arguably the second time, and it is going to cost you the prime ministership of Australia. I will tell you who is pleased about that: Chris Bowen, sitting right behind you, member for Maribyrnong. He is waiting for you to fall over on the carbon tax, just like your predecessors. And I am looking forward to that day.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Member for Kingsford Smith, we will have silence. That cacophony was not edifying.
Trade Support Loans Program
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to correspondence from Paul Byrne in my electorate, who runs a small electrical contracting business that employs a number of apprentices. Paul says that cutting the Tools For Your Trade scheme in the budget will make his apprentices reconsider completing training courses and 'may result in some of the apprentices dropping out of the trade'. What additional cuts is the Prime Minister planning for apprentices?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:53): I trust that the member who asked the question was honest with the employer that he was in contact with. If he was being as honest as members of parliament should be with their constituents, he would have said: 'Sure, the Tools For Your Trade payment is going, but the trade support loans are coming.' The trade support loan is four times the size of the Tools For Your Trade grant. That means there is four times as much support available to apprentices from this government than was available from members opposite—a pretty good deal for the apprentices of Australia, including the apprentices the member asked me about.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for the Environment, who has done such a wonderful job. Will the minister update the House on the benefits to jobs and business growth in Gilmore and in Australia from scrapping the world's biggest carbon tax?
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor is not in her seat and may not speak at all.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:55): I can inform the House that the carbon tax is gone. I want to thank the member for Gilmore because, like every member on this side of the House, she campaigned on a plan to heal the nation's economy and on a pledge to repeal the carbon tax. She and every member of this House have delivered what they planned, what they promised and what they pledged to the Australian people. It is a lesson that the other side might take to heart. It means immediate benefits for business. What have we already heard from business today?
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have already told the member for Lalor that she is not entitled to speak.
Mr HUNT: Let me turn to what the National Farmers' Federation has already said:
Australian agriculture is breathing a sigh of relief now the tax has finally been abolished.
… … …
Carbon tax flow-on costs hit Australian farmers every time they paid for essential electricity, fertiliser, chemical and fuel supplies.
It is not just the NFF saying this sort of thing; it is the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Petroleum and Production Exploration Association, the Cement Industry Federation and the Australian Retailers Association.
But it is not just business that benefits—Australian households are also going to benefit from the abolition of a tax which does not do the job. That is the saddest part—as the opposite know, it was a tax that singularly failed to reduce emissions. What do we know there will be for householders? There will not just be a $550 on-average reduction. The electricity providers are already making it clear that the cost of electricity will be reduced. Origin has said today that the electricity price will come down. The Electricity Retailers Association has said that the electricity price will come down.
Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has guaranteed that, under a government that he leads, the electricity price will go back up again. Let us be clear. When they seek to return a carbon tax dressed up as an ETS, the price will not just come back to where it is now. Under their modelling, it will go up to $38. This is what the budget said just a year ago—that the carbon tax, as a floating price, would climb to $38.
Let me compare what occurred under those opposite with what AGL has already said today. Electricity price reductions will be backdated to 1 July 2014. I will finish with their final words to Australian households: 'You don't need to do anything—we will make sure you receive all your savings.'
Medicare
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:58): My question is for the Prime Minister. I refer to the petition of more than 2,500 GPs calling on the Prime Minister to abandon his GP tax and to a GP registrar in the member for Corangamite's electorate who writes, 'The $7 GP tax will make regular visits for some patients unaffordable. I genuinely fear that they will refuse visits and fail to have proper management of their heart failure, diabetes and chronic lung disease.' Why should sick and elderly patients in Corangamite be stopped from getting the treatment they need because of the Prime Minister's GP tax?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:59): Labor's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme tax has not stopped people from getting the drugs they need.
Ms King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will desist! You have asked your question—now listen to the answer.
Mr ABBOTT: Let me get this right: first of all the member for Ballarat is against a modest co-payment on Medicare, and now, judging by her outburst, she is against a PBS co-payment. Just how irresponsible can Labor be?
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lalor then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: Just what kind of deficit do they want us to skyrocket towards when they are against all spending cuts, and now they want to abolish the PBS co-payment as well as oppose a modest co-payment on Medicare? It is really and truly about time members opposite explained themselves.
Ms King: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has completed his answer. And if you insist on asking broad ranging questions, the point about relevance is not valid when you make it.
Carbon Pricing
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (15:00): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Small Business—the outstanding Minister for Small Business. Will the minister explain to the House how savings will be passed onto consumers and 14,000 small businesses in my electorate now the world's biggest carbon tax has just been scrapped?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:00): It is great to get a question from the member for Leichhardt, and what a great treat it was to be with him in his electorate talking to many small businesses, which left us with the very clear message that we needed to axe the carbon tax. And today is that historic day. We have got rid of the carbon tax, and that will be greeted with great joy by the small business community of Australia and in the member for Leichhardt's electorate. They made it clear that this is the action they wanted to see from this government.
It has had an impact on employment; it has made the cost of doing business more expensive than it needs to be. It made a difficult economic climate, created under Labor, that saw 519,000 jobs lost in small business even more difficult than it needed to be, and yet today we have seen this parliament repeal that tax. And it is great news for those small businesses. We have seen the Queensland regulators talk about an eight to 10 per cent reduction in energy costs; we have heard about the 8½ per cent reduction in power costs for the typical household in Queensland. All of this is good news: improved prospects for expenditure for households, reduced costs of doing business for those Queensland entities and households on average $550 better off.
And we are already hearing the small business community celebrate the repeal of the carbon tax, whether it be the independent supermarkets or whether it be the independent fuel retailers. Rick Cairney from Business SA said, 'The tax was introduced two years ago and should never have been introduced as it has achieved nothing but higher power bills and damage to Australia's international competitiveness.' Mark Stone from VECCI, the small business advocates in Victoria, has also welcomed the repeal of the carbon tax. He has pointed out that the carbon tax has adversely impacted on productivity and competitiveness, that the tax has been a burden. It has reduced small business profitability, suppressed employment and added to already difficult trading conditions.
This is a great day for the small businessmen and women of our country—they risk much; many mortgage their houses to have go at creating opportunities and wealth for others—and it is a great day for households and consumers ensuring that those carbon tax repeal savings get passed through. And Rod Sims, the ACCC Chairman, said:
… what went up will clearly come down when you take away the carbon price.
There is a positive legal obligation on electricity, natural gas and synthetic greenhouse gas suppliers to pass on those savings from abolishing the carbon tax.
Consumers will also get an estimate of the savings from network electricity and gas retailers as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax. We know there is greater transparency with estimates being provided by electricity producers and retailers, and natural gas suppliers, to their customers about what that saving should be and then a requirement to substantiate those savings to the ACCC. This is a great day for small business, a great day for consumers and I want to add my thanks not only to the Minister for the Environment but also to the ACCC staff and the Treasury staff who worked very hard to make sure these savings are passed through. It is a great day with the repeal of the carbon tax.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. According to NATSEM, a single income family on $65,000 will be $6,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's unfair budget.
Mr Hockey: You're making it up!
Mr SHORTEN: This week the Prime Minister has failed to rule out further cuts, including a $15 GP tax, cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, scrapping the family tax benefit, further cuts to schools and hospitals. How much more will Australian families have to suffer under the Treasurer's alternative budget?
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will desist.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:04): As a result of this government's budget, there will continue to be a strong and generous social safety net. For instance, a single-income family with three dependents, one aged under six and two aged between six and 13, earning $60,000 in 2016-17, after this government's budget, will receive $17,920 in government payments. The same family earning $70,000 will receive $15,970 in government payments. So this is a government that is more than ready to sustain and support a generous social security system. But the only way we can support a generous social security system is to get Labor's debt and deficit disaster under control. It is the only way. The only way that we can continue to support a generous social security system is by getting the budget back under control.
We need to pay social security benefits out of revenue and not out of borrowings, and that is what Labor do not understand. Labor think you can keep borrowing money to pay out. We think that what needs to happen is that the revenue the government receives has got to cover the payments the government makes. It is a very simple equation. If you cannot raise the money, you cannot spend the money. We understand that, members opposite do not, which is why members opposite just cannot be trusted with the budget. They have proved that over six years. They just cannot be trusted with the economy and that means they just cannot be trusted in government.
Asylum Seekers
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:07): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister explain to the House why it is so important to be resolute in dealing with the scourge of people smuggling? What would be the consequences of alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:07): I thank the member for Murray for her question, because the member for Corio has clearly running out of puff this week—two questions was far too much for him.
Resolve is important when it comes to dealing with these questions and the same resolve we have put on the borders is the same resolve the Minister for the Environment has shown in seeing the end of the carbon tax. There is no carbon tax under the government this Prime Minister leads. That is not a promise; that is an absolute fact. Well done to the Minister for the Environment and the Prime Minister. What we need, though, is resolution in all of these policies—the right policies in competent hands and the right resolve to back up those policies. This government on our borders will never, ever give an inch to people smugglers anywhere, any time. You will not find this government going straight to the option of the water taxi. But on that side, that was the practice every single day they were in government when these issues were presented.
The Australian people can know that we will exhaust any and every option to ensure that people-smuggling ventures are not successful into this country, and for almost seven months that has been the record of this government. Labor's failure has been one of policy when they were in government, has been one of competence when they were in government, but most of all it has been in resolve. They were weak in government and they are proving to be even weaker in opposition when it comes to our borders.
We have the shadow minister now abandoning the enhanced screening policy. It was implemented on 33 occasions by those opposite when they were in government and they said quite plainly that it meets our international obligations. In addition to that, those opposite want to wind up the water taxi again. The first option, as soon as the whistle blows from the people smugglers, the member for Corio, if he were the minister, he would have the water taxi out there in a heartbeat. That is not what this government is going to do. It is not what this government has ever done. We will never give an inch to those people smugglers.
I referred to those opposite yesterday in this House as a swarm of jellyfish, a bloom of jellyfish. What we will get from them is the jellyfish solution if they ever get back into government. But it will not be a jellyfish with a sting; it will be a jellyfish that has no spine, it will be a jellyfish that will just be taken away by every single current would take them in whatever direction they may be taken on. But not this government. Whether we win every battle or not when it comes to the people smugglers, our campaign against the people smugglers is succeeding, will succeed and will continue to succeed under the policies of this government.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
COMMITTEES
Government Response
The SPEAKER (15:14): Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives of 11 October 1984, I present a report on access to committee documents. Also for the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 12 December 2013, the date of the last schedule, and 16 July 2014. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and will be incorporated in Hansard.
THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES
(also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government responses made in the period between 12 December 2013, the date of the last schedule, and 16 July 2014)
17 July 2014
THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE REPORTS
The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 12 December 2013. It also lists reports for which the House has not received a government response. Schedules of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, generally in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.
The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Reports from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights are only listed where the committee has examined and reported on a specific item(s) of existing legislation. Not listed are that committee's regular reports on the human rights compatibility of bills and legislative instruments that come before either House of Parliament.
Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are usually reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Reports from other committees which do not include recommendations are only included when first tabled.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within six months of the tabling of a report.
17July 2014
Description of Report |
Date Tabled or Published 1 |
Date of Government Response 2 |
Responded in Period Specified 3 |
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (House, Standing) |
|||
Everybody's Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Stores |
16-11-09 |
No response to date |
No |
Sport: More than just a game—Contribution of sport to Indigenous wellbeing and mentoring |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry (House, Standing) |
|||
Netting the benefits: Inquiry into the role of science for the future of fisheries and aquaculture |
27-11-12 |
No response to date |
No |
Report on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Annual Reports 2011-12: Caring for Our Country and Landcare |
15-05-13 |
Response no longer required4 |
|
Report on the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Annual Report 2011-12 |
28-05-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Report into the National Rural Advisory Council Annual Report 2011-12 |
03-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Inquiry into the Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research Annual Report 2011-12 |
24-06-13 |
19-03-14 |
No |
|
|||
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (Joint, Statutory) |
|||
Examination of the Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2011-2012 |
18-03-13 |
No response required |
|
Integrity of overseas Commonwealth law enforcement operations |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|||
Broadcasting Legislation (Joint, Select) |
|||
Three broadcasting reform proposals |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|||
Climate Change, Environment and the Arts (House, Standing) |
|||
Managing Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate: the way forward—Final report |
17-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|||
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (House, Standing) |
|||
Community Television: Options for digital broadcasting |
12-02-07 |
No response to date |
No |
Report: Tuning in to community broadcasting |
20-06-07 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|||
Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Joint, Select) |
|||
Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: Interim report |
15-07-14 |
No response required |
|
|
|||
Corporations and Financial Services (Joint, Statutory) |
|||
Better shareholders—Better company: Shareholder engagement and participation in Australia |
23-06-08 |
No response to date5 |
No |
Inquiry into aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes |
07-09-09 |
No response to date6 |
No |
Access for small and medium business to finance |
28-04-11 |
No response to date7 |
No |
Family businesses in Australia—Different and significant: Why they shouldn't be overlooked |
20-03-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Financial sector reform in China: The role of, opportunities for, the Australian financial services sector—Delegation to China |
28-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Report on the 2012-13 Annual Reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act |
19-03-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
|
|||
Cyber-Safety (Joint, Select) |
|||
Cybersafety for seniors: A worthwhile journey |
16-04-13 |
13-02-14 |
No |
|
|
|
|
Economics (House, Standing) |
|||
Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy |
28-04-10 |
No response to date8 |
No |
Inquiry into Indigenous economic development in Queensland and review of the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010 |
12-05-11 |
No response to date |
No |
Report on Australia ' s oil refinery industry |
05-02-13 |
No response required |
|
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2013 (First Report) |
03-03-14 |
No response required |
|
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2013 (Second Report) |
16-02-14 |
No response required |
|
|
|
|
|
Education and Training (House, Standing) |
|||
Adolescent Overload? Report of the inquiry into combining school and work: supporting successful youth transitions |
16-11-09 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Education and Employment (House, Standing) |
|||
International education support and collaboration: Review of the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations |
27-05-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Electoral Matters(Joint, Standing) |
|||
Inquiry into the implications of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Act 2009 (NSW) for the conduct of Commonwealth elections |
25-02-10 |
No response to date |
No |
The 2010 Federal Election: Report on the conduct of the election and related matters |
07-07-11 |
Partial response 07-02-12 |
No |
Report on the funding of political parties and election campaigns |
09-12-11 |
No response to date |
No |
Review of the AEC analysis of the FWA report on the HSU |
20-09-12 |
No response to date |
No |
Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election: Senate voting practices |
13-05-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
|
|
|
|
Employment and Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation (House, Standing) |
|||
Making it work: Inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire arrangements |
17-08-05 |
No response to date9 |
No |
|
|
|
|
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing) |
|||
Australia's trade and investment relationship with Japan and the Republic of Korea |
03-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Trading Lives: Modern day human trafficking |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Care of ADF personnel wounded and injured on operations |
24-06-13 |
06-03-1410 |
Yes |
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2011-2012 |
27-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Gambling Reform (Joint, Select) |
|||
Fifth Report: The advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 |
07-06-13 |
No response to date11 |
No |
|
|
|
|
Health and Ageing (House, Standing) |
|||
Lost in the labyrinth: Report on the inquiry into registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors |
19-03-12 |
No response to date |
No |
Discussion paper on the late effects of polio/post-polio syndrome |
20-08-12 |
No response to date |
No |
Diseases have no borders: Report on the inquiry into health issues across international borders |
20-03-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Bridging the dental gap: Report on the inquiry into adult dental services |
17-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Living with the pain of adhesive arachnoiditis: Report on the roundtable into adhesive arachnoiditis |
11-02-13 |
03-06-14 |
No |
Thinking ahead: Report on the inquiry into dementia: early diagnosis and intervention |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Human Rights (Joint, Statutory) |
|||
Fourth Report of 2012: Interim Report —Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012 |
20-09-12 |
No response to date12 |
No |
Fifth Report of 2013: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Act 2012—Final Report: |
20-03-13 |
No response to date13 |
No |
Ninth Report of 2013: Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 and related legislation |
19-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Eleventh Report of 2013: Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 and related legislation |
26-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure and Communications (House, Standing) |
|||
Finding the right balance: Cabin crew ratios on Australian aircraft |
21-11-11 |
No response to date |
No |
At what cost? IT pricing and the Australia tax |
29-07-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (House, Standing) |
|||
Rebuilding Australia's coastal shipping industry: Inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation |
20-10-08 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Intelligence and Security (Joint, Statutory) |
|||
Report of the inquiry into potential reforms of Australia's national security legislation |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Review of the listing of Jabhat al-Nusra and the re-listing of six terrorist organisations; Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula |
11-02-14 |
No response required |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Enforcement (Joint, Statutory) |
|||
Inquiry into the gathering and use of criminal intelligence |
15-05-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Spectrum for public safety mobile broadband |
23-07-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission annual report 2011-12 |
15-05-13 |
20-03-14 |
No |
|
|
|
|
Migration (Joint, Standing) |
|||
Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning: Criteria for release from immigration detention—First report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia |
01-12-08 |
No response to date |
No |
Immigration detention in Australia: Community-based alternatives to detention—Second report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia |
25-05-09 |
No response to date |
No |
Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency—Third report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia |
18-08-09 |
No response to date |
No |
Inquiry into migration and multiculturalism in Australia |
18-03-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
National Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing) |
|||
An estate for the future: The allocation of land to diplomatic missions in the ACT |
28-03-11 |
10-07-1414 |
No |
Etched in stone? Inquiry into the administration of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 |
23-11-11 |
No response to date |
No |
Report of the visit to Norfolk Island: 29-30 April 2013 |
05-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Report of the inquiry into the provisions of amenity within the Parliamentary Triangle |
28-06-13 |
10-07-14 |
No |
Report on the visit to the Indian Ocean Territories, 21-25 October 2012; Review of the Department of Regional Development, Regional Australia and Local Government Annual Report 2010-11 |
28-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Northern Australia (Joint Select) |
|||
Inquiry into the development of Northern Australia: Interim Report |
16-06-14 |
No response required |
|
|
|
|
|
Petitions (House, Standing) |
|||
Electronic petitioning to the House of Representatives |
16-11-09 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Procedure (House, Standing) |
|||
Building a modern committee system: An inquiry into the effectiveness of the House Committee system |
21-06-10 |
No response to date |
No |
Monitoring and review of procedural changes implemented in the 43rd Parliament: 4th Report |
26-11-12 |
02-06-14 |
No |
Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders |
24-06-13 |
02-06-14 15 |
No |
|
|
|
|
Public Accounts and Audit (Joint, Statutory) |
|||
Report 417: Review of Auditor-General's Reports tabled between February 2009 and September 2009 |
22-06-10 |
Partial response received |
No |
Report 423: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 39 (2009-10) to 15 (2010-11) |
04-07-11 |
28-02-14 |
No |
Report 436: Review of the 2011-12 Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Report |
29-05-13 |
29-11-1316 |
Yes |
Report 437: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 2 to 10 (2012-13) |
29-05-13 |
26-06-14 |
No |
Report 439: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 11 to 31 (2012-13) |
27-06-13 |
09-04-1416 |
No |
Report 441: Inquiry into Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 Rules Development |
13-05-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
Report 442: Inquiry into the 2012-13 Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Report |
26-05-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
Report 443: Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos. 23 and 25 (2012-13) and 32 (2012-13) to 9 (2013-14) |
16-06-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works (Joint, Standing) |
|||
Public works on Christmas Island |
13-10-11 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Regional Australia (House, Standing) |
|||
Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities? Fly-in, fly-out and drive-in, drive-out workforce practices in Regional Australia |
13-02-13 |
No response to date |
No |
|
|
|
|
Social Policy and Legal Affairs (House, Standing) |
|||
FASD: The Hidden Harm—Inquiry into the prevention, diagnosis and management of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders |
29-11-12 |
No response to date |
No |
Troubled Waters: Inquiry into the arrangements surrounding crimes committed at sea |
24-06-13 |
No response to date |
No |
Eyes in the sky: Inquiry into drones and the regulation of air safety and privacy |
14-07-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
|
|
|
|
Tax and Revenue (House, Standing) |
|||
2013 Annual Report of the Australian Taxation Office: First Report |
27-03-14 |
No response required |
|
|
|
|
|
Treaties (Joint, Standing) |
|||
Report 130: Treaty tabled on 14 August 2012 |
31-10-12 |
No response to date |
No |
Report 136: Treaty tabled on 14 May 2013 |
12-11-13 |
13-02-14 |
Yes |
Report 137: Treaty referred on 15 January 2014 |
18-03-14 |
Time has not expired |
|
Report 138: Treaties tabled on 11 and 12 December 2013, 20 January 2014 and referred on 15 January 2014 tabled on 26 March 2014 |
26-03-14 |
No response required |
|
Report 139: Treaties tabled on 11 December 2013, referred on 15 January and tabled on 11 February 2014 |
13-05-14 |
No response required |
|
Report 140: Treaty tabled on 13 May 2014—Interim Report |
23-06-14 |
No response required |
|
Report 141: Treaties tabled on 19 March and 13 May 2014 |
15-07-14 |
No response required |
|
Notes
1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.
2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote.
3. For reports up to the end of 42nd Parliament, the time specified is three months from the date of tabling. While the Government has undertaken to continue to respond to reports within three months, from the 43rd Parliament (28 September 2010 onwards) the period within which the House requires a response is six months—see resolution of the House of Representatives of 29 September 2010. This resolution also puts in place additional steps for reports not responded to within that six month period. The period from when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 and the commencement of the 44th Parliament on 12 November 2013 is not included in the response period.
4. In correspondence to the committee, dated 3 December 2013, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry advised the committee of the publication of the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) Strategy: Caring for our Country and the Biodiversity Fund. On 6 March 2014 the committee resolved that a response to the report was no longer required. The report will be removed from the next schedule.
5. In July 2011 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. The committee has not agreed to the removal of this report from the schedule.
6. In December 2013 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. The committee has not agreed to the removal of this report from the schedule.
7. In December 2013 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond to the report as this matter is being considered as part of the Government's Financial System Inquiry. The committee has not agreed to the removal of this report from the schedule.
8. In December 2013 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled. The report will be removed from the next schedule.
9. In June 2009 the Government advised that it did not intend to respond formally to this report. The committee awaits a response to recommendations of the report. In November 2009 the Government indicated a response is being considered and will be tabled in due course. In November 2011 and December 2013 the Government indicated it was in discussion with the committee on this matter. In July 2014 the Government advised that the Independent Contractors Act 2006 was assented to on 1 December 2006 and that the Government's response was covered during debate on the Bill.
10. On 26 June 2013, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Defence Science and Personnel provided an interim response by way of statement to the Federation Chamber. See House of Representatives Hansard, 26 June 2013, pp 103-104. The final government response was provided on 6 March 2014.
11. In July 2014 the Government advised that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013 lapsed when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued. As at 13 May 2014, this Private Senator's Bill has not been restored to the Notice Paper, or re-introduced. The Government noted that in the report the committee recommended the bill not be passed.
12. In July 2014 the Government noted that the bill had passed both houses in 2012 and indicated that no further response would be provided.
13. In July 2014 the Government advised that the response was provided by the introduction, passage and Royal Assent of the Act on October 2012, and indicated that no further response would be provided.
14. The National Capital Authority responded to the report on 17 April 2013. The government response was tabled on 10 July 2014.
15. Recommendations made in the report have been implemented in amendments made to the standing orders on 13 November 2013.
16. The Government responded by Executive Minute.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:11): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:11): I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:12): I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended for this sitting.
Just to explain to the House, this is the cautionary motion that leaders of the House move at the end of a sitting session such as this one. I should inform the House that the Senate is considering the Asset Recycling Fund Bill. They have obviously dealt with the carbon tax package of bills today. The government has a number of other bills that we want passed by the Senate—or, if not passed—returned to the House in an amended form for us to consider whether we will accept those amendments. That obviously includes the Qantas sale bill, the land transport bill and the minerals resource rent tax bill. Progress is slow in the Senate—people will be shocked to hear!—but I think they are trying to finish these matters tonight. It is possible that they will finish them tonight, in which case we will probably sit quite late. In some instances there is talk of amending the bills but then if the amendments are not successful then allowing the bills through. But we cannot tell the Senate what to do. It is a matter of waiting to see what they do on these matters.
the Manager of Opposition Business in the House and I have been talking about trying to manage the timing and the schedule for the benefit of members and also for the government's agenda. We will make a determination sometime this evening—not too late—whether we sit till the early hours of the morning or whether we come back tomorrow and give the Senate the time it needs to do its work and then we will deal with their messages at some stage in the late morning and early afternoon tomorrow. That is an assessment we can make later today, but I wanted to inform the House that that was a situation we currently face.
I have just been told only moments ago that one of the bills that I thought they needed to wait for could well be dealt with expeditiously. Let us hope that that happens with some of the other bills as well.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Budget
The SPEAKER (15:14): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
This Prime Minister’s chaotic and unfair Budget hurting Australians
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): This week will be the last week for five weeks that parliament sits. The government has an opportunity over the next five weeks to face the people being punished by its unfair and chaotic budget. This Prime Minister loves to talk about manning up and other references to his courage and strength. Perhaps the Prime Minister of Australia should show the courage to talk to the people being harmed by this budget.
Once upon a time, the once great Liberal Party loved to talk about the forgotten people of Australia. Tony Abbott should get out and talk to the people he has forgotten: the people who put him there. He should talk to families who will lose up to $6,000 a year because of this rotten, unfair budget. Does the Prime Minister have the moral courage to talk to a single mum on $50,000 a year and explain why the family payments are being cut? Does he have the strength of character that he likes to claim to talk to parents of modest income working hard who, because their children are older than six and not yet 16, will lose family benefit payments? I think not. Does he have the courage to talk to pensioners to explain why they will lose $80 a week once his full measure of pension changes are done? These are people who have contributed their whole life. This chap opposite, this Tony Abbott fellow, wants to take away from pensioners.
Before the last election, this Prime Minister of ours was very keen and always helpfully popping up at a petrol station bowser, talking about the price of petrol. Is he taking any petrol bowser photo opportunities now? I think not. Mind you, I acknowledge that, when he is talking to President Obama, he talks about his new carbon tax—the petrol excise—but he tore down Malcolm Turnbull, the only Liberal with the courage to stick to his convictions on an ETS. Well done you! Well done member for Wentworth!
Will he talk to students and teachers in the classrooms of Australia? Will he talk to them about the cuts? We think not.
Will he look at patients in emergency wards? Will he visit nursing homes and talk about the cuts to health care in this country? Of course not. Will he go and talk to the GPs so terribly worried about the poor health outcomes for so many Australians? He will not visit a GP surgery in this country to be told something that he does not want to hear.
I think Australia is, after 10 months, working out the character of this Prime Minister. What a narrow, prejudiced, unthoughtful person we have as Prime Minister!
Will he be talking to university students about increasing their fees? Will he be talking to women punished for taking time out to raise a family, the women who have to get the tertiary degrees and then pay them off over a longer time period than they otherwise would?
We know this Prime Minister loves the flag. He wraps it around himself. He would wear it every day. He loves a good parade. He is always there talking about how patriotic he is—except when it comes to veterans, their pensions and orphans.
As for the carers, I congratulate the Prime Minister on one thing: he gets on the pollie pedal. Good on him! If he raises money for carers, he is going to have to ride a lot more to raise more money because he is taking away from the carers.
What about Indigenous Australians? I said before that this Prime Minister is a narrow man with a bleak vision. I also say to you that he is the great pretender of Indigenous politics. He will certainly say that he cares, so why is it that he is cutting half a billion from programs to support Indigenous Australians? Will he visit an Aboriginal legal centre keeping young Aboriginal men out of jail when he is cutting their funding? The chances of seeing him visit an Aboriginal legal centre are none. I wish I could be as certain about the winner of the next Melbourne Cup.
Indeed, there is another group of forgotten people whom he will not visit. They are some of his backbenchers! I am not sure that Premier Napthine wants him in. I do not think he will get to the Stafford by-election any time soon either! Perhaps, even if he will not talk to the millions of Australians being hurt by his unfair budget, he will sit down with his backbench. Will he ask them one-to-one if they think it is the right budget for Australia? I think not. The Prime Minister will not do that. He will not visit the Australian people.
We have seen new records set in the last 2½ months. The period before the MPI may well be called question time; but, under this Prime Minister, it will never be called 'answer time'. He knows that in the last 24 hours his Treasurer, fresh from Fiji, has not helped the budget case. I respect some on the government backbench here, because they have certainly got a degree of loyalty even as the budget ship is sinking. But the Treasurer yesterday embarrassed the whole of the government. For weeks and months Tony Abbott would say, 'I might be wrong, but I'm dumb enough to stick to what I am doing on this unfair budget.' The Prime Minister said that there is no alternative and there is no Plan B. Well that's smart Sherlock! No Plan B! The Treasurer said yesterday that there is an alternative. I believe that Malcolm Farr in today's Daily Telegraph has noted that the Treasurer has moved from being 'cheerful Joe Hockey' to 'grumpy Joe Hockey', but what he really should have said is that he is still empty-headed Joe Hockey. The reason I say this is that this government has no alternative and, if they have alternative, it is in the Commission of Audit. We asked the government today and yesterday to rule out measures. They were happy to rule out some measures but not others. The very fact that they were not prepared to rule out all measures and yet rule out some shows that everything else is on the table.
We have sensible alternatives which have been articulated by Labor. We believe in cracking down on multinational profit shifting and tax minimisation. This government has never seen a vested interest it did not want to hug.
Fresh from the atrocities of financial planning and the Commonwealth Bank scandal, this government has cut $1 billion in measures to collect tax in Australia. This government certainly has no shame. They are prepared on one hand to slug all those people I mentioned—the pensioners, the sick, the vulnerable, the low paid—but when it comes to a multinational: too hard, can't be bothered, or why bother?
We have offered constructive compromises on family tax benefit B. I also know the greatest single weakness of this unfair budget is that the Prime Minister is so arrogant, so narrow, so proud that he will not cut the Paid Parental Leave scheme which everyone in Australia, including most of those in the government, knows is a turkey. How on earth can you propose a budget emergency justifying the sorts of atrocities, the creation of a new permanent underclass in this country, yet persist with this Paid Parental Leave scheme which everyone knows is unfair?
This government is not serious about its own so-called budget emergency. Labor are prepared to step up. We have seen them say here very clearly they are not ruling out putting a handbrake on the NDIS. This Prime Minister has swallowed the dictionary of weasel words when he says, 'We want an NDIS, in good time.' They want to abolish family tax benefit part B. The GP tax, once in, will go up and up and up. And, of course, they love cutting the minimum wage—they have got their minimum wage scissors in their pocket every day of the week. Nothing is safe.
This government, though, is so desperate to get through its shonky legislation that we have seen the chaotic week where, if this government wants to get something done, they have to go and doff their cap, tip their forelock, to Clive Palmer. What a fantastic state for the Liberal Party of Australia and this proud government 10 months ago so excited to do so much! What we have seen this week is that if the PUP are run by Clive Palmer there is a new party in Australia, the 'PUPpets', and these are the 'PUP pets'. They are being run by Clive Palmer. How embarrassing! They love to say how much they dislike Clive Palmer. They will go to black-tie gala events, rub shoulders with business and say: 'Yeah, this Clive Palmer—terrible man, terrible man. Quick, is that the phone? Clive's on the phone—excuse me!' The Prime Minister is the discredited figurehead of the 'PUPpet' government.
Labor in the next five weeks, I promise Australians, will stand up for Medicare. We will stand up for a fair pension. We will make sure that higher education is accessible. We will stand up to make sure schools and hospitals do not get cut. We will fight for what is right. This government, no matter how much bluster and bullying it does, will not defeat the will of the people. We will stand up for the people. What the Prime Minister really needs to do in five weeks is change his mind about the budget. He needs to change his mind because we will not be changing ours.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (15:24): If one thing is clear it is that Labor not only will not change their mind, Labor will not change their approach. We just had 10 minutes from the Leader of the Opposition about Labor's approach. What we on this side of the House know and have known for some time is that Labor have not learnt a single lesson over the past six years. In that 10-minute diatribe from the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of the nation had an opportunity to set the tone for this debate but, instead, he took the opportunity to do little more than engage in bile and invective. This is a Leader of the Opposition who could have taken the opportunity to highlight Labor's alternative for how Australia can live within its means. Instead, we had a Leader of the Opposition who did little more than pour scorn and personally abuse and attack the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of the nation. That in many respects speaks volumes about the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party's approach.
I think the Australian people will mark down the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition because they know that this was a poor attempt, a pathetic attempt, by the Labor Party to somehow try and become relevant once again in the debate. Labor's consistent approach is: 'We don't care how much it costs, we don't care how much we need to borrow, we don't care how much debt and deficit we are making sure this nation delves into, we will not change our policy.' We know that. That is not a news flash from the Leader of the Opposition. We know that Labor are being stubbornly consistent. Thank goodness there are saner heads that prevail in the upper house. We have seen today, for example, that people have listened to the will of the Australian people. We have seen today the crossbench work with the government to make sure that the national interest is protected. We have seen today and over previous days this week that the crossbench has been willing to make sure that the national interest goes ahead of their own political interest. But you cannot say that about the Leader of the Opposition and you cannot say that about the Australian Labor Party.
The Australian Labor Party is wedded to debt and deficit. With respect to the so-called unfair budget, we have seen some rank hypocrisy, and some of the clearest examples were just highlighted by none other than the Leader of the Opposition himself. Labor rails about how apparently this is an unfair budget that the coalition has put forward, completely disregarding the fact that it is only the coalition that has put forward a plan for this nation to live within its means. But, that notwithstanding, the Labor Party rails about how this is an unfair budget and claims that the coalition is only concerned about standing up for the big end of town.
Mr Neumann: It's true.
Mr CIOBO: We just hear it now in an interjection at the table. The extraordinary thing is that around $5 billion of the savings that have been proposed are actually Labor Party savings. And one of those savings measures, worth around $1.1 billion, is changes to research and development tax incentives. The coalition adopted this saving that was announced by Labor. The saving effectively works to exclude companies with turnovers of $20 billion or more. And what is Labor doing? Labor is actually fighting, in the chamber up there, to make sure that that incentive stays in place for some of the biggest companies in the world. If you ever wanted a clearer example of hypocrisy it is the Labor Party going in to bat for that. The Labor Party will wear the crushing weight of hypocrisy for saying they are standing up for the Aussie battler when in actuality they are fighting to maintain a $1.1 billion savings measure in the interests of some of the biggest companies not only in this nation but globally.
In addition, the Labor Party's approach is, 'We don't care about the fact that we are sentencing future generations of Australians to decades of debt and deficit.' Apparently it is equitable to pay for spending today by ripping money off future generations of Australians. Only the coalition has put forward a clear plan to make sure that we live within our means. And only the coalition has put forward a budget that requires all strata of society to make their contributions.
And it simply is not good enough for the Australian Labor Party to say, 'There is no crisis. There's nothing to worry about. There's no problem here.' I notice that the shadow Treasurer is in the chamber. This is the man who presided over the complete debacle of Australia's border protection laws. At the time, the shadow Treasurer made the comment, 'There's no crisis here.' Sure, there were 50,000 people, 750 boats, and over a thousand people who perished at sea, but apparently there was no crisis.
We have heard the shadow Treasurer saying, now, 'There's no problem with expenditure. There's no problem with revenue. There's no need to have any of these savings.' It was the shadow Treasurer who argued, after announcing some $5 billion of savings, 'We want to keep those savings; we're not prepared to stand by our own policies.' This just underscores what rank populists and opportunists the Australian Labor Party are. On that basis, I think the Australian people will continue to mark down the Australian Labor Party.
Labor does not need to be in a situation where they have dealt themselves out of the game. Labor will have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are prepared to step up and take decisions in the national interest. Frankly, it beggars belief that the Australian Labor Party would be willing to incur tens of billions of dollars of additional debt and would be willing to incur a gross debt peak that is some $667 billion—money which they know this nation cannot afford to spend. Yet the Australian Labor Party are willing to borrow that money because they believe it is in their short-term political interest.
So when the Australian Labor Party say that they care about working families, and when they say, 'We've got to take care of the environment for the next generation,' why do they exclude any concern about the next generation starting out with $25,000 worth of debt for every man, woman and child? The rank hypocrisy of Labor being concerned, apparently, about the next generation of Australians is just so clear. Labor are willing to sentence Australian children to paying for their debt which has resulted from the spending that they think will get them a couple of extra votes.
On behalf of the next generation of Australians, we will stand in Labor's way. The coalition will stand in Labor's way because we are not prepared to shackle generation after generation to more debt and deficit to enable Labor to claim to be all about largesse and being equitable and fair. There is nothing fair about sentencing Aussie kids to decades of debt. There is nothing fair about running six, seven or eight years of record deficits.
There is nothing fair about saying to people, 'There is no need for there to be any change.' It requires maturity. It requires the adults in the room to look the Australian people in the eye and say, 'We recognise that everything we announced isn't universally popular, but—you know what?—we are not doing it to be the most popular people in town. We are doing it because it is the right thing to do.'
That is something that the Australian Labor Party has always taken great lengths to avoid. The Australian Labor Party will not do the right thing. The Australian Labor Party will not take decisions in the national interest. The Australian Labor Party will always take the easiest, laziest path if they believe there are a couple of votes in it. Well, thankfully, there are others in the Senate that a more prepared to govern in the national interest.
I say to the Australian Labor Party that in the short term if there is something they want to do they need to start to put their political interests second and the national interests first. They could start, very simply, by backing their own announced savings. If the Labor Party did that there would be a brighter tomorrow—a brighter future when it comes to the sustainability and long-term finances of this nation.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:35): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always such a pleasure to see you in the chair. The American philosopher John Dewey once said:
What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children.
Those words are more than a century old but they still speak of the hope that all parents have for their children—the hope that their kids get a good education, that there will be a job for them when they are grown and that they are healthy and prepared to step out into the world. But Dewey's words, and that hope, have been betrayed by this government and its unfair, chaotic budget.
The best thing we can do for individual kids—kids like those up in the galleries today—and for the prosperity of our nation, is to invest in education. But what has this government done? It has cut $1 billion from child care. It has cut 650 trades training centres. It has cut $1 billion from the Tools for your Trade program. It has cut $30 billion from school funding. The fairer Gonski school funding model has been abandoned, which means that the kids who need the most help will not get it under this government. The School Kids Bonus and family tax benefit part B have been cut. But perhaps nothing underscores the Abbott government's true values more than their cuts to universities.
Mr Ciobo: How are you paying for it?
Ms PLIBERSEK: No. 93 over here says that national debt is bad but student debt is great. Big, American-style student debt is great! The Minister for Education says that taxpayers hate paying for university education for other people. Here is some news for him. Even those cleaners that this government has cut the wages of, may hope that their children, one day, can aspire to go to university. They do not mind paying their taxes to make sure that we live in a more prosperous country where every child has the opportunity of a university education. And here is the other piece of news for the education minister: those university students turn out to be taxpayers. And when we have got a progressive taxation system, guess what? That extra income that they earn because they have gone to university, they pay extra tax on that.
One of the other things that has been so disappointing about this budget are health cuts: $50 billion from hospitals, $400 million from public dental, $400 million from prevention. You know what? There are ways of making savings in health. The best way to make savings in health is to keep people healthy and out of hospital. Our work in prevention dropped the rate of smoking.
Budgets are all about choices, about priorities and about values. This government shows its priorities and it shows its values when it says everybody has to tighten their belts: families on $60,000 a year, by $6,000; pensioners, by $4,000 a year; young unemployed people, by almost $7,000 a year. Everyone has to tighten their belts but high-income earners pay an extra little bit of tax for three years and then nothing. Poor people's cuts are large and they are permanent; rich people's cuts are small and they are temporary.
It is a priority for this government to spend $20 billion to give millionaires $50,000 to have a baby. It is a priority for this government to hand $1.1 billion to multinational companies in tax breaks. It is a priority for this government to make sure that people on high incomes get big breaks on their superannuation not available to low-income earners. It is a priority for this government to give handouts to big polluters. They are their priorities.
What are our priorities in government? Our priorities are: investing more fairly in education so that every child has great education; investing in a National Disability Insurance Scheme so that disabled Australians finally get choice and control over the services that they get; looking after the poor and the vulnerable; and, yes, making sure that what the best and wisest parent wants for his child, society gets for all of our children. This is the type of society, the type of country that we want to hand over to our children.
One of the things that strikes me most about the response to this budget was it is not pensioners saying, 'I am really worried about my pension.' It is pensioners saying, 'I am really worried about the uni students.' And it is not uni students saying, 'I am really worried about myself.' It is students saying, 'I am really worried about the pensioners and the health system.' This shows that we care about a fairer Australia.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (15:40): I am pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance and very pleased that the member for McMahon is in the chamber. Yesterday he was not in the chamber and that is why we did not have an MPI. We saw that unedifying spectacle of the Manager of the Opposition Business coming to the dispatch box begging, pleading and cajoling the Speaker saying, 'Could you please just let the member for McMahon in the chamber. I know he has been punted under standing order 94(a), but could you please let him into the chamber so that he could lead our debate on the MPI?' Obviously nobody else over that side was good enough because the member for Watson pulled the plug on the MPI yesterday. It reminded me of Cameron Smith of Queensland or New South Wales's Paul Gallen begging Shayne Hayne saying, 'I know you have sin binned them but can you just please let our star players back on the field because we need help in the State of Origin?'
Labor certainly needs help. They are in a state of denial about the September 7 election result last year. They are in a state of denial that the people spoke and said that they did not want a carbon tax. It took vote after vote after vote. Like a desperate person clinging to a life raft, they wanted the carbon tax restored. They did not want it repealed but today in the Senate sanity has prevailed, 39 votes to 32. And the carbon tax is gone.
We went to the last election with a plan. We heard the member for Moncrieff say that the other side has no plan. The member for Maribyrnong, the so-called opposition leader, has no policy direction. When he stood here at the dispatch box for 10 minutes, he gave no plan, did he, member for Moncrieff? He has absolutely no policy ideas. But we went to the election with a plan. We have to fix up the debt and deficit that has been left by Labor.
The previous government turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into projected net debt of more than $200 billion. Listen to this, Labor members, who are screeching and crying over there: Labor's legacy to Australia was 200,000 more unemployed and on the jobless queues and gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: That is because they are listening to me. The Australian public have stopped listening to your side and they will stop voting for you next time. There were $123 billion in cumulative deficits.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! On my left.
Mr McCORMACK: Yes, they are a rabble. You talk about shambolic and chaotic, and it is writ large over on the other side.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: We hear the member for McMahon shouting out. How many people arrived under your watch? Was it 24,447 whilst you were the world's worst immigration minister? You were the 28th immigration minister of this fine nation but you were the worst. You were the absolute worst—50,000 illegal arrivals by boat and the biggest carbon tax the world has ever seen.
Labor's legacy is $1 billion worth of interest payments per month. What could we spend $1 billion on? Let me see. This Parliament House, this fine institution was built, finished and completed in 1988. It cost $1.1 billion. We could build another Parliament House every month on the interest we are paying on the debt that you have left us.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! On my left.
Mr McCORMACK: Absolutely, and so there should be. The Tarcutta bypass cost $290 million and was finished in 2011. Last year, the Holbrook bypass cost $247 million for 9½ kilometres and that finished the duplication of the Hume Highway, a great project. Who opened that project? Who turned the first sod? It was none other than Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister. But what happened just four short days later? She went the same way that Kevin Rudd went. She went because of the carbon tax. She was stabbed in the back by a chaotic government. She was stabbed in the back by her supposed colleagues.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Yes; Albo, the member for Grayndler, was there too. The member for Grayndler was certainly at that opening. My point is that $247 million is just a quarter of what we are paying in interest per month now—just a quarter. It is a disgrace. The Snowy Mountains hydroelectricity scheme, completed in 1972, cost only $820 million. Think of everything that we could be spending all that money on but we are sending 70 per cent of it overseas. It is an absolute disgrace and the Labor opposition is an absolute disgrace. (Time expired)
Ms Plibersek: Mr Speaker, I want to ask for an extension of time so that the member for Riverina can talk about the budget.
Mr McCormack: I would be happy to—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): No—it might possibly be our last day before the winter recess, but the cold has not set into the chamber yet.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:45): I will be talking about this government's budget, just like people around Australia are. Everybody is talking about the budget except members opposite. They did not send a minister in to defend their budget today—they are too busy backgrounding against the Treasurer. They sent in the B team to defend a C-grade budget. The budget was brought down two months ago. As much as we former treasurers would wish otherwise, normally budgets have receded into people's memory by now—but not this budget. Around Australia people are still expressing their white-hot anger at this Treasurer for his deceit, for his dishonesty and for his lack of care for the fundamental Australian value of fairness. They are still angry and they not have forgotten this budget.
We have seen ministers question the judgement of the Treasurer. We have seen ministers question his ability to sell this budget, as well they might. But these ministers should be questioning his values. They should be questioning the Prime Minister's values, too. They should be questioning their values and their prejudices—their prejudices against hardworking Australians who commit no crime other than to need some support from the government. They are hardworking Australians who commit no crime other than working hard and saving for the future and relying on their government to care about them. The values of this Treasurer tell him that it is okay to rip away universal health care; his values tell him it is okay to impose debt on people who commit no crime other than wishing to better themselves through tertiary education; his values tell him that it is all right to reduce the age pension because apparently the age pension is too generous, according to this Treasurer. This is a Treasurer whose values tell him it is okay to say that if you commit the crime of being under 30 and temporarily unemployed, you get nothing. The values of this Treasurer tell him it is okay to deliberately create an underclass in Australia. That is what these ministers should be questioning—the values of the Treasurer, not just his salesmanship and his judgement. We on this side of the House question his values, and that is what people are questioning right around the country.
We have seen the spectacle of this chaotic management approach adopted by the Treasurer of Australia. Yesterday he said that they had alternatives up their sleeve; they had secret plans that they could reveal to go further unless the Senate passed their legislation. We were told by everybody there were no alternatives, but now apparently there are alternatives. I am going to surprise the House—I agree. There are alternatives. We gave the Treasurer four at question time. He could drop his $5.5 billion a year Paid Parental Leave scheme. There is a saving he would get some support for. He could drop direct action—so-called direct action; this scheme which subsidises polluters. He could drop that, and it would have a pretty easy passage through the parliament. He could drop his plan to give a billion dollars back to multinational companies who should be paying a fair share of tax in Australia. This government talks about small business, but why don't they give small business a break by letting multinational companies pay their fair share so that small business can compete on a level playing field? Here is another alternative: why don't you say to high income earners in Australia, 'You can pay a fair share of tax on your superannuation.' A modest measure was proposed by the previous government to make the superannuation system a little fairer, and this government says, 'Oh no, we can't have that.'
So there are alternatives, but they are not ones that this Prime Minister or this Treasurer want to hear about because they do not fit their prejudices against ordinary, hardworking Australians and they do not fit this government's determination not to shrink the state—no, this government does not want to shrink the state—but to shift the state to give more support where they think that is important, like sending $50,000 cheques to somebody who happens to have a baby while taking money away from Australia's age pensioners, while saying to unemployed people that they will get nothing, while cutting child care and while saying to people who dare to dream for the future and study for the future that they will have to go into debt. (Time expired)
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (15:50): I welcome the member for McMahon back into the chamber and note with interest that the terms of the matter of public importance contain the word 'chaotic'—it is always a pleasure to have him back in the chamber given yesterday's unsavoury performance. This week is a great week for Labor because they have been celebrating the anniversary of the announcement of the abolition of the carbon tax by none other than the member for McMahon and the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in Townsville not 12 months ago. Not 12 months ago this government stood in front of the Australian public and said 'We are abolishing the carbon tax' and yet this week they voted three times against its repeal. Here is a government that will continually say one thing and do another. I hardly need to take members back to a previous Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillard, who said that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. You cannot trust one thing those on the other side of this House say—you cannot even believe them when they say hello.
There are an enormous number of people in my electorate who are going to benefit from the measures we have introduced with reference to the carbon tax. The Hood family who are farmers and have large refrigerators to keep the fruit and vegetables fresh. Mulgowie Farms, Kalfresh, Bunny Bites, Moffats and many other businesses will benefit. There will be a $9 billion hand brake let off our economy. This is a great day and a great week for the budget of this nation. It will release the entrepreneurialship of our businesses and that money will be spent back in local communities and that in turn will have a direct impact on our budget and on productivity. When you take money out of that sector and you allow the multiplier effect to spread through the community, our nation will be better for it and it will prosper. We were elected to government to do a number of things: to fix the budget and to fix border security. In passing I concur with a previous speaker: the member for McMahon was a pretty ordinary immigration minister.
Mr Ciobo: And a pretty ordinary Treasurer too.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: During question time today the Leader of the Opposition said that there would be pain in the electorate as a result of some of our budget measures. We should not pretend there will not be some degree of pain throughout the electorate, but I remind those Australians who will be feeling pain as to why that pain is coming. It is coming as a result of the deficits and the debt that was incurred through the mismanagement by those on the other side of this House. Does the problem need to be fixed? Do not take the Treasurer's word that the budget needs to be fixed; do not take the Prime Minister's word that the budget needs to be fixed. The Australian public has a choice: they can believe those on the other side, who put their heads in the sand and say, 'There is no problem,' or they can believe the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, who said in 2011:
… meandering back to surplus would compound the pressures in our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people.
That was said by the then Treasurer who knew there was a problem.
But do not rely on the member for Lilley. Perhaps you could take a comment from Glenn Stevens, the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He does not bat for one side or the other; he calls it as it is. He said:
Early, measured actions … that build up over time are a much better approach than the much tougher responses that might be required if decisions are delayed.
But you do not have to believe the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The Secretary for the Treasury, Martin Parkinson, said it had to be fixed, as did Phil Bowen of the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Secretary General of the OECD, Angel Gurria, also said that the problem had to be fixed.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, there are budget measures that need to be fixed. We were elected to get on and fix them, and we will do it. If you vote for Labor, you will get a carbon tax back; the boats will start coming again; and you will constrict future generations to debts and deficits. The only way this country is going to prosper is under a coalition government.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (15:55): I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance about the Prime Minister's chaotic and unfair budget. It is hurting Australians and no more so than when it comes to the portfolio area of health. It is extraordinary that on the last day of sitting before we break, when the budget has been at the top of people's minds for the last few months, that we do not have a senior minister at the desk able to defend the budget. We saw that on show yesterday as well, when the first of the health budget bills came into this parliament and was debated through second reading. There were only six speakers on the other side, and none of them was a senior member of the Liberal Party. No senior member would speak on the government's decision in the budget to increase the cots of pharmaceuticals for every Australian, including pensioners, those on disability support pensions, people with chronic conditions who require multiple medications. There were six speakers from the other side—none of them were senior and none of them from marginal seats. Those from marginal seats went out and campaigned at the last election as to how they would do better for their constituents and how they would stand up, but not one of them would speak to defend that measure. I suspect that not one of them will speak on the GP tax, either.
Not one of them has spoken out about the impact of their $50 billion of cuts on public hospitals. Those cuts started this month, and they are impacting on emergency departments, elective surgery, bed numbers across the country. People in Mount Gambier were recently told their hospital had lost staff because of the government cuts. We know that none of those opposite are prepared to defend this budget, but we are prepared to talk every single day about what this budget means to people. The absolute arrogance of this government and the Minister for Health not even able to be in here for consideration of the bill in detail. He was not here to answer questions or to defend the budget measures that he has put before this parliament. It is not usual for a health minister to be a member of the ERC—the budget razor gang—but there he was offering up health cuts. 'Take this! Take this! Take this!' That is from the health minister, who is meant to care about the health system in the country and about the sick and vulnerable patients in this community. That is what we got from the health minister—he could not turn up to debate one of his own budget measures. I suspect it was an audition for one of the finance ministries.
We have heard the health minister interject over the chamber as we talked about the petition from 3000 people—and 2½ thousand of them are general practitioners in communities right across the country. They were not Labor voters; they had no particular political affiliation. This was something that Australian Doctor, not necessarily an organisation that writes well of the Labor Party, had done. They had collected real stories from around the community. If anyone in this place has not had a chance to read it, I encourage you to do so. Here is an example of some of the stories in that petition. There are many stories that were told in that petition. I will read one from Kingston in Tasmania:
There are many stories that could be told, but I'll tell this one. My patient was a mum in her 30s with two little kids. She was poorly educated, nervous, respectful. The three of them were living in a women's refuge for the usual reasons. They came in every few weeks: asthma, kids' colds, anxiety.
One day, as they were leaving, the mum said to the children: "We're going to the chemist now." And the kids beamed and said with obvious delight, "The chemist! Will we be able to get some water and one of those mints Mum?" The mum smiled and said yes, and gave me this look that I have always remembered.
See, at the chemist there is a free water dispenser and a little bowl of free mints. The look the mum gave me showed the delight that every mother feels in seeing her children happy. But she was also sad that these freebies meant so much to her kids, and embarrassed because now I knew too.
Seven dollars mightn't seem that much to people whose kids get to go out for milkshakes but if this mum had to pay $7, her kids wouldn't miss out on a trip to a cafe. They would simply miss out on going to the doctor, on their vaccinations …
These are real stories of people being told by their GPs across the country. This government is the most uncompassionate government I have ever seen. Those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. (Time expired)
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (16:00): I rise to speak about the government's Economic Action Strategy, which will build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia. Today we have repealed the carbon tax. Scrapping the carbon tax is a foundation of the government's Economic Action Strategy.
Mr Dreyfus: What a disgrace you are!
Mrs GRIGGS: Don't call me a disgrace! You are a disgrace!
Mr Dreyfus: You are a disgrace!
Mrs GRIGGS: You are a disgrace! You are a grot! A grot, that is what you are; an absolute grot!
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): There will be people getting a very quick path out of here, shortly, unless the interjections stop. I could not hear what was interjected for the noise from both sides.
Ms Bird: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You might ask people to direct their comments through the chair. That might help.
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Solomon hasn't got the call. I often comment on the fact that comment should be directed through and not at me. The member for Solomon has the call.
Mrs GRIGGS: We are honouring our commitments to Australia and building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. In response to the opposition's mistruths and misrepresentations, I am here to say that this government and not the opposition has Australians best interests at heart. This afternoon I intend to correct the record and provide some facts for Australians and my constituents to counter the untruths and nonsense that is being peddled by those on the other side of the House. After the budget was handed down, my office encountered upset pensioners and welfare recipients. They were upset solely because of the misrepresentations that were being peddled by those on that side. Labor's campaign of mistruths—I won't say—
Mr Dreyfus: You'd know all about mistruth!
Mrs GRIGGS: Mr Deputy Speaker, he is a serial offender.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will find himself out very shortly if he does not desist from interjection. The member for Solomon has the call and will direct her comments relating to the MPI before the House.
Mrs GRIGGS: The Labor Party sent out so much mistruth that these poor pensioners were very upset and very concerned that they were going to lose their money, because of the misrepresentation that those opposite were giving out. When I explained to them that it was just a campaign of scaremongering by the Labor Party they were absolutely understanding and accepting. They understood that it was the typical Labor style of push polling, sending out emails saying: 'Come on, tell me what's going on. Tell me your story.' We heard from some of the people who were sending the stories, they were sending me copies of what they were sending to you. I did not hear any of you guys reading out some of those stories.
The mistruths the Labor Party has spread over the past three months have genuinely hurt Australians. Welfare recipients are genuinely upset because of the Labor Party's false assertions about this government.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
Mrs GRIGGS: Member for Lingiari, you should know better!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will desist from interjection.
Mrs GRIGGS: It is only the coalition that is committed to repairing the budget to ensure that those who need it can still access welfare support now and into the future. It is only the coalition that is introducing Australia's most extensive higher education scholarship program, which will ensure that the smartest students can attend the best universities, no matter where they are from. Claims from those on that side about fees and costs are absolutely, completely wrong. We know that the education union is push polling every single marginal seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left! The member for Charlton is interjecting outside of his place in this chamber.
Mrs GRIGGS: This is how ridiculous it is: they even rang my electorate office. They push-polled my electorate office. Really, how ridiculous are they? We know that those on that side will stop at nothing to manipulate and mislead and to cause Australians distress. I wish I had more time. (Time expired)
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (16:06): There is a very simple reason why those opposite would rather engage in slanging matches across the parliament, would rather talk about absolutely anything but the budget and the broken promises that each and every one of them told their constituents before the last election. The reason is that this budget is an absolute shambles. It is chaotic. It is a mess. There is absolutely nothing in this budget but cruelty, cuts and contradictions.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Ms KATE ELLIS: The member for Bradfield is shouting at the table. If he wanted to contribute he could actually have spoken about the budget, but none of the members opposite has wanted to do that. Maybe he could sit silently while I tell him about the cruelty contained in this budget. I will tell him exactly how this budget gives a hit to every single aspect of our education system, from early childhood to our schools to our higher education sector and to our VET program. When it comes to education, every Australian was betrayed by this budget after those opposite went throughout their communities promising 'no cuts to education'. Let's have a bit of a look at just how untrue that was. We know that right now the budget is having an impact on schools, universities, preschools, kindergartens and childcare centres in every single one of their electorates and right across this nation.
Unlike those opposite, we care. We want to talk about the contents of the budget because, unlike those opposite, we know that investing in education is the smartest investment a government can make for the future of our nation. We know that in government Labor took that responsibility seriously. We took on the biggest inquiry into our school system in 40 years. Then we set to work implementing those Gonski reforms. Australians knew it made sense—parents, teachers, schools and even Liberal premiers knew. They understood that the Gonski reforms were important, which is why those opposite, just before the election, decided to jump on board as well. They all yelled out: 'Me too. We're on a unity ticket. You can vote for us or you can vote for them and you will get exactly the same funding for your school.' This budget shows just how cynical that was. It is ordinary students, parents and teachers out there who are now left to pay the price of that betrayal.
The budget paper sets out in black and white the extent of that betrayal. We have seen $6.5 billion ripped from years 5 and 6 of the Gonski funding reforms. The government have gone back on their promise to implement the model and stand by the agreement. But those opposite are not content with that. The government, who claimed that they would be a government of no surprises and no excuses, included a bit of a surprise in this chaotic budget. The very large and very nasty surprise was the biggest ever funding cut to Australian schools—$30 billion dollars ripped out of our schools.
We know that these cuts are having an impact right now. They add to the $1 billion that those opposite have already cut ensuring that there will be no more trades training centres across the country. Despite the fact that as recently as this week we have had coalition members standing up in this parliament and talking about how great the trades training centre that they have just opened in their electorate is, each and every one of them have supported cuts that ensure that not a single additional school will have access to one of these.
We know that schools need certainty to plan and to deliver the best results of students. When it comes to education, all that this budget has delivered is uncertainty and chaos in every classroom across Australia. Right now there are extension programs which will not go ahead. There are literacy and numeracy programs, language and sports choices, music and drama programs, and new subjects, that schools simply cannot commit to because of the dark cloud of cuts which this government and this budget have cast over every school in this nation. There are preschools out there that do not know if they can even take enrolments next year, because of the uncertainty of the universal access funding.
The most despicable part of all of this is what we have heard in the last 48 hours. We have seen enough attacks on education and we have seen enough cuts. Now we hear the threat that there are more secret cuts to come. We know that our schools could be forced to pay an even heavier price for this government's terrible budget, this government's broken promise and this government's cruelty when it comes to the future of every Australian seeking a good quality education.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (16:11): I notice those opposite are all leaving, which is so disappointing! I noticed they all came in for Tanya and the 'plebettes', but they are all going now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will refer to members by their seat.
Mr WHITELEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to the one-and a-half-minute mark of the deputy opposition leader's speech when she referred to Christopher Pyne. If she withdraws, I will be happy to.
Ms Plibersek: I am happy to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is obviously not Christopher Pyne.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braddon, this is not conditional: you will also refer to members by their title in this place.
Mr WHITELEY: I am happy to withdraw. This is an interesting matter of public importance.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr WHITELEY: You should listen over there. You might learn something. There is a bullfrog noise coming from the third row over there. I am not sure what it is.
This matter of public importance has been brought to this House by a Leader of the Opposition whose life is littered with disloyalty to previous Prime Ministers who are still pulling knives out of their back, colleagues who do not speak to him anymore because of those very actions and many in the unions who have come to not trust this man. He is the sort of guy who turns up to the MCG on a Saturday afternoon to watch his favourite footy team and, if at half-time it is not going so well, he swaps sides. The man has no loyalty in him whatsoever.
If you look up the definition of 'chaotic' in the dictionary, the Australian Labor Party quickly pops up. What gall you have!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you are not referring to me, Member for Braddon, when you refer to 'you'.
Mr WHITELEY: No, Mr Deputy Speaker—certainly not. What gall from those down the front! They have done everything they can to constrain a newly elected government from implementing a strategy that was given approval by the Australian people. They stood by the carbon tax to the bitter end. What gall from a political party that left an economic trail of destruction. When she was health minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition presided over a health system that was in absolute chaos. If you are wondering where the Minister for Health is, he is out there cleaning up your mess. He is out there trying to find the superclinics that have never appeared. He is out there trying to fix the absolute mess you left. All you did was put backroom public servants into a job and collect the union fees. You are a failed health minister.
Mr Stephen Jones: I rise on a point of order. I rise to defend your honour, Mr Deputy Speaker. The things the member said about you are not fair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I thank the member for Throsby for his assistance. The member for Braddon will refer his comments through the chair. The use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair.
Mr WHITELEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, through you, this lot over here have got no shame. They have ruined this country. You went off to try and fix a problem and put pink batts into roofs, and you killed people—that is the bottom line. That is what happened. And that is what the royal commission has shown.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Ballarat, I will take your point of order. I know what it is.
Ms King: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw that comment. It is utterly offensive and he should know better. It is unparliamentary.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Braddon to withdraw that comment, which was a reflection on the opposition members that they killed people.
Mr WHITELEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. But the policies of this government—
Opposition members: Withdraw!
Mr WHITELEY: I did. Are you deaf? I know you are dumb, but are you deaf?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Braddon will resume his seat.
An opposition member: He should be thrown out, Deputy Speaker. He is out of control.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of Opposition Business on the point of order.
Mr Burke: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would simply ask that the member adhere to the previous rulings that you have given and address the parliament in an appropriate way.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Braddon did withdraw. The member for Braddon has the call, and I will remind him of the motion before the chamber.
Mr WHITELEY: I am very much reminded of the motion, which talks about chaos. It talks about 'chaotic'. I will talk about chaotic. What about the live trade decision that left cattle farmers in the north of Queensland in absolute bankruptcy? (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The discussion is now concluded.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Appointment
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (16:14): Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Ludwig had resigned from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and Senators Bushby, Conroy and Wong had been appointed members of the committee.
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Consideration of Senate Message
Message received from the Senate returning several bills without amendment or request.
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (16:17): As I was saying in my earlier contribution on this bill, there are hundreds of thousands of senior Australians who have worked hard all of their lives, who have diligently put away money for a secure retirement and who will have their payments callously cut by this government. The budget includes a cut of $1.1 billion to older Australians through the abolition of the seniors supplement. The seniors supplement is an annual payment of $876 to people who receive the Commonwealth senior's health card. At the same time as government does this, it is also cutting $1.3 billion in concessions for pensioners and seniors which are to help them pay their water and electricity bills, rates and public transport fares. The Abbott government is cutting every single cent of the money that the Commonwealth puts towards concessions for these seniors that are for things like electricity and water bills and council rates.
We know that for many of these seniors these concessions are absolutely vital to their budget and to meet their costs of living. When you are on a low fixed income, it is extraordinarily difficult to manage those things. Yet this government has cut the money that the Commonwealth gave to the states and territories to assist with those very concessions so as to help those people deal with cost of living pressures. This is not to mention that the government is hitting older Australian with the new GP tax and higher costs on medicines. We know that many older Australians who are coming through the system now have certainly not been the beneficiaries of a lot of the prevention work that is happening or that was happening. As they age, they are finding that they do need to visit the doctor more and more. We know that they are more reliant on medications to keep themselves well and that they do access the health system more.
What this government wants to do with its new $7 GP tax is absolutely going to hit them. We know from the modelling that the University of Sydney has done that where it actually hits the hardest is on young families with children and on older Australians. It hits those two cohorts of patients. It is not about income level. It affects those two cohorts of patients in particular because of their need to access GPs, their need to access blood tests and pathology—and you will remember that the GP tax is also that—and their need to access diagnostic imagining as well. It is not just one visit; it is every time you visit the GP. The concessions only kick in after 10 visits—and that is 10 visits per year. You then tick over to the next year and you have to do 10 again. So for those on concessions that is an extra $70. That might not be much for members opposite, but I can tell you now that the from stories we have heard from the front line—GPs and patients who are contacting our electorate offices—this is a lot of money. I know that the member for Gilmore, who is not in the chamber now—just dismissed it as just a cup of coffee. Joe Hockey has dismissed it as a couple of middies of beer or a packet of cigarettes. They have dismissed it as that; but we are talking about people who are absolutely on the margins, who are managing every single dollar of their budget. For them, it will be $70 to go to the doctor—10 visits—before they then hit the concessional rate of this GP tax; that is an enormous amount of money. It is not just an enormous amount of money for low-income people; it is also an enormous amount of money for those people who are on fixed incomes, who may not necessarily be accessing a pension, who may not necessarily be accessing other benefits but who are in fact on a fixed income—and that is what this government wants to do.
As I said, a recent report from the University of Sydney revealed that the most likely impact of the GP tax will be on pensioners. An age pensioner couple with concession cards would pay on average $40 in co-payments for GP visits and tests, plus $59 for medications—$199 extra out of their budgets
The study reinforced the concerns of Labor and shared by the Consumer Health Forum, the AMA and the GP organisations that introducing a co-payment for GP visits, pathology, and imaging services could deter vulnerable groups from seeking medical care. The report was absolutely clear: elderly people will be hit very hard by the Prime Minister's GP tax. Again, the question has to be posed: how is that fair? How is it fair to ask more from Australian pensioners, who have already contributed so much to this country over so many decades?
We saw yesterday the first of the health budget bills come into this parliament—the government's decision to increase the costs of pharmaceuticals. And then, in a nasty little surprise, not only did they increase the costs of medicines but they also made it much harder for people to reach the safety net. The safety net is for those patients who particularly need to have multiple medications, and many of those are older people with chronic disease conditions. So, each time you go to the pharmacist, if you are a general patient on general concession, it is $5 extra, on top of what you already pay. For concessional card holders it is an extra 80c every time you fill a script. And trying to reach the safety net has become harder and harder and harder.
In their own budget papers, for example, they say that by 2018 concession card holders will have to fill 68 scripts before they hit the safety net. That is what they did yesterday. It is absolutely one of the most serious measures for older Australians in terms of their costs of living and how they manage their budget. What we saw yesterday was the absolute debacle of six speakers opposite—and I can see that they now have a cohort of people who have health backgrounds whom they are asking to speak on health budget bills. That is a good thing, and hopefully they have some experience to bring to the table about what is actually happening within the health system and how you actually work with vulnerable older patients in GP surgeries.
So, six speakers were selected to speak on the bill, and there was not a single marginal-seat backbencher who had the courage to come in and defend this measure, who had the courage to come in and actually debate the measure. Then we had the debacle of the minister who is responsible for this measure—whose job it is to see this measure through the parliament, to then go and explain it to people, to then go and get it through the Senate—not turning up for consideration in detail. In fact, he was in the chamber, he gagged debate on the bill and then he left, so he could not be present for consideration in detail.
Ms Bird: Has that ever happened before?
Ms KING: I do not remember it happening before. It is a very unusual thing to have happen—for such a very serious bill from one of the most senior ministers in the government. He could not even be bothered to turn up for consideration in detail. Normally what happens—I have seen it happen a number of times before with consideration in detail—is that the minister will get up and reject the questions we ask, defend the bill, go on the attack, do all of those things, and get his backbench up doing that as well, and we will have a proper debate about the bill. But that health minister could not even turn up for consideration in detail and then gagged and gagged and gagged the debate again. That is what happened yesterday. That is a bill that increases the costs of medicines for older Australians. It increases the costs for every Australian. But we do know that older Australians in particular can be high users of medicines. Because of that, that bill had particular relevance to the many, many pensioners and older Australians in this country.
Before the election the Prime Minister said there would be no changes to pensions. The Prime Minister was not being truthful with older Australians before the election, and the Prime Minister should be truthful with older Australians now. At the same time as they deliver one of the harshest austerity budgets in our nation's history, they are proposing to spend around $100 million to increase eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card for people with higher incomes. Labor cannot support such twisted priorities in the context of what this government is doing in the entire budget to older Australians. It is as clear a display of the government's priorities as you can get: give to the top while you attack the people who are doing it the toughest. That is the framework that this government is operating within. We have seen it in the budget, which slashes support for vulnerable Australians. And now we see them extending support for people at the other end.
This is not the only example of those twisted priorities. Of course, the biggest example is the Abbott government's unfair and unaffordable paid parental leave scheme, which pays $50,000 to wealthy women to take six months off work to have a baby. There can be no justification for this sort of expenditure at the same time as pensioners—who earn around $20,000 a year—are going to have their payments cut. What sort of wrong priorities do you have when you have a government that thinks that is okay?
We heard the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in question time today. He has been out there thumping the table, threatening about what will happen if he does not get these measures—these terrible cuts to some of the most vulnerable low-income and middle-income Australians throughout the country—through. Well, he has some alternatives. There are some alternative cuts, and we gave him one: get rid of your Paid Parental Leave Scheme. We have a paid parental leave scheme, something that Labor is very proud of. We are very proud that we had the first one in this country. It is Labor who championed the cause of paid parental leave and actually introduced a scheme—and it is working, and it is fair. But what this government wants to do is give $50,000 to wealthy women, women on high incomes, to take six months off to have their baby, at the same time—and this is all about priorities, so you have to look at it in context—as cutting pensions. It is absolutely the wrong priority, the wrong thing to do. The government was offered at question time to get rid of it. They know they have support in their backbench and lots of support on their frontbench, and they have support in the business community to get rid of it.
We are trying to give the Prime Minister as much space to ditch the Paid Parental Leave scheme and save face as we can. But so stubborn is the Prime Minister that he is not able to see the wood for the trees and think: 'Well, you know, I've got a cause here. Maybe I can come and say, "Well, you know, the budget measures aren't getting through. That means we can't afford to do this."' He can blame us if he wants. It is what he will do. We have given him the opportunity to save face. But he would rather cut pensions and punish the sick and vulnerable in this community than lose a bit of pride by ditching an absolutely dud scheme. Those are the government's priorities and that is what the Prime Minister is doing.
The government is all about looking after high-income earners while cutting support to vulnerable Australians. The government's budget is an ideological attack on low-income earners. What is worse, the government is concocting a false budget emergency as cover for its savage cuts. If there was really a budget emergency it would not be seeking to increase government support to high-income earners through this measure. It would also not be proceeding with a Paid Parental Leave scheme that will cost more than $20 billion—that is almost equivalent to all of the cuts in education and just under half the cuts to the public hospital system—and give $50,000 to wealthy women to have a baby. Cutting support for vulnerable Australians whilst proceeding with these sorts of measures is a clear example of just how twisted this government's budget priorities are.
How is it fair to cut pensions by $450 million yet expand entitlements for the Commonwealth seniors health card so that people with high incomes can access more benefits? How fair is it that a single-income family on $65,000 with two school-age children will be $6,000 worse off each year because of the Abbott government while this entitlement will be expanded so that people with higher incomes can access more benefits? How is it fair to cruelly abandon young job seekers and yet expand this entitlement to people at the higher end? The answer is that it is not.
It seems the Abbott government does not care about fairness. It does not care about vulnerable Australians. It does not care that millions of Australians will be worse off because of its savage cuts. The priorities are on display in this piece of legislation, and those priorities are all wrong. Labor will oppose it.
Of course, the Liberal Party like to think of themselves as the party that represents the views of seniors and self-funded retirees. But, recently, my office has been inundated with messages from angry seniors who feel betrayed by the Abbott government—seniors who are going to have their pension cut, seniors who are going to lose the seniors supplement and seniors who are going to lose important concessions after the Abbott government unilaterally announced it is going to axe the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders from 1 July this year. This means that the states will now have to pay 100 per cent of the costs of these concessions or seniors will lose these concessions. This is a savage budget for senior Australians, and, of course, it is those with the least who will suffer the most.
The Abbott government likes to pretend it is out there helping seniors. But seniors are smarter than that. They know that they have been betrayed by this government and by the Prime Minister. They know that they cannot trust the Prime Minister, who said repeatedly before the election that there would be no changes to pensions. How many Liberal MPs and candidates distributed flyers to seniors during the election saying, 'By the way, we're going to abolish the seniors supplement and take $876 out of your pocket'? Not one of them did. How many of them campaigned last year to scrap concessions for Commonwealth seniors health card holders for things like utility bills, public transport fares and council rates? Absolutely none of them. They are so dishonest. That is why so many angry seniors have been contacting our offices and, I am sure, the offices of many coalition MPs as well.
Labor will oppose this bill because we believe in fairness. We do not believe that we should extend supports to people at the top while at the same time taking money from those who are more vulnerable. We will fight this government because it has made the wrong choices and is seeking to implement the wrong policies. As we said in the MPI, budgets are all about priorities, and this government, clearly, has it absolutely wrong when it comes to this bill and all of those punitive measures to health, education and pensions that it is trying to introduce at the same time within its unfair budget.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:35): The Commonwealth seniors health card is a very vital piece of government entitlement that is enjoyed by self-funded retirees around the country. But many would realise that that has not been indexed since 2001. It was a creature of the 1990s and it appropriately recognised that self-funded retirees who have planned for the future and planned for their retirement still deserve some consideration from government in accessing the wonderful PBS, the safety net and, where negotiated with their doctor, bulk-billing services. That is precisely what many seniors value above all from government.
Those thresholds have not changed since 2001. We know that individuals hitting the $50,000-income mark and couples hitting the $80,000-income mark, which have not moved, have been caught by bracket creep and are no longer eligible for those cards. Haven't the opposition really exposed themselves today for what they have been over the last six years in government? The Labor Party do not regard self-funded retirees as the core of this nation who have planned all their lives to be self-sufficient. Instead, the Labor Party have exposed their view that this group are enemies of the state and, for earning what I think is a very moderate sum of money of between $50,000 and $80,000, this group are earning way too much money to be deserving of a Commonwealth seniors health card. The Labor Party are just too pernickety and too tight to even consider allowing a Commonwealth seniors health card to these great Australians.
I say thank you to them. I think that most Australians would take a similar view that for someone earning around $50,000 it is thoroughly reasonable that there is some help at times when they need health care and are facing a large out-of-pocket cost and that they have access to a safety net. This is not saying that people should get a free ride; it is saying that they should have access to a safety net when health expenses are really high in one particular year. I think we should be proud that we have a system that offers a safety net. I have no problem with a couple who are seniors of retirement age, over the age of 65, having access to a safety net. I think to deny those families access to a safety net puts the Labor Party in a very bad light.
But it really took until today to hear the shadow minister's aggressive and condescending attitude to these Australians—millions of them—who do not collect a pension. Instead they do their best with their earnings that they have accrued over their lifetimes. They are often living on very small superannuation accounts. But I note that they are adjusted, taxable income. When you consider both forms of income, net losses through investments, foreign sources of income that have not been taxed overseas, other forms of superannuation that have been exempted since 2007 and adjusted income, people with incomes between $50,000 and $80,000 if they are single or a couple should be eligible. And that should move with inflation.
This is not a big ask. Surely after seven or eight years of indexation since 2001 it is right that we go back to this important cohort and say, 'The least you deserve is that your eligibility keeps up with inflation.' We have not gone to the Labor Party asking for any great favours. We have just asked for this group to be respected with the CPI indexation that we assign and provide and that I think most groups would demand—and that is simple indexation to keep up with the cost of living.
I do not think this is a terribly large decision for most people who are not directly involved; but for the 30,000 Australians who were to lose those cards over the next four years this would have been a major hit to their budget. I say again that they are people who have planned ahead for their finances and predominantly look after themselves. They pay full tote everywhere they go. To say to them they cannot even access the Medicare safety net is disappointing and even more so to deny them this card if they have a fluctuation in their income—one year here or there—purely due to nothing other than CPI correction.
I think it is a very small piece of generosity. It is a great shame that something as modest as this for people who look after themselves and have done so all their lives will be denied by the Labor Party. Of all the things we have discussed in this chamber over the last six months, I would have thought they could have waved this one through. They could have just looked self-funded retirees in the eye. The member the Ryan would have a similar view. We have thousands of these people who do it tough and do not have an automatic government wage coming into their account every fortnight. They often have households where there are significant rent and interest payments that they must meet. To deny them access to a safety net is something that I would be a little bit embarrassed about if I were a member of the Labor Party. I would be hoping that this debate would terminate quickly and that we would move on because it is a shabby position to take.
What has driven that decision? The first one could be that this is a Labor Party that is devoid of any ideas or even a willingness to articulate them, so it is just going to negate everything in this chamber. That debases the processes of parliament. The second and more concerning one is that we have a Labor Party that is so tied up with its union mates and so tied up in professing that they care for the poor—when they did very little for them in government—that they deny these things to such an important group. These self-funded retirees are the same group of people who say, 'No, we will not lead two decades of our lives on the government purse, if we can avoid it. We are going to try and do it alone. We are going to try and set up our superannuation so that we are independent. We would like to do a little bit of travel here and there with our savings.'
Another important development is that now instead of having these concessions cut off after a handful of weeks, our self-funded retirees can go overseas for a bit longer without losing access to their bulk-billing doctor, a PBS concessional arrangement of $6.80 or, finally, being able to access the safety net in a year where there are precipitous health cost.
I have made my point. I say to self-funded retirees out there: it is true the coalition will look after you at every turn. Never was such a light shone upon the Labor Party's negative approach to self-funded retirees and never was it so exposed as it has been in this very, very modest and humble debate about a relatively small amount of money that looks after 30,000 Australians. Every one of them listening today will now know where Labor stands on this issue.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:41): This bill is a classic example of twisted priorities from this government. On its own, this bill seems fair and reasonable. But, in the context of the budget and the number of cuts hitting people in our community, this is not a fair bill and these are not fair measures. At the same time that the government is introducing measures in this bill, they are cutting the aged pension. The government is cutting disability support pensions, carers' pensions and senior supplements. The government is also planning to cut the schoolkids bonus, income support bonuses and low-income superannuation contributions. The list of cuts in this budget, which are justified by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister because of a 'budget emergency', goes on and on.
It cannot be that there is a budget emergency if at the same time increasing support for those who are in the higher income brackets, whether they be people working or people who are retired. This proposal will see a $100 million increase in the eligibility for seniors health care for the people towards the top end of incomes in our community. I will be honest with you: this issue was debated in my electorate during the election. It was debated and I was one of the people who said, 'Look, if there needs to be government support, it should be targeted support.' Here I am, a marginal MP, willing to stand up and speak to my party's position here in this House, knowing that there will be some people in my community disappointed. In the other debates that we have had in this House, very few marginal seat MPs from the other side have been willing to stand up and put their name to their party's position and their government's decision to make massive cuts that hurt people in their electorates. Being elected is about being a representative, standing up and being willing to put your name to a decision that your party makes.
I note that a number of those marginal seat MPs are willing to speak on this bill. They will speak on this bill, but they would not speak on the bill yesterday which saw an increase to prescriptions that people need every day. We all know that it is our oldest seniors who have the most prescriptions, yet none of those marginal seat MPs were willing to stand up yesterday and put their name to the government's work. This government is all about looking after the higher income earners in our community whilst cutting support to the most vulnerable. That is the core problem with this measure. It is rewarding the few by taking from others—and taking from those most in need.
The government likes to say that we, Labor, use the rhetoric of class politics—but this budget is all about class politics. It is about pushing the most vulnerable further into poverty. It is not about supporting them and giving them the same opportunities in life; it is about pushing them further into poverty whilst at the same time rewarding those towards the top end. If the government were serious about there being a budget emergency, nobody would be safe—everybody would be having their concessions cut. There would be no increases to concessions. But what we have seen from this government is exactly that—them prioritising looking after the top end of town.
It is not just this bill; it is also the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Once again, it will be our highest income earners who will have their wages topped up by this government. It is not support for our lowest income earners, it is not support for our single parents who most need it; it is government support—taxpayer support—for our highest income earners. As a woman, as someone who is proud to be part of the Labor Women's Caucus—proud that I am part of a movement which saw the first paid parental leave scheme introduced in this country—I support paid parental leave. But I do not support a system that tops up the pay of those at the top end of the pay scale—which could include me or my sisters—at the expense of seniors, at the expense of pensioners or at the expense of young people who might be looking for a job. Those are the twisted priorities of this government. Cutting support for the most vulnerable Australians whilst proceeding with these sorts of measures is an example of just how twisted the government's priorities are.
Let us talk a bit about those twisted priorities. The PM, prior to the election, promised that there would be no changes to pensions—but we have now seen changes introduced. The Prime Minister is increasing the qualification age for the age pension to 70 by the year 2035. Maybe that is after he has retired, but it will definitely affect young people—the young people he did not tell before the election he would be kicking off Newstart for six months if they found themselves without work. The Prime Minister also broke a promise when he said he would not make life harder for Australian pensioners. He said that, yet we have heard all about the different cuts, the deep cuts, to pensions in the government's budget. One example is the simple issue of how the pension increases over time, how it is indexed. Currently the age pension is indexed in line with male total average weekly earnings, the CPI or the pensioner cost-of-living index—we take the highest of those three. The government's proposal is to index it in line with movements in the CPI only, which usually has the lowest increase of the three. That is the difference between Labor in government and the Liberals in government when it comes to supporting our pensioners.
Seniors and pensioners will also be hurt by the GP tax the government plan to introduce. Seven dollars may not seem like a lot to members of the government, but it is a lot to pensioners. It is a lot to people who need to seek medical help. This tax will hit Australian families, costing them $3.5 billion—straight out of their pockets. That is the core of the problem. That is another example of twisted priorities. It is also lazy policy, because it will ultimately lead to increased healthcare costs and more pressure on hospitals. We have heard GP after GP speak about how the GP co-payment will discourage those most in need of help from seeking it, from presenting to their GPs. In my electorate alone, doctors from Castlemaine, Woodend and Bendigo have all spoken out publicly about how they believe the $7 GP co-payment will stop sick people, vulnerable people and older people from seeking medical help when they need it—and how this will lead to more severe health problems and end up with them presenting at emergency, which is the last thing we want.
The increased co-payments under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will also hurt pensioners and seniors. The government's proposal is that people will be asked to pay an extra $5 per medication. Already we have pharmacists saying that people are coming to them with four or five scripts from their doctor and asking them, 'Which ones should I fill?' This is an issue in some of the poorer areas of my electorate. The pharmacists have older people coming in and saying, 'I cannot afford all these medications; can you tell me which ones I absolutely have to have?' This problem is only going to get worse if this proposal, which has already passed the House, is passed by the Senate. It is also another broken promise and another clear example of how the Prime Minister's budget is full of twisted priorities.
The reason we want people to take their medication, the reason we encourage them to take the medication that has been prescribed for them by their doctor, is that it is simply good preventative health care. I have spoken to seniors who are outraged about this budget. Some of them have three or four medications that they take every day—to keep their blood pressure low or to keep their diabetes in check. We want to keep these seniors out of the emergency departments, so we want to encourage them to take their prescribed medications. But this hit, this broken promise, this increase in what they have to contribute towards their medication, will now put that idea at risk.
Here are some other things people from my electorate have said about this budget and its twisted priorities. Gregory said:
The inequality of the Abbott and Hockey budget will destroy the fair go aspect of our society. I do not want us to become a small America with its inherent winner takes all attitude.
These are not my words but the words of people in my electorate, speaking out against the twisted priorities in this budget. The words of William:
I want my kids to grow up in fair society. Abbott is attacking the egalitarianism that makes Australia such a great place to live. I have lived in the US and the neo-con dream is an inescapable nightmare for many disadvantaged and minority groups. Inequality and injustice is entrenched. I do not want that here.
The words of Tammy:
This is not a fair budget to the middle and lower classes!! Just taking from the poor yet again, disgusting!
The words of Jessica:
I'm a mum of two and together with my husband, we barely make up $90k per year. It sounds like a lot but it's barely enough some weeks to scrape by. Cutting funding to helpful social programs will hurt us and many other families I know in my area.
The words of Claire:
Because this Budget attacks the most vulnerable in our community rather than supporting them, I sign this petition.
The words of Gordon:
This budget seems to discriminate against the vulnerable. It aims to achieve financial balance without considering other consequences on struggling community members now and in the future.
The words of Garry:
The whole budget emergency claim is a fallacy. Sure there are steps that need to be taken over the next maybe 5 to 10 years.
But ripping money out of those in the community that can least afford it as well as being extremely cruel to many isn't the way to go.
At the same time the contradiction of introducing an extravagant parental leave scheme is very distasteful.
The changes that are contemplated affect poorer citizens permanently. They are nasty.
They are nasty and they attack those most in need. The words of Tara:
Because I'm a mum of 2 children and try my hardest to support my family the best I can adding more cost to medicines and doctors visits will only cause harder times and higher risks of letting my kids miss out on food or clothes just cause we may need medical assistance medication and being asthmatics these things are important to keep as cheap or free as possible. I want to make sure that my kids can live a good life, and I expect my government to help.
The words of Damien:
This budget, in addition to targeting the less well off, those with health problems, those with no job and many similar disadvantaged people, is putting Australia's economic prosperity at risk. If they do not support those most in need our economy will stall.
That is because we have seen this happen overseas. Austerity has been shown to cause more harm than good elsewhere: Australia should not follow a failed path.
Time to admit you're wrong and abandon your mean, tricky and cruel budget measures.
I completely agree with the words of these people in my electorate who are speaking out about the twisted priorities in this budget.
This measure will be popular with some, but not when they realise it is coming at the cost of their neighbours. There is one thing I know about the people of Bendigo and the people of regional Australia—it is that they stand up for one another. They care for their neighbours and the people in their community.
Our self-funded retirees will not be happy to know that they are receiving this increase at the expense of their neighbours, at the expense of those who are doing it tougher. This measure will over time result in more people accessing the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card at the higher end. It is another example of how this government is governing for their own and not for those most in need. It is another example of how the government is making sure that their mates in big business are protected, and that their interests are being put ahead of the interests of everyone else, including those in my electorate and those in regional areas.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:56): I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Hundreds of thousands of Australian seniors have worked hard for the most of their lives. They have been wise with the allocation of their income, investing it sensibly and taking responsibility for their finances, ensuring that they and not the government fund their own personal retirement. We need to recognise this by looking after their own retirement needs. Self-funded retirees save the Commonwealth budget considerable pension costs. However, these self-funded retirees are being disadvantaged for their lifetime of hard work and the significant contributions they have made to the success of our nation.
The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card was introduced in July 1994, providing access to concessional prescription medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, free hearing aids and certain free basic dental services. The card was available to people of age pension age who were not eligible for the Age Pension for reasons other than the income test—for example, insufficient length of residence or high asset holdings. The original purpose of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card was to provide assistance to retired persons who were on low income. When introduced, the income limits for the CSHC were the same as for the Age Pension, so that the vast majority of retired persons issued with the CSHC were those who were asset rich but income low, such as farmers. In 1996-97 there were 35,244 cardholders and by 1997-98 there were 42,461 cardholders.
In the 1996 election the coalition promised to extend the income test thresholds and use taxable income, rather than income as assessed for the Age Pension, to assess eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Liberal government minister Senator Jocelyn Newman said in her 1998 Budget press release that this recognised 'the important contribution made by people who save for their own retirement'. These changes were implemented from January 1999, and by August of that year an additional 163,000 people had become cardholders. These changes, and a further increase to the threshold in 2001, changed the target group for the card from very low-income self-funded retirees to middle-income retirees.
I am shocked and appalled to find out that those opposite are opposing this bill today, because it was Labor who brought in the Commonwealth seniors health card in 1994. One could point out that they have neglected their policy since then, relying on the subsequent Liberal governments to fix up and improve the policy by assessing it differently from the age pension and allowing hundreds of thousands more self-funded retirees to access the card and by also increasing the threshold. Instead, those opposite refused to fairly index the pension in their previous two chaotic terms of government. Labor once again left it up to this side of the chamber to give a fair go to those people who saved for their retirement.
The purpose of this bill is to implement the government's election commitment to all Australians, regardless of their financial positions, to index income thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card. Currently, to qualify for the seniors health card a retiree must satisfy the senior's health card taxable income test. These thresholds, however, have not been amended since their introduction under the Howard government in 2001, remaining at $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. The past 13 years, however, have seen a drastic increase in the cost of living, with $50,000 now being a considerably lower amount than it was in the Howard years.
As people grow older the wear and tear of a long life makes them more susceptible to a wide range of conditions and health problems. The majority are minor ailments such as arthritis, low bone density, and vision and hearing problems. But others, like diabetes, hypertension, respiratory problems and dementia, are serious issues that require regular medical treatment and medications to control. This bill means that 30,000 additional senior Australians will have access to discounts on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines, access to bulk-billed doctor appointments, at the discretion of the doctor, and access to cheaper out-of-hospital medical expenses through the Medicare safety net.
I have received a great deal of correspondence from my elderly constituents expressing their support for this bill, pleased to see the extra support the Commonwealth seniors health card will provide and the relief to their cost of living. I am proud to stand on this side of the chamber, where we are delivering on our election commitment to self-funded retirees and continuing our legacy of supporting those Australians who have saved for their own retirement. I commend this bill to the House and I condemn Labor for their mean-spirited opposition.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (17:02): It is a real pleasure today to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Of all of the pieces of legislation, this is a really significant example of the truly outrageous, twisted priorities of this Abbott government.
I respect the member for Ryan—I really do—but I take significant issue with the tone and tenor of the contribution she has made. People on the other side of the House get up today and say that they are the best friends of senior Australians and talk about how much senior Australians have contributed to this country; yet, at the very same time, they have recently delivered a budget that is an out-and-out attack on the people they are now saying they will defend. How can the member for Ryan sit here in this House and talk about how much she cares about senior Australians when she has been part of a government that is having a conversation about raising the pension age from 67 to 70? How can people on the other side scrap the Commonwealth seniors supplement and then come into the House and say that, because they are putting in place this measure, they are suddenly the great defenders of senior Australians? I can say that senior Australians around this country are not being fooled, and I will talk in some detail about interactions I have had with constituents on this subject.
For the benefit of those in the gallery, we are talking about changes that are being proposed to be Commonwealth seniors health card. The Commonwealth seniors health card is one of the really important ways in which we support senior Australians in our community, who have done so much to grow Australia and to make Australia into the great nation that it is. It is available to senior Australians on the lower income spectrum and it brings a range of concessions that assist with the cost of living. Many of you would have relatives who are eligible for these cards. It usually gets them bulk-billing rates at the doctor, some cheaper out-of-hospital medical expenses and often some transport concessions.
To this important assistance offered to senior Australians, the Abbott government has made some incredibly serious changes in the first budget it has brought down. The first and absolutely most significant of these is one I have referred to already—that is, the axing of the seniors supplement. The $800 a year that was part of the seniors health card is gone just like that because of a decision of the Abbott government. This $800 for a low-income retiree is a supplement that was designed to help with the big expenses that come irregularly during the year. A lot of seniors would use this, for example, to pay for their electricity bills. I have spoken to people at mobile offices around my electorate who are absolutely terrified because they actually do not know how they are going to balance their budget at home without the seniors supplement.
The government has also made some changes to eligibility which will include untaxed super in the eligibility assessment. The final measure which everyone on the other side is so excited about is the change that will extend the eligibility for this much reduced benefit by indexing the income threshold. It means that over time the eligibility for the seniors health card will increase. So, over time, the more you earn the more likely you are to be eligible for a seniors health card. It is a bit complex, but the really practical impact is that eligibility for this scheme will be extended to more Australians on the higher income end.
Labor is opposed to this measure because we are opposed to any such measure which will take support away from the most vulnerable Australians and give it to those who are less vulnerable. It is something we are seeing a lot of in this budget, and I will talk through some other examples. It is the values that sit behind measures like this that are so profoundly out of step with Australians' values, who logically see that the people who have the least should get the most support. We are very proud of the system of government support that we have in Australia because it is very incisively targeted. Despite what we hear from the other side, studies of social support systems around the world consistently show that Australia has one of the most efficient and effective systems of social support in the world. It is because we target the money that we have to those who are the most in need. This measure goes completely in the opposite direction. Combined with the other changes to the seniors health card that I have outlined, it takes away benefits from the people who need them most and extends the eligibility to a wider range of people who are on higher incomes.
The cost of extending the eligibility for these benefits is $100 million over the forward estimates. It is not a huge sum that will change the shape of the budget in the sense, for example, of a paid parental leave scheme that costs $6 billion a year. But it is a lot of money that could be targeted to the people who need it most, rather than using these taxpayers' dollars to extend benefits to people who are on higher incomes.
This is not something that any Australian would now be surprised to see from the government on the other side of the House. It is said that you do not really understand the character of a government until they deliver their first budget, and I have to say this is absolutely the case for the Abbott government. Just nine months after coming into office they have delivered an absolutely cruel budget that has taken away government support from the people least able to afford it. Yet they have also delivered cash splashes like the Paid Parental Leave scheme, which will see a top-up in maternity leave to the wealthiest women in Australia. It is initiatives like this example before us which reduce benefits to the worst off but increase benefits to those on higher incomes. It is very consistent with how this government operates.
The coalition's first budget was full of harsh cuts and, at the same time, very lavish new areas of spending. Let's think about the record we are dealing with here and go through some of the changes. This is a government that is trying to cut the indexation of the disability support pension. Can you believe it? The effect of cutting the indexation of the disability support pension is that, over time, Australians with disabilities will have less money in their pocket than they otherwise would have. They are cutting the carers' payments. Who will this government not go after? Again, over time, Australians who are involved in that important role of caring for people in their family and community will have less money in their pockets.
This government cut the schoolkids bonus, a very important government support provided to families around Australia—$410 a year for primary school students and $810 a year for secondary school students. This was a sum paid at the beginning and in the middle of the school year to help families manage big one-off costs such as school books, school shoes and computer equipment. It might be hard for people on the other side of the House to understand this, but there were people in my electorate who really depended on that money and were not able to scrounge together hundreds of dollars at the beginning of the school year if a young person in their household was asked to provide a laptop or something else. The government cut the low-income support supplement. That was $300 to people earning less than $30,000 a year. They cut the low-income superannuation contribution, which was a government contribution to help Australians on the very lowest incomes save for their retirement.
We need to look at the area of health, because that is where some of the most perverse and awful cuts were made in this budget. It now costs another $7 to go to the doctor. Before, families were at least able to know they were not going to have to budget to take their children to the doctor if they fell ill. I recently met with a GP in my electorate who is not particularly a Labor person. We talked through some of the impacts that she saw as a result of the co-payment. She operates in a very low-income area of my electorate. She talked about the issues she thinks she will see for families with a significant number of children—say three or four—who all get sick at once. While $7 might not sound like a lot, when you consider multiple people in the family falling ill at once, potentially having to get pathology reports and other things and then having to fill prescriptions, now that the cost of prescriptions has gone up too we are starting to talk about really serious dollars for people who are on low incomes. We do not want to live in a country where people have to worry about how they are going to budget to take their family to the doctor. That is just not the type of country that we live in.
Something else I will mention in brief is the changes to university fees. These are cuts that are going to have the biggest impact on the people in our community who can least afford to look down the barrel of starting their working life with a $100,000 debt. The young people in my electorate are just not going to go down that path. Yet, at the same time, in the context of all these absolutely egregious cuts, we have the big cash splashes. We have the Paid Parental Leave scheme that will see $2,000 a week given to mothers around Australia who are otherwise earning good money. We have the $20 billion fund for medical research. We support medical research for sure, but should the sickest people in our country—chronically ill people and the older Australians who are more likely to access medical services—be the ones to foot the bill for this?
And do not get me started on climate policy. This week we have seen the government very excited for itself because it has scrapped a tax that brought in significant revenue and instead plans to put in place a type of climate policy that pays big polluters taxpayers' dollars. It is absolutely crazy.
We have seen a lot of this kind of perversity, especially in relation to senior Australians. The legislation that is before us is part of the context of that. Senior Australians are in line with the gun with some of the changes in this budget. Raising the pension age to 70 will give Australia the highest retirement age in the entire world. For people who work behind a desk, that will mean something quite different from people who work in manual labour. From talking to a lot of people who live in my electorate who work in those more blue collar jobs, I know they are seriously worried about the idea of having to work until they are 70 and how they are going to preserve their health in those final years of their working life.
The other important initiative to mention is the changes to the indexation of the pension. The Abbott government is wanting to change the indexation of the pension—the rate at which the pension rises—from being attached to the average earnings of Australians down to the CPI, a much lower rate. This is a very good example which really shows us what this government's values are. What they are really saying here is that pensioners who do it very tough—because it is hard to live on a pension—should continue to do it tough while the living standards of the rest of the Australian community grow. So, despite the fact that our country is growing and our economy is growing, the government are saying that pensioners do not deserve to share in that wealth while they are not earning an income any more. That is something that Labor is not willing to abide.
I have mentioned the Commonwealth Seniors Supplement, but it is another important example of the attack on senior Australians that is part of this budget. I have been talking a lot to seniors recently because I have just run a number of morning teas in my electorate. I have spoken with a very large group of seniors in East Bentleigh, and the Leader of the Opposition was able to join me at that. I can say absolutely for those on the other side, in case they are not out there talking to people in their communities—I can understand why they might not want to be out there just at the moment—that senior Australians are incredibly angry about this. We talked about some of the perversities that we see in this budget, specifically the cutting of supports being used by senior Australians while at the same time the government is putting in place a very lavish Paid Parental Leave scheme. These seniors were seething with anger, and I had many great conversations about how Labor will continue to stand up for those seniors and continue to fight to have clarity and fairness in the support that we offer people around the country. I had another terrific seniors morning tea in Dingley Village. They are not always Labor people down that side of my electorate, but they are very upset about what the government is trying to do to them. I had similar conversations at a morning tea in Hughesdale.
The people at these morning teas are not just talking about things that this government is doing to senior Australians. They are not just talking about the change to the pension age and cutting the Seniors Supplement. They are not just talking about changes to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. They are talking about things that do not affect them personally but affect the people around them—their neighbours, their family, their grandchildren. They do not want to live in a country where the limited social support that we provide is being taken away from the people in our community who are most vulnerable and given to the people who have a little bit more. It is not how we do things in Australia. That is why we see the legislation before us as anathema to the Australian way, and it is legislation that we will not be supporting.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (17:17): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is an important way for seniors to access affordable health services. It is a health care card which recognises the contribution of self-funded retirees. The card is available not only to people of age pension age who do not qualify for the pension but also to people who are on low incomes. After a lifetime of work and contribution to our nation, it is an important way of saying thank you to the many thousands of people who fund their own retirement. It is an important way of recognising the contribution that seniors make. It is an important way of recognising that many self-funded retirees are not on particularly high incomes. Some of them are on very low incomes and they need our help as well. The income threshold test is $50,000 for singles per year and $80,000 for couples. As the member for Holt has indicated, it offers some great benefits such as discounts on PBS medicines and cheaper medical and hospital expenses through the Medicare safety net.
It is staggering that the Labor Party is opposing this bill. Members on this side are quite shocked by the decision that Labor has made. Labor has decided to act in a very mean-spirited and nasty way to stop some 30,000 Australians accessing these important benefits. This is an important measure for seniors, and I draw particular attention to something the member for Ballarat said in her contribution. She said:
We do not believe that we should extend supports to people at the top, while at the same time taking money from those who are more vulnerable
The member for Ballarat has no concept of how this seniors card works. This is for people on low incomes. This is for people who need our help. This is for some 30,000 Australians who, rather than accessing medicines at something like $6.90, will now be paying $37.70 rising to $42.70. As I say, this is a mean-spirited and nasty decision and no matter what members opposite may think of our other measures—I will talk about those in a minute—this is unnecessary opposition to this bill. It shows that members opposite—it is quite evident that they are uncomfortable with this decision—are only interested in being obstructive. This is terrible, and I can assure the House that self-funded retirees, many of whom are on extremely low incomes, will not thank Labor for this decision.
Even the member for Bendigo acknowledged that some people in her electorate will be disappointed. What a shame that on a really sensible measure—to index the Seniors Health Card, to give more people access to it, to implement something that is sensible and is modest and is measured—those opposite could not join with us in extending this type of benefit to so many seniors, so many older Australians who need our help. Again we have this rubbish about $50,000 being a lot of money. The member for Ballarat saying that these are the people on the top shows that Labor simply has no idea. And many people are well under that level.
Ms Collins: Then why are you cutting the pension?
Ms HENDERSON: I will take the interjection from the member opposite, because this is a shabby opposition that even Bob Hawke is embarrassed about. In January this year Bob Hawke, looking at the projected deficit of $47 billion, said: 'This is a very large budget deficit that you are looking at.' Labor seem to be walking away from the suggestion that they can move into surplus in this first term, but what is required is the same thing. You have to have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer and a competent ministry that understands the issue and is prepared to make the hard decisions. Yes, we have had to make some hard decisions. We have not enjoyed making the decision to cut the seniors' supplement; it has been a difficult decision for us. We will be upfront about that, but, let me tell you, we will not cop the misleading rubbish that we are hearing from Labor and the scaremongering from Australian pensioners.
We are not cutting the pension. The pension goes up twice a year and in September 2017 there will be a change from indexation to CPI. That is correct, but let me say this: it was good enough for Labor to do it for those on Family Tax Benefit to move to CPI from indexation. Again, we see the utter hypocrisy of those opposite. Let me say to anyone watching this broadcast or reading it in Hansard: we are not cutting the pension. We will not cop the misleading rubbish that even Bob Hawke—who was a good Prime Minister and a great Labor figure—is embarrassed about it.
I want to refer very briefly to the co-payment and a very important safeguard in relation to the co-payment. Again, there has been a lot of rubbish talked about the co-payment. A total of 8.6 million concession card holders will be protected by the safety net. They will pay a maximum of $70 a year. On this point I agree with members opposite: for some people $7 a visit is quite tough, particularly if it combines a number of services—pathology and radiology may be combined with a visit to the doctor in the one visit. So it could be more than $7 in one visit, but the important thing that we have done is to provide for doctors to bulk-bill. There will be many doctors who decide to continue to offer bulk-billing to those who need it the most. Again I hear the echo of 'Rubbish' across the chamber, but it is simply untrue. Allowing bulk-billing is part of our reforms. What has been amazing in this debate is the talk of cost-of-living pressures and the absolute betrayal by members opposite against self-funded retirees—it was mean and nasty, but we have not heard anything about the carbon tax.
Today we are very proud that the carbon tax has been abolished by the Senate and that seniors will no longer be hit by an average of $550 a year through higher electricity and gas prices. While I acknowledge that for some seniors $7 as a co-payment might be quite tough for some, those same people are turning off their heaters because they have not been able to pay their electricity bills. Those same people are struggling with this dreadful, toxic tax which is costing manufacturing across Australia $1.1 billion—it has been a $9 billion handbrake on the economy. A year ago three of the most senior members of the then government, and now the opposition, said, 'We have terminated the carbon tax.' And three times since Labor has voted to keep the carbon tax. I can assure everyone in my electorate of Corangamite and across Geelong that this is a great day for manufacturing and our smart manufacturing future. It is also a great day for farmers. There have been many groups and agencies that have spoken out today applauding the repeal of the carbon tax—including the National Farmers Federation, who have been extremely critical about the way the carbon tax drove up the price of doing everything on the farm, from fertilisers to transport. Dairy farmers were hit with an average increase in their costs of between $5000 and $7000 a year. When we talk about the cost of living, what a shame that the members opposite do not have the courage to acknowledge that as of today we have to delivered a great bonus and a great benefit to older Australians.
There have been a lot of misleading statements made about our support for families and the seniors. I want to reflect on the very important welfare scheme we have in place for so many families. We have a comparatively generous welfare scheme—a great social safety net. A sole parent with two children aged under six and earning $60,000 in our 2016-17 budget receives a parenting payment single, the Clean Energy Supplement and Family Tax Benefit A of $7009. The Energy Supplement Part A is $139; Family Tax Benefit B is $3913; the Energy Supplement Part B is $69; Family Tax Benefit B and A supplement is $1200; and the supplement is another $300. That totals in government payments $12,630, making it a total income of $72,630 with the income tax of $12,147 and income after tax is $60,483. So there is a net gain of $483. Let us not forget that the income tax burden has been lowered substantially because we have raised the tax free threshold from $6000 to $18,200. When we talk about supporting families, that is a really good example of the incredibly generous government payments that we provide families who really do need our help. A dual income family with a 70/30 income split with two children under the age of six, earning $60,000 in 2016-17, receives total government payments of $10,067 and that is a total income of $70,067 with income tax of just $5667. The income after tax is $64,400, and net gain of $4400. They are $4,400 in front because of the very generous government payments that families like the ones I have referred to in my contribution receive. There is a range of other government support that families receive. There are rent assistance, the child care rebate of up to $7,500 per child and child care benefit. There are also access to family support programs, carer allowance and carer supplement to care for somebody with a disability and, for some, subsidised medicines through the PBS.
That is a really good overview of the support that we are providing to families. Today we have acted to lower the cost-of-living burden by ensuring that we deliver on our commitments to repeal the carbon tax. We are very proud of that. Members opposite would not be feeling too proud about their decision today. It is a really embarrassing decision for them to have made. It will cause 30,000 seniors on low incomes to miss out on some really important benefits. I can understand why people like the member for Bendigo are squirming in their seats and feeling uncomfortable with their decision. The opposition may disagree with other parts of our budget, but this is an unnecessary and very unfortunate decision that they have made. The people who will suffer as a result of it are seniors. They are the people who need our help. Let us start talking about the facts and let us reflect on the decision that the opposition have made today. Self-funded retirees all around the country, including in my electorate of Corangamite—there are some 25,000 older Australians in the electorate of Corangamite, which I represent very proudly—will be extremely unhappy with this decision. But we have not given up yet, of course.
The indexation of the seniors card reflects an important election commitment. I am very proud of the election commitments we are delivering in my electorate and across the Geelong region. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the biggest safety nets we have seen in our lifetime. We are again seeing shocking, appalling, scaremongering from those opposite, including from the Leader of the Opposition, scaring people with a disability and their families and carers. I pay credit to the Leader of the Opposition, because when he was in government he helped these people; but now all he is doing is scaring them. That is incredibly unfortunate. I commend this bill. It is a wonderful initiative. I condemn those opposite for the decision they have made.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (17:32): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014 on this day, 17 July 2014. As the member for Corangamite touched on throughout her speech, today is a day of infamy, on which we saw the reasonable and responsible approach to addressing global warming destroyed by those opposite. The member for Corangamite did not talk about the seniors health card and other measures bill because she had nothing to say about it. Instead she seemed to focus on Labor Party activities. It made me see her Q&A performance in a new light. I thought it would have been difficult to go below that, but she achieved that today. I guess we will hear from many global-warming advocates opposite as they trot in here and do their little victory dance on this day of infamy. Throughout her speech, the member for Corangamite mentioned Bob Hawke, clinging to him as if he were some talisman who could give political leadership. Let us talk about Bob Hawke and what he did. Bob Hawke was able to do incredible things and take the Australian people with him, but we have seen the Tea Party extremists, these radical right-wing representatives—not conservatives—on that side of the chamber attack sensible responses to global warming. I know we are going to hear from these global-warming advocates as they dance around like the wyrd sisters from Macbeth, celebrating. The reality is that it is a day of infamy. I am amazed that, in her speech, the member for Corangamite would focus on their activities in the Senate when she should been talking about the legislation before us.
The policy measure in this bill will index annually the income test thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card to movements in the consumer price index. The seniors health card offers constituents in my electorate a range of benefits, including assisting seniors with concessional pharmaceuticals, with hearing aids and with dental and optometry services. Not for one minute am I going to parrot the lines of the Deputy Prime Minister and say that seniors living large, that seniors are wasting their money on cruises and the like. I know that whether you are on a pension or are a self-funded retiree cost of living pressures have been significant. I know that you as a Queenslander, Deputy Speaker Vasta, have seen electricity prices rise under Labor and LNP governments over the last few years. There has been something like a 70 per cent increase in the last five years. That is significant. There also have been increases in food prices, although fresh fruit and veggies accessed at the Brisbane markets, in my electorate, have been reasonably steady for the last couple of years. Many seniors voted for the Liberal and National parties in the last election, perhaps taking comfort from the statement of the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, that there would be no cuts to the pension. We have just heard the member for Corangamite clarify that there will in fact be a cut to the pension by 2017. At least she had the courage to admit that fact.
Ms Collins: And the GP tax.
Mr PERRETT: She also touched on the GP co-payment—$2 in red tape and $5 for the never-never—that is a price signal that will particularly damage those one in five Australians who are over 65, because the reality is that as we age the more likely we are to need to go to a doctor.
Ms Collins interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: I take that interjection, polite as it was, from the member for Kingston—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The member for Franklin.
Mr PERRETT: Franklin, sorry—about the fact that the co-payment might actually go up, in terms of putting out a price signal. When the Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating introduced compulsory superannuation in 1992, as part of the Labor government's cycle of innovative and bold wage records, the immediate concern was to keep a lid on inflation.
The long-term goals of the visionary Prime Minister Keating were threefold. The first goal was to build a mountain of national savings to fund domestic investment at a lower cost. We can check that box. Our savings are now the envy of the world; in fact, they are the target of many of the crooks of the world. That is the reality of Labor getting it right. We now have great national savings. My understanding is we have the third-biggest pool of managed funds in the world.
The second goal was to reduce the cost burden on the tax welfare system of an ageing population so that the pension was a safety net for only the low paid. Obviously it is not ample, but it is adequate. For self-funded retirees, dividend decisions and daily share market fluctuations can cause a lot of anguish. I know that. Many of them are living a life of quiet dignity, not wasting their money overseas on cruises, as Deputy Prime Minister Truss quite unfairly suggested. He is yet to apologise for that. It must have been tough for him going back to his electorate, which has a significant group of seniors.
The third goal of the Keating government was to allow the majority of people to fund their own retirement and to have the control and independence that comes with that. Labor has always been especially focused on improving the lives of our seniors. It was the Labor government that introduced the pension system in 1909. Back then, I think the average life expectancy for a male was only 52. Now life expectancy is up in the 80s. Back then, the ratio of workers to people on the pension was about seven to one. Now it is down to five to one or even four to one. The Whitlam Labor government's introduction of benchmarking the pension to workers' earnings has seen a doubling of the pension in real terms since 1972. Those were Labor government policies. In 1983 the Hawke government's statement of accord agreed to maintain the basic rate of the pension at or above 25 per cent of average earnings, a commitment reaffirmed by the government's statement, Better Incomes: Retirement income policy into the next century, released in 1989. A series of increases achieved this benchmark over the life of the Labor government.
Under the Hawke and Keating governments, the pension increased from 24 per cent of male total average weekly earnings under the Fraser government in 1982 up to 25.8 per cent of MTAWE on leaving office in 1996. In 1990, the Hawke government introduced the bereavement payment, equivalent to 14 weeks pension, payable to the surviving member of a pensioner couple. In 1994, the Keating government introduced the Commonwealth seniors health card. Labor has always been committed to looking after seniors. In 2009, the Rudd Labor government delivered the biggest increase to the pension in a century—something I am sure that MPs on every side of the chamber would acknowledge and still receive thanks for in their electorates.
The Australian age pension has endured through most of the 20th century and well into the 21st century—100 years of profound social and economic change, through world wars, a depression, recessions and booms, and even the global financial crisis of a few years ago that so-savaged world economies. Thankfully, we were able to steer our way through the crisis under Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan.
Today the age pension continues its vital role in providing income support on the basis of need to older Australians. It is a helping hand to those in need. We accept that. These changes have been enormous, but Labor's principle of giving older Australians security, support and dignity is the cornerstone of the system. This is the Australian way and it has obviously always been the Labor way. It is what drew me to the Labor party in the first place.
We appreciate and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution that senior Australians have made, and continue to make, to the Australian community through their experience and insight, through the care they provide for partners, friends and relatives and through their mentoring and volunteering. As we move into the centenary of Anzac, I particularly acknowledge that many of our seniors are the children of those Anzacs. They are a generation whose parents had horrors visited upon them, with 60,000 Australians dying overseas and not to mention more than 200,000 coming back injured most horrifically, with limbs lost. We should be particularly helpful to this generation of Australian seniors, whose parents went through that conflict where basically every street in Australia would have had a resident either killed or wounded overseas.
We know that many pensioners are finding it tough to make ends meet. I see that when doing volunteer work for Meals on Wheels dealing with people throughout the electorate. Cost-of-living pressures from groceries, bills and petrol mean it is harder and harder to make ends meet. In the 12 years of the Howard government there was no improvement to the base rate of the age pension. Obviously, that was something that was going to take place in the government's 13th year! The Howard government claimed credit for legislating the 25 per cent of male earnings benchmark in 1997, but that Labor policy had already been delivered consistently over the period of previous Labor governments. We believe that good governments protect the pension for those who need it most: people who have worked hard throughout their lives and who have given so much to our great country. That is why our focus has always been on making it easier for self-funded retirees to have a comfortable lifestyle in their retirement.
The government's recent cruel and nasty budget introduced measures to cut the age pension, the disability support pension, the carer payment, the seniors supplement, the school kids bonus, the income support bonus, the low-income superannuation contribution and many other payments that I could list. It is a horrible visitation upon electorates. I am sure members opposite with a significant number of seniors in their electorates would not be looking forward to the next election when the seniors of Australia will wreak their revenge at the ballot box. Now the government has proposed to spend—
Mr Hutchinson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This debate is about the Commonwealth seniors health card and we have not heard very much at all from the member on the other side—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Lyons. This a wide-ranging debate. The member for Moreton has the call.
Mr PERRETT: With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been totally focused on the seniors health card and other measures bill. No wonder they are worried. These one-term wonders have wreaked this horrible budget on their seniors. No wonder they are nervous. They are getting a little bit flighty, a little bit punchy maybe.
I am not for one minute suggesting that the government's proposal to spend $95.5 million to increase eligibility for the seniors health card for those at the top of the pay scale means that you have a comfortable lifestyle. I understand that. I have met with many of my self-funded retirees and I have spoken—in fact, at Mount Gravatt, in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—at some of the self-funded retirees forums. But, in the context of the budget and the horrible budget decisions visited upon older Australians, the Labor Party will oppose this bill.
We believe that assistance needs to be provided through pensions and income support, and all the cuts that have been trotted out by Prime Minister Abbott are what we are focused on. We provided an historic increase to the pension when in government—the biggest in 100 years. It meant that pensioners could better meet front-line services. Obviously, it is in our DNA to look after the pension; it is something we hold dear. Those people who are already struggling to make ends meet will be slugged with a tax every time they go to the doctor, which will easily increase above $550 per household that those opposite claim is the cost; but, as we know, that is an average. Pensioners understand electricity and gas. They know how to put on a jumper and how to turn off lights in a room. For them to be slugged with all these other costs and for the idiots opposite to then hold up this $550 is unbelievable. Those opposite are betrayed by their own brain, obviously.
Seniors will now be paying higher fees for their medicines and will suffer the repercussions of the heavy burden put on our health care system as the government slashes funding to health and hospitals, even though they said before the election that that would not take place. The bill before the House betrays the government's twisted priorities to support higher income earners, or people with more money, while cutting support for vulnerable Australians. It is a weird budget, where the government asks the people who are the poorest and most vulnerable to do all the heavy lifting, while the top quartile does the lightest work in this budget. They obviously smoked too many cigars and did not do enough thinking, and that is why this toxic budget will come back to bite them at the next election.
Even Australia's GPs are saying that the GP tax is unfair and bad for the health of ordinary Australians. Pensioners and families are under constant attack from this government, and with the fuel tax and other taxes on the cost of living, this legislation should be resisted. (Time expired)
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (17:47): With due respect to the member for Moreton, one could be forgiven for not knowing exactly what the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014 is about. Indeed, it is about an election promise that we went to the people with in September 2013 to index the income thresholds for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. I know for those on the other side that election promises are sometimes things that they struggle with, but we are determined to make sure that our election commitments are delivered. While today is not a day for hubris, the decision that the Senate made today on the carbon tax makes it indeed a good day for families. It is indeed a good day for households; it is indeed a good day for small businesses all around this country, including my electorate of Lyons.
The measures relating to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card apply to self-funded retirees in recognition of the contributions and, in many cases, the sacrifices that they have made over the course of their working lives. How important are self-fund retirees? They have taken responsibility for their contributions in order to make it possible for them to have the sort of retirement that they would like to have. As I say, in many cases, they have done this at great personal sacrifice. They have saved the taxpayers of Australia and, ultimately, the Commonwealth budget considerable cost by virtue of the fact that they have been able to implement measures to support themselves. This was an election commitment that we made and that we took to the people.
People have made the commitment to take on the responsibility to fund their retirement, often without the benefit of superannuation, over their working lives. Why is it that everything we have heard from those on the other side sounds as if they are almost taking as offence that these people could be so brazen, so bold, to have made provision for themselves? I simply do not understand it. I do not understand the thinking of this party towards people who taken responsibility, people who have made, in some cases, significant sacrifices. What is the hatred that exists on the other side for those people? What is wrong with those people that they have actually done the planning, made the sacrifices and funded themselves into their retirement?
We are talking here about 290,000 Australians who have done this through their working lives. They are not wealthy people in many instances, and that is why we have indexed the card from a modest $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples who are entitled to the health card. In my electorate of Lyons, 1,020 people receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Indeed, many of these people are not wealthy people. It is expected that up to 30,000 Australians, in addition to the 290,000 Australians who are already eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, will, because of the indexation thresholds being increased, now be eligible. We should be celebrating these people, because every person who funds their own retirement is one less person that the taxpayers of Australia need to fund. It is not rocket science. I think it was Paul Keating who said—and we have heard a lot about Bob Hawke today, and rightly so—that those somebodies are actually the taxpayers of Australia, who fund government spending. This measure simply means that more individuals will qualify for the Seniors Health Card and the concessions that are provided by the card, including the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at a concessional rate, access to bulk-billing doctor appointments, and cheaper out-of-hospital medical expenses through the Medicare safety net. Indeed, 290,000 Australians will benefit, and up to 30,000 additional people will benefit. Indexing the income thresholds will commence on 20 September 2014, according to the CPI, or the cost of living, which will mean that self-funded retirees will qualify for this benefit or retain the value that the card offers as cost-of-living increases. Amendments to this legislation apply to the Seniors Health Card under either the Social Security Act 1991 or the Veterans Entitlements Act 1996.
One of the other key measures in the amendments before us today is that the time during which people with a seniors healthcare card who travel overseas will not need to reapply for the card has been extended from six to 19 weeks. I think this is a wonderful initiative, particularly for migrant families and people who are looking to have family reunions overseas. Those people around Australia, some of those 290,000 Australians with a Seniors Health Card, will be able to sleep easy tonight knowing that they will be able to go overseas to visit their relatives, some of whom they may not have seen for many years, and that if they stay away for less than 19 weeks they will not have to reapply for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.
To try to localise this, I reference the president of the Northern Tasmania branch of the Association of Independent Retirees, Mr Graeme Barwick. He says that much of the proposed reform regarding the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card will be welcomed by Tasmanian independent retirees. He also said that his association has been lobbying for four years to have income thresholds for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card changed. Indeed, it was an election commitment that we made and that we took to the people, and we are delivering on that election promise—the federal government's commitment to index the income threshold to self-funded retirees applying for the Seniors Health Card to inflation from 20 September this year. He said that most independent retirees will be particularly happy about the extension of the maximum time that card holders can spend overseas before they have to reapply for it. In particular, this will apply to those people looking at having family reunions in different parts of the world. Graeme says that the six-week time frame did not work particularly well, even for those who perhaps chose to take some time overseas as part of a vacation. He is really pleased to see the changes, because it has been a long time since these qualification requirements were adjusted. He said that when he first applied for the card in the early 2000s the income threshold was set at $80,000 for a couple and $50,000 for an individual. So, it has been nearly 14 years since this recognition of the important commitment that these people have made and often the sacrifices that self-funded retirees have made during the course of their working life that these thresholds are now being indexed.
We have heard a lot from the other side with respect to pensioners. Again, there were some fundamental commitments that we made in the lead-up to the election. We said that we would stop the boats. We said that we would get rid of the carbon tax, and indeed that is what we have delivered on today. Also, the benefits that will apply to older Australians, including those people on the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and self-funded retirees, and pensioners as well, not only will not have the burden of $550 a week that was imposed, on average, on every household around Australia but also will be able to keep the concessions. They will be able to keep the concessions—which were in fact the energy supplement, for example, which were commitments that were delivered by the previous government. We have honoured those commitments, and not only will you not have to pay the carbon tax but also you will be able to keep the energy supplement.
So, for all older Australians—be they self-funded retirees or be they pensioners—indeed this is a good day. And the best way we have been able to help pensioners is by getting rid of the carbon tax. The impact also flows through to electricity prices. It was only last week that the Tasmanian Energy Regulator highlighted the fact that electricity prices in my state will fall by 7.8 per cent and that pensions will continue to go up. For the next three years pensions will be indexed by either male average weekly earnings or the cost of living. Beyond 2017 they will continue to go up twice a year: they will go up in March and they will go up again in September each year, and they will continue to go up by the cost of living—which is how they were indexed in March this year. The scare campaign that has been run by those on the other side in respect of pensioners particularly has been simply something to behold. I am new to this, but the mistruths are there in black and white. And I say to every pensioner in my electorate—and there are many; I have one of the older demographics in the country; Tasmania has one of the older demographics in the country—that your pensions will continue to go up. Each household will receive on average a $550 benefit because the carbon tax will no longer be there as of tomorrow. You will retain the energy supplements that were part of the compensation—for goodness sake; how does that work, what madness is that?—but you will not have to pay the carbon tax as of today.
I talked about social services when I previously spoke in here on another piece of legislation. We have a real challenge not only in this country but globally when you look at the demographics. Birthrates between 1950 and 1955 were 37 for every 1,000 people globally. Between 1990 and 1995 that had fallen to 24.3 for every 1,000 people. In the period 2030 to 2035 that is expected to fall to 16.1 for every 1,000 people. These are the challenges that we face not only in this country but globally. For example, in Australia in 1960 there were 10 working age people for every single person over the age of 65. Today there are five people of working age for every Australian over the age of 65. In 2050, it is predicted there will be 2.8 people of working age for every person over the age of 65.
We should be celebrating self-funded retirees and we should be so grateful to them. They are not wealthy people. Many of them did not have the luxury of having a superannuation contribution through most of their working life but were able to set themselves up for a retirement of their choosing. We should be grateful to the contribution that they have made, and this is recognition that we as a government value those 290,000 Australians—including, in my electorate of Lyons, the 1,020 Tasmanians—who have done that planning and made those sacrifices to prepare themselves for their retirement. We are indexing the thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card, which will allow it to retain its value and will retain available concessions when they visit the hospital or their GP. This is a good thing.
One thing is sure: older Australians have seen it all before. They know that coalition governments pay off debt. We did it in 1996. We have a bigger challenge in 2014. But those on this side are up for the challenge and we will deliver on the commitments that we made to the Australian people to pay back the debt that was created under six years of Labor. We have done it before and we will do it again. That is one thing that older Australians truly understand, whether they be self-funded retirees or pensioners. They have seen it all before. Older Australians know that as a household and as a nation you just cannot continue to pay the metaphorical mortgage on the metaphorical credit card.
Debate interrupted.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (18:02): On indulgence, I am sure the House will not mind being informed about the process that we are going through. This is one of those rare occasions when all members of the House of Representatives, no matter what their persuasion, are united on one issue—and that is dealing with the Senate. I am trying to be optimistic and upbeat, but I am afraid that the news from the Senate is not good.
The Senate is still dealing with the minerals resource rent tax bill. It has dealt with the Asset Recycling Fund Bill. The Asset Recycling Fund Bill has been amended, which means it will come back to the House of Representatives and will need to be dealt with by us before we rise. There will probably be amendments to the minerals resource rent tax bill as well, which will then come back to us. We will obviously also want to deal with that before we rise. The Senate has indicated to me that it does not intend to consider the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill until tomorrow morning, which means that we will not be leaving first thing in the morning, as I had hoped and had said at the end of question time.
Given that, there is no point in waiting for the Senate, because they are not going to deal with that. I propose that we will suspend the sittings after we have finished with the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014, which the government does want to pass in this sitting session. That will take probably another hour-and-a-half at most. Then the House will suspend and allow people to go out to dinner and do whatever else they want to do. Then we will come back tomorrow. I do not propose to come back early, because I want the Senate to have been able to do as much of their business that will then come back to the House as possible.
So I propose that we start the sitting day at about 11 tomorrow. The Manager of Opposition Business and I have been locked in cooperative and supportive negotiations for most of the afternoon and we have decided that the bills that need to be dealt with will be dealt with expeditiously and that we will have effectively one speaker per side, unless the Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak on these bills. I expect that will take a couple of hours. Then those bills will go back to the Senate. At that point we will not need to remain. I am hoping that we will be out by about one o'clock tomorrow afternoon and people will be able to get on whatever planes they can from tomorrow afternoon. Of course, it is not my fault; it is not the fault of the Manager of Opposition Business. It is due to the Senate processes. We are not allowed to second-guess the Senate, so I will not do so. That is the update for members.
BILLS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (18:06): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Lyons because it was interesting to hear his contribution to this debate, a contribution that I found quite phenomenal when he talked about this particular piece of legislation. The legislation leads to the indexation of thresholds. That will occur annually and is aimed to start on 20 September this year. That indexation is going to be based on the consumer price index. The member for Lyons was very keen to celebrate this legislation and talked about how this will extend benefits to seniors who are now ineligible. He talked about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. He talked about 'bulk-billing by GPs'—those were the words he used. I felt that it was really important that I raise that issue in connection with this debate, coming off the words that he used.
This budget has been debated and discussed in this House, throughout every media outlet in Australia and certainly in my electorate. In this budget there is a move to end bulk-billing and to force those people going to visit a doctor to pay a GP tax. On the one hand, we have the member for Lyons celebrating the fact that 1,020 seniors in his electorate will be eligible to go and see bulk-billing GPs with their card; on the other hand, he stands up in this parliament and supports a GP tax and the fact that the Abbott government in this place is seeking to end bulk-billing as we know it today and force people to pay co-payments. Those seniors that he believes will be able to access bulk-billing will be accessing a second-class form of bulk-billing. That is what he is arguing for.
The other issue he touched on was the PBS. It was only last night that we passed legislation in this House to increase co-payments paid by people when they have their prescriptions filled, be they concessional or be they for people who pay the full amount for their prescriptions. I found that contribution from the member for Lyons somewhat convoluted and it showed a lack of understanding of a number of issues surrounding this.
I have to pick up on one other thing that he said when he talked about electricity. He talked about electricity prices going down. I would like to share with the House news from the electorate of Shortland. News from the electorate of Shortland comes in the form of the fact that EnergyAustralia, who is my provider, and AGL, who is the provider for many other people in the area, sent letters to all their customers advising them that electricity prices would be going up from 1 July. Yet we have members on the other side of this House saying that prices are going down. The state member for the electorate of Swansea had egg on his face because he sent a newsletter out to the whole of the electorate telling them that the price of electricity was going down on the same day that the provider of electricity in that area sent a letter to customers saying that in actual fact it was increasing.
There is so much misinformation being put out into the community by those on the other side of this House. It is incredible that they are out there duping people in the way that they are. To the member for Lyons, with his 1,020 seniors who will become eligible for this benefit, I say that 20,400 pensioners are going to have their pension indexation rate changed after legislation is passed through this parliament and are going to be receiving less money each fortnight. I say to him, 'Go and explain to pensioners why it is more important to pay money to seniors who have a very high income in excess of $50,000 and why it is more important for them to get a card than it is for pensions to be indexed properly.'
It absolutely horrifies me that members on the other side of this House have so little concern for the people who they represent that they smugly come into this House day after day to support a tax on the very livelihood of those people that they are in this parliament to ensure are represented effectively. At the end of the day, I have news for members on the other side of this House: they are going to reap a reward for what they have done to the people of Australia. The people of Australia are disgusted with this government. The people of Australia do not want a GP tax or the pension indexation rate changed. The people of Australia look to the government to deliver on the promises that they made before the election. Their promises were not only to remove the carbon tax but also that there was a unity ticket on education, there would be no cuts to education and there would be no cuts to health. Each and every day we see this shambolic government trying to do backroom deals to get through the worst measures that any government could possibly seek to perpetrate on the Australian people.
I do not think my electorate office is any different to the electorate offices of those members on the other side of this parliament. I suspect that members on the other side of this parliament are receiving the same phone calls from their constituents that I am receiving from my constituents. They are phone calls saying that this government is cruel, heartless, mean and attacking them in each and every way.
A few weeks ago, I held a Medicare rally in the Shortland electorate. I was joined by my colleagues the member for Newcastle and the member for Charlton. On the day, we had over 500 people turn out. People marched from the Medicare office which was opened when we were in government and closed when the Howard government was in government. So we gave back what the Howard government took. We give back what the Liberals take. We walked from that office down to the foreshore of Lake Macquarie. At that rally the question was asked: 'How many people are attending their first rally?' Eighty per cent of the people who were at that rally put up their hand. Eighty per cent of them had never been to a rally before. That is the level of anger this government has caused in my community.
A week later, I was delivering some flowers to a couple who were celebrating their 70th anniversary. The husband was 89 years old and his wife was 88 years old. They were both pensioners. Both are going to have their pension indexation changed and both are going to lose $4,000 a year under this government's mean-spirited budget. So both of them—an 88-year-old and an 89-year-old—were involved in that Medicare rally. But they were not the oldest. There was a 93-year-old woman there, as well as an 83-year-old man with an 89-year-old woman.
This legislation delivers on one of the government's pre-election promises. It delivers to a small number of people in the community. It delivers to just over 20,000 people whilst the other attacks included in this budget—the cuts to health, the cuts to hospitals, the cuts to pensions, the GP tax, the increased co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits—affect each and every person in Australia. They will impact on the cost of living and the lifestyle of many Australians.
In addition to that, this government is giving with one hand by extending the Seniors Health Card but taking away with the other. Not included in this legislation is their plan to abolish the Seniors Supplement, an annual payment to people who have the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. So more people will get the card—those people on higher incomes—but seniors who are already eligible for the seniors card are going to lose their supplement. This government is taking from the people who most look to government for support. This government really does stand condemned for what it is doing in this area.
As I was saying earlier, the people of Australia will remember at the next election. The people of Australia will deliver their judgement on this government. For those members opposite representing marginal electorates, I can tell you that their verdict will come hard and it will come fast—many of you need to update your resumes. If you do not update your resume, you are going to be left sitting at home on the couch wondering what you are going to do. The Australian people did not think they were voting for an unfair government that was going to attack them each and every day in each and every way. They did not think they were voting for a government that was going to be so harsh and so mean-spirited, that was going to skew its policies so much in favour of those on high incomes at the expense of those who look to government for support—people on low or medium incomes.
This government has really shown their true colours with this legislation. They are putting forward their rolled-gold paid parental leave scheme that will pay $50,000 to millionaires whilst at the same time they are putting a tax on visits to the doctor, cutting family tax benefits and attacking pensioners in the harshest possible way. They are cutting indexation for pensioners after saying they would not change the pension. They said that, but already the legislation that is going to lead to a reduction in the income of pensioners has passed through this parliament.
This legislation will benefit some seniors. It will benefit those seniors who have higher incomes—single pensioners with incomes over $50,000, couples with a combined income of over $80,000 and couples separated by illness with a combined income of over $100,000. But, on the other hand, this government is legislating to take away the income supplement for seniors, attacking their healthcare benefits and attacking their ability to afford GP visits—attacking their quality of life and impacting on their cost of living each and every day.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (18:21): I await with interest the English translation of that contribution from the member for Shortland.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): The member for Bass will withdraw that remark. House of Representatives Practice clearly says that you are not to reflect on members in that manner. So please withdraw that unreservedly.
Mr NIKOLIC: I withdraw, Deputy Speaker. But can I just say that people who were listening to that contribution from the member for Shortland will feel enormously let down, because the member for Shortland talks about this measure 'benefiting senior Australians', yet she is going to vote against it. The member for Moreton talked about acknowledging our senior Australians—and he is going to vote against it. I cannot believe that—
Ms Hall: Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is the member for Bass willing to give way?
Mr NIKOLIC: Absolutely.
Ms Hall: Would the member for Bass be able to inform the House how many seniors in his electorate will benefit from this, and how many pensioners will have their indexation—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hughes will be silent.
Ms Hall: How many pensioners in his electorate will be negatively impacted upon by the changes in indexation? I would like to add a second part to that question—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can ask for another intervention.
Ms Hall: All right. I will ask a second one.
Mr NIKOLIC: In response to the member for Shortland, as at March 2014 there were 933 people in the seat of Bass receiving the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Can I ask a reciprocal question to the member for Shortland. How many people in her electorate receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card?
Ms Hall: That is not in the standing orders.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bass. You cannot ask a member a question that way. You have answered the question, now continue your speech.
Mr NIKOLIC: And, Deputy Speaker, I will not be accepting any further interventions from the member for Shortland, because I only have 15 minutes, and as we have just seen the member for Shortland should remember that old adage: you should never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to. The member for Shortland often comes into this chamber and waxes lyrical about a whole range of things—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shortland with a point of order.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hughes, this is the last time I am warning you to be quiet.
Ms Hall: My point of order is that a person speaking cannot ask a question of a member who is not contributing to the debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have said that already. There is no point of order. The member for Bass has the call.
Mr NIKOLIC: As usual, the member for Shortland is about five minutes behind the conversation. I welcome the opportunity to speak about this bill, because this bill improves the lives of a range of Australians, with a particular focus on the self-funded retiree community. It is a community that rarely gets a lot of thanks for what it does for our country. By virtue of being either fully or partially self-funded, these retirees make an enormously valuable contribution to our country and to the budget bottom line.
Often when we speak on bills in this House, we speak of technical details and provisions and the effects the bills will have on people around the country. What I would like to do is to frame my remarks in relation to this bill as more of a thank you—a thank you to those men and women who have saved and sacrificed to the point where they are able to look after their own needs in retirement.
On a number of occasions in the last few years I have had the pleasure of addressing large groups of retirees in my home town of Launceston, some self-funded and some partially self-funded, who belong to the Association of Independent Retirees. I acknowledge in particular President Graeme Barwick of the association for inviting me to speak to large gatherings of the association, many of whom I continue to interact with. These self-funded or partially-self-funded retirees tell interesting stories of lives well lived, of enterprise and sacrifice, where they put things like private health insurance ahead of other priorities in their lives, and they put the education of their children and savings and thrift ahead of consumption and expenditure during their lives. They put it ahead of things like holidays and luxury items.
One couple I encountered, whose story I thought was particularly relevant to the debate we are having this afternoon, has run a small business for most of their adult lives. They have now stopped working, they have liquidated most of their assets, and after almost 50 years of toil and effort they have paid off their mortgage and have just over $800,000 in assets for their retirement. Just as they have been careful to save and economise during their working life, they were very careful to ensure that, after retiring, these funds would last for as long as possible. These are not sophisticated investors willing to risk their nest egg on complex financial instruments. They wanted to keep their money safe, so they looked for the best term deposit. Currently, that is earning around four per cent. On $800,000, at four per cent, they earn about $32,000 in interest on their next egg. They are not rich people, particularly when you consider that, today, the maximum basic pension for a couple, with the pension and energy supplements, is just over $33,000. These people are earning $32,000, while a couple on the maximum rate of pension for a couple, with the pension and energy supplements, is receiving just over $33,000, or about $1,000 more than this couple earn from their interest payments each year. The income of these self-funded retirees will diminish over time as they draw down on their own capital. Their income over time has the potential to be even lower. So I say thank you to this couple, who are part of a diverse range of people, most especially Australian seniors, who have done much to make this country the very best in the world. I thank them for their sacrifice, for making provision during their working lives for their retirement, and for alleviating pressure on the public purse. My hope is that this bill will provide practical support to them and others, helping them to enjoy their later years.
This bill is founded on wide consultation, reflecting the fact that the coalition is listening to and is prepared to keep listening to the views, opinions and ideas of this influential group. The aim of the measures in this bill is to continue to contribute both morally and materially to improving the general fabric of contemporary Australian society, with a particular focus, in this instance, on self-funded retirees. This laudable purpose includes three important objectives. First, to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to annually index the income test thresholds for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card to movements in the Consumer Price Index. Secondly, it will align provisions in the Student Assistance Act 1973, in relation to the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, with those in the Social Security Act and related legislation. Third, it will amend four related social assistance acts.
In addition, the bill moves to ensure that a further range of acts are amended, including definitions pertaining to social security law, so that they accurately reflect the machinery of government, most particularly the new Department of Social Services.
I would like to focus on what is the most important element of this bill, that which pertains to some of Australia's most deserving and all too easily forgotten seniors. I have given one example of a couple that fall into the category of self-funded retirees. The seniors health card assists selected seniors with the cost of prescription medicines and other health services. The card is targeted at self-funded retirees of age pension age who do not qualify for the age pension because of their level of income or assets. It also provides card holders with access to the seniors supplement and clean energy supplement payments.
In response to an earlier question from the member for Shortland, I informed her that, as of March this year, there were 933 people in my electorate of Bass who received the Commonwealth seniors health card. It was staggering to me that the member for Shortland did not understand how many people in her electorate were eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. I can tell her: in March 2014, there were 1,538 people in the electorate who were eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. It should be a lesson to the member for Shortland not to ask questions she does not know the answer to and, more importantly, to understand her electorate better, because this will not have escaped her electors. She stands up and asks a question of me that I know the answer to, but she herself does know the answer to the same question as it relates to her electorate.
In parallel with the seniors health card but clearly distinct and separate from it is the age pensioner concession card, which provides its holders with different and broadly more generous entitlements to those received by self-funded retirees. Future eligibility for a seniors health card requires a number of conditions to be met. They must be permanent residents in Australia; they must have attained pensionable age; and they must have an adjusted taxable income of less than $50,000 for singles, less than $80,000 combined for couples and less than $100,000 combined for couples who are separated, for example, by illness or due to respite care. Importantly, there is no assets test for the Commonwealth seniors health card.
Collectively, the conditions in the bill help it to be clear, transparent and fair. As a reward to these people for a lifetime of saving, which means that they are not reliant on the public purse, we provide services and discounts. These include things like bulk-billed GP appointments, which of course are at the discretion of the GP; a reduction in out-of-hospital medical expenses; discounted rail travel on Great Southern Rail services—the Ghan, Overland and Indian Pacific; and additional health, transport, education and recreation concessions which may be offered by state and territories, local governments and private providers to Commonwealth seniors health card holders.
An important theme addressed by this bill is whether or not to maintain the income thresholds over time by indexing them to cost-of-living changes. Most income test thresholds for social security benefits are indexed, as are the rates of payment for most income support and supplementary payments. To date, as the income test thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card have not yet been indexed, their real value continues to decrease over time.
The coalition made a commitment at the 2010 election to index the income thresholds for the seniors health card, stating, `Indexing these thresholds to inflation will allow recipients of the Commonwealth seniors health card who maintain their incomes in real terms to continue to be eligible to receive the seniors health card.' So we will provide Australian seniors with further peace of mind regarding their healthcare costs by indexing eligibility for the card.
As I said in my introductory remarks, Deputy Speaker, given global financial events in recent years, it should be patently clear that many self-funded retirees are in fact not wealthy; rather, they find themselves under increasing financial pressure. This is most particularly the case in the context of the recent global financial crisis, especially if retiree income was, and remains, dependent on the full recovery of offshore equity markets, or indeed any international investment class or asset. For the many so affected, the last five years or so have been rather grim. Moreover, the coalition's view remains that, having done the right thing and actively saved for retirement, many seniors should not now—or in the future—be made to live in fear of losing their entitlement because of modest changes in their retirement income. Indexing the current income thresholds so that they do not erode in real terms will allow more self-funded retirees to access the card. Through this bill, the coalition is actively honouring both the letter and the spirit of its election commitment to Australian seniors.
This bill supports an improvement in the lives of many Australian senior citizens and does so in a way which is intended to be fair, clear and consistent. Furthermore, the government is being as generous as it can be at this time, given the wider national need for fiscal restoration and recovery made so essential by the dereliction of duty of our Labor predecessors.
Contrary to some vocal and mischievous commentators, the government has both a heart and a strong social conscience. This is matched by a strong desire to help, assist and support all seniors—both pensioners and self-funded retirees alike. Where the latter are concerned, it is true that some have been financially fortunate through both circumstance and opportunity. But, equally, many more self-funded retirees have made their twilight years comfortable by dint of sheer hard work, and we want to help them.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:36): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Australians finally realised the true worth of the Prime Minister's promises on budget night. This legislation must be seen in the context of budget measures relating to Commonwealth seniors health card holders and pensioners and the impact of those measures in relation to what they can receive, what they can spend their money on, their health, their cost-of-living pressures, how they spend money on their education and how they spend money on other aspects of their household needs. The Prime Minister promised no cuts to education, no new taxes and no increased taxes
He said it was an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not, and must not, say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. I am going to talk about the coalition's policies—it is unusual for a Labor MP to refer to the coalition's election policy in this area. I am also going to talk about what Liberal premiers and ministers say about the government's policy and how it affects Commonwealth seniors health care card holders, and pensioners as well, in the context of this piece of legislation.
We know that Commonwealth seniors health care card holders will be paying the $7 GP tax when they visit their doctor. They will pay an extra $7 each time they get a blood test, each time they get an X-ray and for each ultrasound the GP orders. That tax will compound and cascade on each visit to the doctor, and that will make them think twice before they visit the doctor. It will be a tax which will give older Australians pause before seeking their GP's advice about any nagging health concerns they have.
Last night we saw the government pass a bill which delivers a 13 per cent increase in the PBS co-payment from January 2015. This is on top of a proposed increase in the petrol tax. Families will be paying more to take their kids to netball and to school. The sheer extent of the government's broken promises, particularly in relation to pensioners and Commonwealth seniors health care card holders, is quite immense. There is a broken promise in almost every portfolio. This will reach into every aspect of Australians' lives and impact on the most vulnerable, who will be the hardest hit.
This particular legislation deals with those people who have the Commonwealth seniors health care card. The CSHC assists seniors with the cost of prescription medicines and other health services. The card is targeted at those people who, by virtue of their income or their assets, do not qualify for a pension and therefore do not get the pension concession card. The current qualifications for a single person are that they must have an adjusted taxable income of less than $50,000 a year and, for a couple, they must have a combined income of $80,000 or $100,000 combined for couples separated by illness, respite care or prison. There is also an extra amount if they have dependants on top of that threshold figure—a top figure of $639.60 per year added to an allowable income amount in the context of each dependent child.
There is no asset test in relation to the CSHC, so it is an option and an assistance to older Australians which will help them with their cost-of-living pressures. State governments and councils provide assistance, rebates and concessions in relation to a whole range of things older Australians need for their daily living—such as electricity, car registration, transport, public transport, travel et cetera. So it is a significant benefit to someone if they qualify for the CSHC. I am sure there are federal members all around this chamber who deal with people every day concerning this issue. Certainly, at the many mobile offices I conduct in my electorate, eligibility issues are raised on a regular basis.
The Commonwealth seniors health care card was the subject of coalition policy before the election, and they had something to say about it. Do you remember that fabulously awkward photo on the front of that Real solutions booklet which the now Prime Minister hugged so closely to his chest at nearly every photo opportunity? I am sure it was pretty tattered and torn by the end of the campaign. The photo shows the coalition brains trust looking at a long table, gazing off to the left—it is probably the only time they ever gazed to the left on anything. The Prime Minister clutched that photo to his chest on just about every occasion. Sitting there is a glum-looking now Treasurer, now foreign minister and minister for trade. Of course there was the member for Wentworth as well. They thought he was a bit popular, so they stuck him on the front cover. This was a policy they took to the last election, stating that a coalition government would index the income threshold for a Commonwealth seniors health care card holder to CPI. So they are proposing to do that much, and in itself it is not a bad idea.
There are other policy priorities which we think are more important, particularly for those who are poorer and more vulnerable, disabled or sick, or from an Indigenous background. In and of itself, the idea of changing the threshold is not a bad idea, but the coalition policy describes the benefits self-funded retirees may enjoy through access to the CSHC. The policy talks about indexation and goes on about the fact it will mean there will be greater eligibility for purchasing PBS prescriptions at a concessional rate—and I might have a bit more to say about that in this speech; eligibility for PBS prescriptions generally without charge for the remainder of the year once that safety net is reached; and eligibility for discounts on rates, water, sewerage, electricity, car registration, gas bills, public transport and the annual senior supplement, which I am sure those opposite do not really want to talk about now.
Let's talk about the first one. The coalition policy stated that CSHC holders receive medicines listed on the PBS at the concessional rate. However, we learnt in the budget is that this government will increase the cost of PBS medicines by 13 per cent over inflation from 1 January 2015—another 80c to the cost of prescriptions for a holder of a CSHC. There is no certainty the coalition will not raise that in the future, and it will certainly add up over time. We will see what their attitude will be. I am sure that none of the candidates who were successful, or even unsuccessful, for the coalition parties in the last election campaigned that they would be increasing the cost of prescription medicine by 13 per cent to their constituents. I am sure they did not go around many debates and say they were going to do that. The Real Solutions booklet is certainly silent on that.
The coalition's policy on the safety net at the last election said that CSHC holders 'can access Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions, generally without charge, for the remainder of the calendar year after reaching the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net.' That is correct, too. However, we learnt in the budget that the government is proposing to increase the PBS safety net threshold for general and concessional patients. I debated my opponent I think half a dozen times during the campaign at various events, and I do not recall her ever saying that that was in their policy and certainly I do not recall anyone ever talking about that before the budget. The consequence of all of that is that for general patients the PBS safety net threshold will increase by 10 per cent over and above the CPI increase for each year for four years from 2015 to 2018. By 2018, general patients will be paying $2,287.90 each year, $725 more than they would have under a Labor government—and $725 is a lot of money. That is before they reach the safety net. For concessional patients such as holders of the cards we are talking about, the PBS safety net will be increased by two prescriptions each year—each year—between 2015 and 2018. By 2018, CSHC holders will need to pay for 68 prescriptions before reaching the safety net. This is an out-of-pocket expense of $114 more than if Labor had won the election. I am sure that none of the coalition candidates, successful or otherwise, ever said that.
The coalition's policy also stated that CSHC holders were entitled to 'bulk-billed general practitioner appointments, at the discretion of the doctor.' That is true as well—except that the coalition government wants to force CSHC holders and all other Australians to pay a $7 tax every time they visit a GP—and an extra $7 every time they have a blood test or an X-ray or an ultrasound which the GP orders. Another broken promise and, again, no candidates or elected members ever talked about that. The coalition policy also talked about access to senior concessions. It mentioned the fact that holders of these cards will be entitled to 'concessions offered by State, Territory and Local Governments,' and these concessions are offered pursuant to a National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders.' They talked about the fact that they would get access to that. But on budget night we learnt that this government is unilaterally terminating the agreement, and is doing so from 1 July 2014—slashing $1.3 billion in Commonwealth assistance to the states and territories to provide seniors, including CSHC cardholders, with discounts on their rate notices, on their water, sewerage, electricity and gas bills, on their car registration and on their public transport fares. The National Seniors organisation estimates that these concessions can add up to about $1,000 to $1,200 of assistance to seniors each year. This is not an insignificant issue.
Guess what happened. The states and territories were left contemplating a significant and unexpected budget shortfall. The response from the states and territories has been feral. Denis Napthine, the Victorian Premier, lamented the Abbott government's termination of the national partnership as 'just another hidden landmine in the federal budget', and the lack of consultation had been 'unfair and unreasonable.' In my home state we saw a shortfall of $233 million over four years. The Queensland government initially refused to make up the shortfall. Initially Tim Nicholls said they were not going to pass it on; the problem was that they were unable to absorb the extra cost. That is what he said in his budget. This meant that 435,000 Queenslanders were set to be worse off. In my electorate, as of 31 March 2014 there were 13,803 recipients of the age pension and 953 holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. This was a big impact, and grey power went mad in Queensland. Within a day or so there was a backflip and Campbell Newman and Tim Nicholls had to eat humble pie and restore that benefit. It just goes to show that even the government's state and territory colleagues are furious with what it has done in the budget.
As ACOSS has said, pensioners will be about $80 a week worse off within 10 years because of the changes to the indexation of the pension. Changes have been made right across the board with respect to the holders of these cards and our seniors, and those changes adversely impact upon them. This bill needs to be seen in the context of the budget measures. It is fine in and of itself but, when you look at it in the context of all the other broken promises, you have to choose where your priorities are. This government has its priorities wrong with respect to seniors and pensioners and cardholders, and we condemn it for that.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (18:51): It is interesting to hear the member for Blair talk about keeping promises. Of course, he was part of a government that promised that there would be carbon tax and delivered the world's largest carbon tax. I am proud to be part of a parliament that removed the world's largest carbon tax and that will save seniors in my electorate many thousands of dollars over the years. Let me get the detail of this legislation.
Before September's federal election, the coalition announced that in government we would index the income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, or CSHC, in line with the consumer price index. We are delivering on that commitment with this legislation, allowing the first annual indexation to occur from 20 September this year. The coalition recognises that self-funded retirees, after a lifetime of hard work, have made a significant contribution to our nation's success and are entitled to a safe and secure retirement. We understand that, by looking after their own retirement needs, they have freed the Commonwealth budget from considerable pension costs. Having done the right thing, many seniors live in fear of unexpected medical bills and losing their CSHC entitlement because of modest changes in their retirement. They deserve peace of mind.
The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card provides cost of living assistance to retirees of pension age, but who are ineligible for the age pension. The current health qualifying incomes of $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples have not been lifted since 2001. This government's decision to index those thresholds so that they do not erode in real terms will allow more self-funded retirees to access medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at the concessional rate. It also means increased eligibility for other card-carrying benefits such as reduced out of hospital expenses through the Medicare safety net and bulk-billed GP appointments at the discretion of the doctor. In fact, the income thresholds were not adjusted once during the nearly six years of the previous Labor government. We estimate that a further 30,000 self-funded retirees will be able to access the card in the next four years, due to this initiative we are debating tonight. Of course, many others will be able to keep their cards irrespective of minor fluctuations in their income.
The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card was introduced in 1994 primarily to help retirees on low-income. In fact, the original card income limits were the same as for the age pension, which meant that many of those eligible for assistance were asset rich but cash poor—such as retired farmers. From January 1999 qualifying limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card were changed to a taxable income test, with the income limits substantially increased so more self-funded retirees could benefit. In 2001 the coalition raised the limits again to the current level of $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. This broadened access even further to include middle-income self-funded retirees with the number of card holders rising to about 318,000 across the term of the Howard government. In fact, when the Howard government came to power in March 1996, just 33,000 health card holders existed. In other words, the government's expansion of the CSHC as a means of assisting self-funded retirees to acquire medicines saw almost tenfold growth across the course of the former coalition government. Yes, there was a direct cost to the budget, but by removing a major disincentive for seniors to provide for themselves in their later years, they were further encouraged to be self-reliant in their retirement. In recent times the coalition has strongly argued for indexation of the income threshold to be rebooted, allowing more self-funded retirees to access the CSHC, an acknowledgement that over the past decade or more eligibility thresholds have deteriorated in real terms as a result of inflation and bracket creep.
We went to the last election with a plan to restore indexation and to fight Labor's attempt to restrict eligibility as part of our overarching support for self-funded retirees. We recognise the enormous contribution of these seniors to the success of our nation. We want to do everything we can to support a successful transition to self-reliance beyond their working years. The coalition is committed to a three-pillar retirement system: an aged pension as safety net; a compulsory system of retirement savings through superannuation; and incentives for voluntary savings. We encourage as many Australians as possible to actively plan and save for their retirement, to take full advantage of the benefits of the superannuation system and to work towards a self-funded retirement.
The previous Labor government increased taxation by almost $9 billion on Australians' superannuation savings and removed many of the Howard government's positive changes. By restoring stability and certainty to superannuation, this is a key part of this government's commitment to build a strong and prosperous economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, we keep our commitments. As I said before: today we have seen this. The former Labor government promised that there would be no carbon tax under their government and they introduced the world's largest carbon tax. Today we kept our commitment to repeal that. We also made other commitments during the election campaign on the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, and we are keeping them. We will be standing by our commitment to index thresholds, because that is who we are—we are a government that will not waiver from its contract with the Australian people. This was the problem with the last government. It was a government that made promises and then repeatedly broke them in accordance with the cheap, political dictates of the Labor Party's faceless people.
We are not the government of dishonour and discredit that was the former ALP government. We are competent and trustworthy. We are the government that will act on what it says and it will do what it says to the Australian people. I might add that as well as our commitments on the seniors health card and superannuation as a whole, we are keeping faith with the veterans' community by now providing fair indexation of the Defence Force Retirement Benefits and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits military superannuation pensions, and that applies to 1046 people in my electorate of Longman. The new and more favourable increases apply to DFRB and DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over. The former government increased military superannuation pensions by the consumer price index only. We have kept our word: Australian veterans who have risked their life and limb deserve better than a government that says one thing before an election and another thing afterwards.
The coalition's indexation of the Commonwealth seniors health card will allow more self-funded retirees access to medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at the concessional rate. CSHC cardholders also receive access to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions, generally without charge, for the remainder of the calendar year after reaching the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net threshold; bulk-billed general practitioner appointments at the discretion of the doctor; and a reduction in the cost of out-of-hospital expenses, through the Medicare Safety Net. Indexation will occur annually in September, with the first indexation to occur in September this year, taking into account changes in the consumer price index over the current financial year.
The coalition's indexation of the CSHC will help reduce the cost of living for many more self-funded retirees. The carbon tax is now gone and under this government the previous Labor administration's damaging attacks on private health insurance have ended. With the elimination of carbon pricing, the average household will be better off by $550 a year. Families and seniors will see their electricity and gas bills reduced. Prices for groceries, household items and services will also fall, because the price of power is built into every cost in our economy. At the same time, Australians will get to keep the current income tax thresholds and fortnightly pension and benefit increases provided in the previous government's carbon tax package. That means tax cuts without a carbon tax. Pensioners will also be keeping the energy supplement, currently up to $361 a year for singles and up to $546 a year for couples. In other words, instead of just being a partial compensation for Labor's damaging carbon tax hit, these tax cuts and benefits will become genuine cost-of-living relief worth around $4 billion a year.
The coalition recognises that self-funded retirees save the Commonwealth considerable pension costs by looking after their own retirement needs. We also know that many self-funded retirees are not necessarily wealthy and, like all seniors, face significant financial pressures. Self-funded retirees of modest means have incomes that can vary year in, year out. Unexpected medical bills can be a significant worry for many seniors as they age. That is why we took to the election the commitment to index the income thresholds for the CSHC. It is a change that, for years, seniors and their representative organisations have been calling for. We have listened. By indexing each September the CSHC income thresholds, seniors will rightfully be receiving greater cost-of-living assistance as part of our plan to build a stronger nation and a better future for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (19:02): This is a reactionary budget. It is a vicious budget. It is a budget based on a manufactured emergency. It is a budget full of counterproductive austerity. Most of all it is a confusing budget; it is a really, really confusing budget. The member for Longman and before him the member for Bass both proved how confusing this budget is. Indeed, this bill is evidence of that confusion, a confusion of values within the Abbott government.
This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014, provides indexation for some payments when the government is cutting it everywhere else. We heard the member for Bass and the member for Longman stand up in this House and say, 'We are fulfilling our commitments.' To use the words of the member for Longman, they are 'solemnly fulfilling their contract with the Australian people.' That is very Tea Partyesque, American, language.
Those opposite talk about promises and they talk about commitments. We know that on 6 September 2013 Tony Abbott said there would be no changes to pensions. What did we get? We got a new indexation system for pensions that gets rid of male average weekly earnings—which was put there by John Howard, I might add— and gets rid of the pensioner living cost index. It reduces that indexing to CPI and applies it to the age, disability and carers pensions as well as to the parenting payment. They are freezing all the means test thresholds on pensions, as well. So we have seen them get up in this House and, puffing and beating their chests, proudly tell us that they are meeting their commitments. Yet that core commitment—that there would be no changes to pensions—that Tony Abbott made on 6 September 2013 has been broken. It is a budget full of broken promises and confused rhetoric.
On 20 November 2012, Tony Abbott said, 'We're about reducing taxes; not increasing taxes. We're about getting rid of taxes; not imposing new taxes.' Yet they are increasing income tax and increasing petrol tax, and they are giving $400 million back to big business through changing and unwinding the tax integrity measures. It is a confused picture with tax. On 6 September 2013, Tony Abbott said that there would be no cuts to health. We got $50 billion worth of cuts—that is thousands of hospital beds, thousands of nurses, thousands of doctors. We got a $7 GP tax. It is not $7 once; it is $7 every time you go to the waiting room, every time you get a blood test and every time you get a scan. How that will operate has not been revealed by the government. It has not been revealed to the opposition. It has not been revealed to GPs. It has not been revealed to the Australian people. We suspect that the effect of that $7—that compounding, cascading $7—will be worse than the government is owning up to. There are increases to the PBS; that bill passed the House just this week. There is an attack on state government revenues and, consequently, encouragement for them to impose emergency room taxes on category 4 and 5 cases.
So we know that in those areas they are breaking their promises over and over again. Yet we saw the member for Bass and the member for Longman and others stand up in the parliament and proudly tell us how they have fulfilled their contracts with the Australian people. We heard all of their rhetoric about how they do what they say and say what they mean. It all came out a bit confused from the member for Longman: he was not quite sure what he was saying there for a while.
We know what Tony Abbott said about families on 4 May 2011:
A dumb way [to cut spending] would be to threaten family benefits or to means test them further
Yet in this budget he is cutting family tax benefit A and B by freezing indexation, and he is reducing the eligibility for family tax benefit B, costing some families $6,000. That is a real broken promise; that is a big broken promise.
We know what those opposite are doing on universities. We do not have a quote from the Prime Minister, but we have a quote from the now education minister, Christopher Pyne. On 26 August 2012, he said:
The Coalition has no plans to increase university fees …
That sounds like a commitment to the Australian people to me. What did we get? They increased the interest rate applied to HELP loans from 2.25 per cent in 2014-15 to six per cent. We all know that that is about creating a loan book which you later sell to some corporate entity. There has also been a 20 per cent increase in student contributions to university funding and a deregulation of course fees. We all know what that means. For nurses it might mean a $98,000 degree which they would end up paying off when they were 48.
This is a bill that runs contrary to the cascading river of broken promises from those opposite. We have indexation being introduced in some places where they are cutting them elsewhere. We have confusing rhetoric about the government meeting their commitments when we know they are breaking their promises everywhere else. When the Australian people look at this vicious budget, manufactured on a lie, that is full of austerity and broken promises, you can understand why they might be confused.
There are other areas where the government could be making savings. One such area is the Paid Parental Leave scheme. There is nothing wrong with paid parental leave, but this is a $21 billion scheme. You would have thought that such a massive expenditure runs somewhat contrary to the government's rhetoric on austerity. The government have kept superannuation breaks for the very richest in the community. Again, that runs contrary to this manufactured emergency and pledge of austerity. Further, the government are giving nearly $1 billion back to multinationals by unwinding various tax integrity rules that we introduced.
This is about introducing counterproductive austerity. That counterproductive austerity has done here what it has done in Europe, America and other places around the world—that is, smashed confidence. It has absolutely smashed people's confidence not just in the economy but in the safety net. What do people do when they do not have confidence in the economy and the safety net? I can tell you what they do. They stop spending. We have seen that reflected in consumer sentiment. Austerity has been a counterproductive disaster around the world because it undermines economic growth and subsequently undermines revenue. It means you find yourself going down the economic gurgler.
I heard the member for Bass utter words that those opposite are very reluctant to say in this parliament. He said the words 'global financial crisis' in this parliament. He talked about the global financial crisis.
Mr Craig Kelly: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to refer the member to the actual bill, which is the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. I do not think I have heard the member refer to the bill once during his contribution.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): I do not believe there is a point of order, but I would ask the member to address his comments to the bill.
Mr CHAMPION: I respect the chair and I am happy to refer to the social services bill—I will refer to it many times—but, with due respect, as the member knows, this has been a wide-ranging debate. People have been talking about the carbon tax, and the member for Bass was talking about the global financial crisis. He uttered those magic words. I was really quite surprised because, in acknowledging the global financial crisis, you have to acknowledge a whole lot of other things, such as how well Australia did during that crisis, the fact that we have a AAA credit rating, the fact that our economy performed very well and grew right through that period and the fact that Australia avoided recession and avoided losing 200,000 jobs. It was an important achievement for this country and for the government at that time. It stopped people being thrown into the slaughterhouse of unemployment. It is that terrible for people to be unemployed. If you look at Spain, for example: it was running a budget surplus before the GFC and they had terrible unemployment and terrible social consequences afterwards.
We see a budget that is confused in so many ways. On the one hand, those opposite have the same attitude to working- and middle-class people that conservative governments down the generations have had: feed the donkey less and whip him harder. And the attitude of those opposite is that the rich need an incentive. It is all part of a counterproductive ideology which is about enriching some, the people at the top, and austerity for the people at the bottom. For the self-funded retirees who are the subject of this bill, it is a game of three-card Monte—the little prize that you might get quickly disappears as the game goes on.
This budget is an appalling assault on Australian values. It is a reactionary budget. It is a vicious budget. It is a budget based on a manufactured emergency. It involves counterproductive austerity. What this bill proves and what the rhetoric of those opposite proves—the member for Bass and the member for Longman—is that it is a confused budget and a confused government that does not know what it is doing.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:15): It is a pleasure to rise on this most historic day when we have finally seen our nation rid itself of that dreadful carbon tax. Tonight I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014—
Mr Champion: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on point of order on relevance. The member reminded me of the need to address the bill, and I would just like to say that this bill does not involve the carbon tax.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): There is no point of order but a point well made. I give the call back to the member for Hughes.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: As I said, I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Unlike the good member for Wakefield, I actually will address the issues in this bill. This bill implements yet another of the coalition's election commitments, and this time it is our commitment to index the income thresholds for qualification for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The beneficiaries of this bill will be 30,000 Australians who are self-funded retirees, who have worked hard all their life, who have been successful, who have sacrificed and who have put some money aside so that they would not have to rely on big government. These 30,000 people will benefit from this bill, otherwise they would have missed out. The reason they would have missed out on qualifying for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is that during the six years of the previous Labor government, despite all the reckless spending, the waste and the mismanagement such as sending $900 cheques to people overseas and borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas, they could not make that little step of indexing the income thresholds for people to qualify for this card. So 30,000 Australians, self-funded retires, who would have otherwise missed out on the seniors healthcare card will now qualify because of the changes that this government is making.
We know the reason why this measure was not taken during the six years of the Labor government. We know it is also the reason, despite the fairness of this measure, that members of the opposition have signified in their contributions to this debate that they are going to vote against this bill. I think the member for Bowman said it best during his contribution to this debate. He said that it was because Labor see self-funded retirees—those great Australians who have worked all their life and saved so that they would not be reliant on government—as 'enemies of the state'. The member for Bowman's words ring very true. So it is no surprise that we see the Labor Party in this chamber attacking self-funded retirees.
As I said earlier, today is a great day for self-funded retirees because of the measures in this bill. It is also a great day for self-funded retirees and, in fact, for all Australians, because today is the day when we finally see that the carbon tax is dead and buried. Electricity costs will be cheaper. Gas prices will come down. We know that small business—that important engine room of our economy—will benefit through lower costs. We know that Australian businesses will finally take a step to regain their international competitiveness. We know that jobs will be created, because finally the carbon tax joins that list of foolish taxes which have been sent to the taxation graveyard.
I think it is worthwhile in the short time that I have tonight to remember some of those foolish taxes throughout history, which the carbon tax now joins. First there was the Window Tax—a tax introduced back in 1696, when King William III of England introduced what was called an 'act of making good the deficiency of clipped money'.
Ms Macklin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This does not have anything to do with the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I give the call to the member for Hughes.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: The previous speaker on the bill, the member for Wakefield, discussed the carbon tax—the one that the Labor Party were so desperate to keep that they voted against its repeal six times across the two chambers. No wonder they want to try and silence debate. Getting back to the old, ridiculous taxes that the carbon tax now joins: the Window Tax 1696 was a tax on the number of windows that people had in their houses. What happens when you go around and tax the number of windows in people's houses is that they block their windows up. What effect did this have? It created many dark and damp tenements. The medical profession of the day understood that this mistaken tax actually was a source of disease and ill health. That is exactly what the carbon tax has done: it has created disease and ill health.
Ms Brodtmann: Are you kidding?
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I hope that those opposite are listening to me. What has happened here is that, as the price of electricity was raised through the carbon tax, more than 20,000 people in New South Wales alone had their electricity cut off. What do those people do? How do they heat their homes in winter? What do they do when they have had their electricity cut off?
Ms MacTiernan: They've got a compensation package.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I hear the member for Perth whingeing about a compensation package. I hope that the member for Perth goes to those people who have had their electricity cut off and stand before them and say, 'You guys have a compensation package; it's okay.'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: This is not a laughing matter. There are Australians in this country tonight who, because of the carbon tax, have had their electricity cut off and cannot afford to heat their homes. This is not a laughing matter. What if that happens to you, as it happens to many people? How else can you heat your home? In Sydney, people actually go and burn wood to try to keep their home warm. What happens when you burn wood? You release pollution into the atmosphere—particulate pollution. This may come as new information for the people sitting on the other side, but particulate pollution actually kills. Thousands of people in Australia die every year from outdoor air pollution. And in Western Sydney we currently have a serious issue with particulate matter pollution. Currently Western Sydney measures 2.5 for particulate-matter pollution. We are above World Health Organisation standards since the carbon tax came in—for a pollution that causes lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. That is a fact of what this carbon tax—increasing electricity prices—is causing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): Order! I would remind the member that we are addressing the social security bill, so I would ask him to keep on topic.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am addressing the social security bill, because these are important steps. It is about protecting and looking after our self-funded retirees. That is what this bill is about, and there is nothing more we could do to help our self-funded retirees than to get rid of this most toxic tax. The threshold for this tax is currently $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. So we know what would actually happen if we did not bring this indexation in: 30,000 Australians, many of them living in my electorate of Hughes, would simply miss out on getting that Seniors Health Card.
In the remaining time I would like to make some comments about other issues that were raised in this debate, firstly by the member for Ballarat. The member for Ballarat, in her contribution to this debate, whined on and on about so-called cuts to health and education. I know the Labor Party believes in their DNA that if you repeat a lie enough times people will eventually believe it. The fact is that this coalition government is not cutting health spending. We are increasing—repeat, increasing—health spending by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year and nine per cent the year after. For education we are increasing—again, I repeat, increasing—health spending by eight per cent this year, with another eight per cent increase next year and then a further eight per cent increase. So, if members of the opposition want to come in here and whine about spending on health and education, they must say how much above those annual increases of eight and nine per cent they want. But most of all, where is the money coming from? There is no money tree out in the parliamentary courtyard. Every single cent of money that we raise must come from the taxpayer. Alternatively, it can be borrowed. It can be borrowed like it has been for the last six years. And when you borrow money, not only do you have to repay it sometime but also you have to service the interest along the way.
So, this financial year, this government must find $12 billion—that is 12,000 million dollars—just to service the interest. That is $1 billion every single month we have to service. And we have the member for Ballarat coming in here during her contribution to the debate whining about why Australians are worse off. We are worse off—the entire nation is worse off—because we have had six years of Labor government waste and reckless spending. Worst is that just to service the interest alone it is $500 for every man, woman and child in this country. Every man, woman and child in this country is $500 worse off every year. A family of four is worse off $2,000 every year just to pay the interest on the debt that these guys racked up.
So we have to take steps to try to wind back that debt, to make those interest repayments and to try to get this budget under control. But instead we see the opposition in complete denial. The member for Bendigo, in her contribution, continued on with this reckless scare campaign, scaremongering and trying to frighten pensioners. This is a disgrace, and we are seeing it repeatedly from members of the opposition, coming into this parliament and making statements in the media—completely false—entirely for the purpose of scaring pensioners. The truth is that there are no cuts to pensions. Pensions rise twice a year for the next three years, and they rise by the equivalent of average weekly male earnings. After that, they will still rise twice every year, and they will rise by the CPI. So we just cannot have members of the opposition going around scaring pensioners and old people. It is an absolute disgrace.
They are entitled to make whatever political points they want, but they should not tell falsehoods for the sake of their own political expediency by scaring older Australians. This bill should have the support of the opposition. But, sadly, the 30,000 Australians who would otherwise have missed out on getting that Seniors Health Card—30,000 over the next four years—in the next couple of minutes are going to see members of the opposition vote against this. So I hope that in the last couple of minutes maybe they might have a last-minute change, because the coalition and myself commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (19:28): Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you have just missed out on quite an extraordinary debate. We had the member for Hughes taking us back 400 years, I think, to Georgian England. We are talking about the Seniors Health card here, and he mentioned Georgian England and the window tax. He gave us a very interesting history of Georgian England and the window tax and the implications in terms of health. And I do agree with him: the health implications of that ludicrous window tax were dreadful. He then segued into the fact that the carbon price was similar to the windows tax in that the carbon price was responsible for causing disease and ill health—carbon price equals disease and ill health. It was quite an extraordinary speech, Deputy Speaker. I am sorry you missed out on it.
What will cause disease and ill health in Australia is the fact that this government, through this cruel, callous budget, wants to introduce a $7 GP co-payment. That will cause disease and ill health, because every time a family goes to the doctor they are going to be slugged $7. Every time they get a blood test or pathology work done they are going to get slugged an extra $7. What will also create ill health in Australia is the fact that scripts are going to go up. That will also be a disincentive for them to get their scripts filled. So we are talking about a window tax, a carbon price and disease and ill health. What will cause disease and ill health is your budget. What will cause disease and ill health is the GP co-payment, the GP tax. What will cause disease and ill health is the additional cost of getting a prescription filled. And that is just the beginning.
As my colleagues before me have pointed out, this bill is an example of the government's twisted priorities—their twisted speeches beforehand about windows taxes and carbon pricing equalling disease and ill health, and now we have twisted priorities with this bill.
This bill will index the income thresholds for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, currently set at $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples combined, or $100,000 for couples combined, couples separated by illness or respite care, or when one partner is in prison. In government, Labor never indexed the threshold, because the current levels are still higher than they would have been if they were linked to the Age Pension cut-offs, which are currently $47,881.60 for singles and $73,247.20 for couples combined.
This measure, which was a coalition election commitment, is one of three measures contained in the budget that impact on the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The first of these measures includes untaxed superannuation in the eligibility assessment, and if passed this measure will significantly reduce the number of people who receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The second budget measure abolished the Seniors Supplement—and I will have more on this later—which is an annual payment to people who receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. This is the reason Labor cannot support this bill. While it will over time result in more people accessing the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, the context in which it comes is a budget that is bad for pensioners, bad for retirees, bad for the sick and bad for the elderly.
At the same time, the government has introduced measures in the budget to cut pensions—to cut the Age Pension through reducing the indexation to CPI only. This means that every year, twice a year, when the pension is indexed it will increase by less. Those opposite seem to think this is not a cut. But let me tell you that the pensioners I have spoken to would beg to differ. And then there are the cuts to the Disability Support Pension, to the Carer Payment, to the Seniors Supplement, to the Schoolkids Bonus, to the Income Support Bonus, and to the low income superannuation contribution.
Last week, I held two community forums, one in Woden and one in Griffith. They were designed to get across the issues that were concerning Canberrans. Front and centre, the issue that is concerning Canberrans is the budget and the job cuts that this government is wanting to introduce to the public service, not just in Canberra, but throughout the nation. Unsurprisingly, given they were held during the day most of the people who attended these forums were pensioners and retirees. Their message was clear and unanimous: Canberrans hate this unfair budget. They see it as an absolute stinker.
One of the issues that came up, particularly in the Griffith forum, was the concern about what is actually going on with the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. There was a lot of discussion and the people were very confused about what is going on. They are getting mixed messages about what is going on and they have no understanding of what the implications are. These are Canberrans who have retired and who had former wonderful careers as altruistic servants of democracy, as great public servants. They had great careers and are now retired and are actively involved in the community. They are highly intelligent people and they do not have a clue what is going on with the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. They were asking me all sorts of questions about what was going on, so they are very confused about it.
The group that is not confused about it, because they have a very crystal clear idea about the impact the budget is going to have on them, is the Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association of Australia. In their latest journal they have two references listed on the page titled 'Inside'—they are 'Bad news' and 'Good news'. I am just going to focus on the bad news, because there is plenty of it, and there is a lot that they are not happy about. First up, there is 'A slap in the face for veterans – pensions under attack'. The article reads:
The government has announced that if re-elected at the next federal election it will downgrade the indexation on Veterans' Affairs pensions. The prospect is alarming. Just what is indexation …
Then they go onto the story 'Service pension concession under attack':
There was agreement between the states and the federal governments to share the cost of service pensioners' travel, electricity, phone and council rates concession. The government has withdrawn its share. Will the states make up the shortfall?
Then there was 'Backdating of pension claims scrapped':
The long-standing practice of backdating veterans' disability pension claims three months in acknowledgement of the unique nature of military service will be scrapped.
This is shameful:
The $211 income support payment to children of a dead or injured parent with overseas service will be axed. Why would the government want to claw back this pittance from the most deserving of all.
Those quotes are from The Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Journal.
Then they go on about DVA offices and how they are being closed in some regional areas, and veterans are being sent to Centrelink. They ask, 'Is this the thin end of the wedge?' Then they go on to the Seniors Supplement and how it is scrapped:
That payment has been scrapped. Gold Card holders not receiving an income support payment were eligible for the Seniors Supplement of $876.20 for singles and $666.40 for each member of a couple. That payment has simply been scrapped.
Then there is more on income being counted for military superannuation:
It has been counted for when people are applying for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. This may disqualify some military superannuants who are now eligible (no more to say).
The article then goes on to a whole range of other issues.
The seniors and retirees who attended my community forum were very frank, vocal, and also confused about what was going on with the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, but they are very clear on what the budget means for them. It means cuts. It means a lowering of their standard of living and it means a huge hit to Canberra and their hip pockets. We also have it straight from the Vietnam veterans, given the Vietnam Veterans Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Association's views on the budget.
There has been a lot of meandering around issues tonight. There has been a lot of discussion on the window tax in Georgian England. The global financial crisis was brought up beforehand, as was the carbon tax.
An opposition member interjecting—and the weather in Darwin!
Ms BRODTMANN: Oh, the weather in Darwin. Terrific. This is all very relevant to the bill we have before us on the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. There is one thing that disturbed me as I watched the members in this chamber while preparing for the debate tonight. I know that my colleagues and those opposite, particularly my class of 2010, would know that what I am saying now is a bit out of the ordinary for me. I was absolutely astounded at the way in which the member for Bass treated the member for Shortland. This is a man who has had ADF officer training. This is a man who was very much playing the ball and not the woman—
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms BRODTMANN: I beg your pardon, he was very much playing the woman rather than playing the ball.
An honourable member interjecting—
Ms BRODTMANN: I do take that back—I got it the wrong way around. Despite his fine training as an officer he was very much playing the woman and not the ball.
Government members interjecting—
Ms BRODTMANN: I am not wrapping this up. Do we want to go back to the nature of public discourse that happened in the 43rd Parliament? No, we do not.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Please be relevant to the question.
Ms BRODTMANN: I think that it was completely inappropriate what the member for Bass was saying about the member for Shortland—
Mr Andrews: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: there has been a wide-ranging debate—
Ms BRODTMANN: It was out of order.
Mr Andrews: I am on my feet, you can sit down. I have the call.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Canberra will take her seat.
Mr Andrews: Mr Deputy Speaker, to use the words of the honourable member opposite, there has been very much meandering around the issue in this debate, but there is some obligation to actually refer remarks to the substance of this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Canberra has the call.
Ms BRODTMANN: The entirety of my speech has been addressing the bill, unlike members opposite throughout the course of the debate tonight. But I do want to take issue with the comments by the member for Bass because I think the way he was speaking about the member for Shortland was completely inappropriate. He was playing the woman, not the ball. It was completely inappropriate. Unfortunately, it was not called at the time. I think we need to have on the record that it was completely inappropriate.
Mr Nikolic: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I refer to 66(a).
Ms BRODTMANN: No.
Mr Nikolic: You have made accusations. I would love to respond to them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Canberra has the call. Please be relevant to the bill.
Ms BRODTMANN: I am; I am about to conclude. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to impart those words because I was very concerned about what was actually happening in the chamber at the time.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that this government is all about looking after higher income earners while cutting support to vulnerable Australians, including pensioners, the sick and the elderly. To those opposite I say: you have got your priorities so very wrong.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (19:42): In summing up, this bill will implement the government's election commitment to index income thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card. The income limits for the seniors health card have been fixed at $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples since 2001—that is, some 13 years ago. This bill will ensure that these income limits are indexed annually based on movements in the consumer price index from 20 September this year. The coalition recognises that, by looking after their own retirement needs, self-funded retirees save the Commonwealth budget considerable pension costs. But we also know that many self-funded retirees are not wealthy and like many seniors are under financial pressure. Thanks to this bill, more seniors will be able to access the benefits of the seniors health card, including medicines listed in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at the concessional rate. This bill fulfils a key election promise and demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to reducing the cost of living for Australian seniors. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [19:47]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott]
Third Reading
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (19:54): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (19:54): I seek indulgence briefly to update the House on progress. Members would want to be aware that the Senate has passed the Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 with amendments. Those amendments will be transmitted back to the House. I am told by the clerks that they are 15 to 20 minutes away from coming back to the parliament.
It is the government's view—and the opposition agrees—that we will deal with those tonight. The parliamentary secretary will deal with those briefly. The government's view is that we will not be accepting those amendments and will be sending them back to the Senate. That means: given that we have successfully completed this bill, we will go on to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 for a short time while we wait for those bills to be transmitted. My best estimate is that we will be finished here at half past eight and we will come back tomorrow at 11 o'clock.
BILLS
Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013
Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2014
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2014
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulatory Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Trade Support Loans Bill 2014
Trade Support Loans (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (19:56): I rise to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. Australia has a long history of participating in intercountry adoptions, dating back to the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. Going forward a couple of decades, a dramatic example of Australia's history of participating in intercountry adoptions was Operation Babylift in the final days of the Vietnam War that saw approximately 280 children from orphanages in Saigon adopted by Australian families. Australia has a long history of participation in intercountry adoptions and a growing interest, since the Second World War, in intercountry adoptions. That interest ultimately culminated in Australia signing in 1998 the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, which is known by the short title of the Hague convention.
The Hague convention exists to protect children and their families from the risks of illegal, irregular, premature or ill-prepared adoptions abroad. It operates through a system of national central authorities and acts to support and reinforce the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention seeks to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights and general wellbeing.
It is important to note that this bill that is before the House does not affect Australia's obligations under the Hague convention. This legislation amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to extend citizenship to children adopted directly from a country that is not a signatory to the Hague convention. Currently, those countries include South Korea, Taiwan and Ethiopia. The amendments give effect to a recommendation made in the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption in April 2014.
I should say that Labor's position is to support this bill. However, it is critical to ensure that, despite the best intentions that are reflected in this bill, the best intentions of the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on Intercountry Adoption, there are no unintended consequences. In particular, the risk of exposing children to trafficking should be avoided at all costs. It is essential that we ensure that there are stringent safeguards in place to prevent trafficking from happening.
While it is understandable that Australians seeking to adopt children from overseas want to remove barriers and simplify the process, we must not compromise our commitment to our international legal obligations, nor should we turn a blind eye to the exploitation of children and families in home countries. Regrettably, that does occur. Families whose only desire is to provide a better life for their children might be tricked by false information and false promises to participate in an adoption process. Sadly, we have already seen such exploitation in Ethiopia, which resulted in the closure of the Ethiopia-Australia intercountry adoption program. That was in response to circumstances that were increasingly unpredictable, challenging and complex. In 2009 the Ethiopian program was suspended due to concerns that it was no longer consistent with the principles of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The program was resumed in 2010, following a formal review and the implementation of a new framework of safeguards by Ethiopia.
In 2012 the program was closed by the then Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, on the advice of the Attorney-General's Department. The decision to close the program was a tough but necessary one. There were a number of problems with the Ethiopian program that led to its closure, including problems in identifying trustworthy orphanages, coupled with a significant increase in non-government agencies operating in Ethiopia which created an unhealthy competitive environment for overseas adoption—and by 'non-government agencies' I am referring to private operators engaging in an adoption business, which is one way to put that. That kind of competition for overseas adoption possibilities does not sit well with Australia's obligations under the Hague convention.
In Ethiopia there were not merely the dangers posed for children who might have become involved but many prospective Australian parents were being left in limbo for years. Some prospective Australian parents travelled to Ethiopia only to discover that the child that they believed was available for adoption was not. Closing the program was the responsible thing to do and was based on clear advice from the Attorney-General's Department. Labor expects that before reopening the Ethiopian program the government will put in place proper protections to make sure any further adoptions are undertaken in an ethical way. Unless the past issues in the Ethiopian program have been resolved—and they were clearly identified at the time; they formed the basis of the then government's decision to close the program—the risks to potential adopted children and potential parents here in Australia are just too high. Intercountry adoption should be about finding families for children, not children for families.
I have taken the time to outline the problems with the Ethiopian program because those problems and the reasons that led to the government closing the program in 2012, after an earlier suspension and reopening, are a salutary lesson of the dangers and risks involved in intercountry adoption. What the government needs to do going forward is make sure that appropriate resources are devoted to the enforcement of safeguards and to Australia's compliance with international obligations.
The amendments that are before the parliament will allow a child adopted in an overseas country to be granted Australian citizenship once the adoption is formal in the child's home country. The change will have the effect of the child not needing to be granted a visa because the child will have become an Australian citizen and, necessarily, the adoptive parents not needing to be sponsors of the child's visa.
Labor introduced a sponsorship limitation in the Migration Regulations 1994 in March 2010 that prevents a sponsorship from being approved if one of the proposed applicants is under 18 years of age and the minister is satisfied that the sponsor or the sponsor's spouse or de facto partner has a conviction or outstanding charge for a registrable offence. Sponsors and their partners of child category visa applications lodged on or after March 2010 are required to provide an Australian national police check and/or a foreign police certificate as part of the process of assessing the application. The results of the police certificate or certificates are used by the department of immigration to assess the sponsorship application and whether or not the visa application satisfies the public interest criteria relating to the best interests of the child. This should be a minimum requirement for adoptive parents seeking to have adopted children granted Australian citizenship.
As I have mentioned, the background to the adoption of that limitation in the Migration Regulations back in March 2010 was to make the point that one cannot be too careful, that it is always essential to have this kind of safeguard in place. Equally, it is important to try, as far as possible, to make sure there are safeguards in the countries from whom children are being adopted. It is tragic that child trafficking has occurred in countries which lack a robust adoption framework, which has had, on occasions, very sad results for children and very sad results for adoptive families. Our objectives should be at all times that the best interests of children lie at the heart of every decision that is made in this area and, as I indicated before, Labor will be supporting this bill.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (20:07): I rise to support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014 and I thank the member for Isaacs for his contribution and I acknowledge his bipartisan support for the amendments.
Just to demonstrate a personal interest in this legislation, as most people in this place would know I was a foster child. I grew up in Melbourne and had a brother who was adopted out at a very young age and who I did not meet until recently—two years ago, just after he had turned 51. Adoption has its place in Australia; it has a long history in Australia. I know that growing up at a particular time adoption had a certain stigma about it. Fostering did not, but adoption did. I know that in the same street that I lived in a young lad and his sister were adopted, but no-one knew about it until years later because no-one talked about it. Where fostering was seen to be an acceptable thing, there was a stigma about adoption: people who adopted either had to admit that they could not have kids or they would hide the fact that the kids did not biologically belong to those people who had adopted them. There was still a stigma in the middle-class area where I grew up in Box Hill in Victoria many years ago.
The circumstances of fostering or adoption are ones that children do not have any say in. I know in my case it was a decision of the state to remove three of the children from the family home without any notification or anything. The reason for that is my father, who happened to be a painter and docker, was not paying his maintenance. His maintenance was two pounds a week and he refused to pay it, so he went to jail for that. The state then said that my mother did not have any level of income support for the six children she had at that particular time, so they decided to take the three youngest children. I was about 10 months of age and put into a babies institution and my two older siblings were put into children's homes. They both passed on but then No. 7 was born and he was adopted out at an early age too. There are all different reasons for adoption. I support adoption—I think it is a great idea, particularly for people who cannot have children. Fostering is also an option in Australia.
I want to give some background and talk about the royal commission and how that affected people from my time and then I will move to the areas of the bill. There are echoes from the past in this legislation that cannot be ignored. Overseas child migration is certainly not a new issue confronting this parliament. As the National Archives show, the years following World War II, a popular immigration slogan was 'The child, the best immigrant.'
The powers at the time believed that child migrants could assimilate more easily, were more adaptable, had a long working life ahead and could be cheaply housed in dormitory-style accommodation. Between 1947 and 1953, over 3,000 child migrants entered Australia under schemes approved in this place. All, apart from 100 Maltese children, came from the UK. Other European countries were asked to participate in the scheme but declined.
The children were adopted by institutions in houses in 30 homes across Australia and approved by the Commonwealth, mostly run by voluntary and religious organisations. Two of these homes were in my electorate of Swan at Castledare in Wilson and Clontarf in Waterford.
While it was not Commonwealth policy to provide these homes specifically for migrant children, the Commonwealth contributed to the capital expenditure and operational and running costs of the homes, so the Commonwealth was certainly involved in these decisions and this policy. What happened in the homes and to these child migrants across the country is now being fully explored by the royal commission into institutional responses to child sex abuse.
A couple of months ago in Perth, the royal commission took evidence from former child migrants who had been placed in the two Christian Brothers institutions at Waterford and Wilson in my electorate of Swan. The commission took evidence about the systematic sexual abuse that took place at these homes under the Christian Brothers at this time, and the failure of the Christian Brothers and other institutions to stop the abuse.
This went on for years without being reported and only now is the true picture beginning to emerge. The royal commission has been necessary and good and, in many ways, it really came out of the national apology to the forgotten Australians on 16 November 2009. It took that moment in 2009, in recognition of what happened, to spur the investigation that is now occurring through the royal commission. I know at the moment the Leader of the Opposition time said, 'We believe you,' you could sense the relief and the jubilation in the crowd because, up until that point, no-one had believed them. It is absolutely essential that the truth comes out in the royal commission not only for the former child migrants today but also to be able to identify the risks in the future.
That brings me to the overseas adoption bill today. Good statistics are collected by the Australian government on adoption, and there is some very interesting research in the latest available report conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I will refer to this and quote some of the research as it shines a light on the adoption processes in Australia and some elements that members must consider when debating this legislation.
Adoptions have fallen steadily in Australia from 1,501 in 1998-99 to 339 in 2012-13. That is a 77 per cent decline. Of the 339 adoptions, 129 were intercountry adoptions and 210—or 62 per cent—were Australian adoptions. Of the Australian adoptions, only 54 were local adoptions with the other 156 classified as known child adoptions—that is, a step-parent, relative or carer of that particular child. Of the intercountry adoptions, there was a fairly even split between those from those countries who have signed up to the Hague Convention and those from non-signatory countries.
The Institute of Health and Welfare's report notes that:
Adopted children, especially those adopted from overseas, are likely to have been in institutional care for a portion of their lives. The quality of institutional care and the length of time spent in this environment can affect a child’s adjustment after adoption and the likelihood that they will experience developmental delays.
It goes on to note that:
Children who are adopted from overseas have often received only a basic level of care during their stay in an institution. There is also the possibility of exposure to toxins, and the existence nutritional deficiencies. As a result, these children are at increased risk of health problems such as infectious diseases, growth and developmental delays, and emotional disorders
Research suggests that the children most at risk of unsuccessful outcomes include those adopted at an older age; those with a history of physical abuse, deprivation and neglect; those with a history of sexual abuse; and those with emotional and behavioural problems.
There are no orphanages or institutions any longer in Australia. There is actually no need for institutions, as there is a greater demand for adoptions in Australia than there are potential adoptees. This makes adoptions from overseas institutions attractive to prospective parents. But given the history of abuse in Australian institutions we have a responsibility to proceed cautiously and ensure that we have learnt from that history. I note that the Prime Minister said in his speech that we do not want to repeat mistakes of the past. There should be regular checks and inspections at these institutions if the Australian government is going to authorise early adoptions from them. I have met with the Prime Minister and his office and have been assured that there will be absolute scrutiny to ensure the integrity of these reforms.
There might be no issues with adopting babies, but we must look at the institution as a whole and ensure that the welfare needs, of the older children particularly, are met. If the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is highlighting issues of poor child welfare in these institutions, we need to be absolutely sure that such institutions are run genuinely, and that Australian adoption is not some sort of business model.
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption was brought in to provide protections from child laundering and child trafficking. But not all countries have signed it. In 2012-13, of the 129 intercountry adoptions to Australia, 68 were from non-signatory countries. It sounds blunt, but if there is a demand someone will fill the supply, and we need to make absolutely sure that by seeming to do a good deed for children—like many, I am sure, argued the post-war child migration program would do—we are not creating many more problems that we cannot see.
In this we must remember what is sometimes forgotten: the foster care system in Australia. As I stated, there were 339 adoptions in Australia, but we know there are many more children that require foster care each year. Although this is not specifically an element of this bill, and foster caring tends to be a state government responsibility, we do need to keep in mind that if there is a five-year waiting list for overseas adoptions maybe we need to be stressing the benefits of foster caring more.
I know that the state government runs campaigns from time to time to encourage people to step forward as foster carers, and we certainly always need good foster carers to do that. We must also acknowledge the important role that grandparents play in foster care. There is a growing tendency for children to stay with their families, and often with their grandparents, when they need care beyond their biological parents. That was not necessarily the case in the past. This will also have contributed to lower adoption rates and the closure of institutions in Australia.
I acknowledge the personal interest of the Prime Minister in this legislation. I acknowledge that he has spent time talking to families in Australia that are looking to adopt but are finding the system too complex. I also acknowledge the role the Prime Minister took in the apology to the forgotten Australians on 16 November 2009, when he was the coalition spokesperson on social affairs.
The intent of this bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to enable children adopted overseas by Australian citizens, under bilateral intercountry arrangements where the adoption is a full adoption, to apply for and be granted Australian citizenship in their country of origin. At present, Australia has bilateral adoption programs which Taiwan and South Korea. Those are countries that we are talking about here, but there may be other bilateral arrangements in the future.
Presently, there are some administrative complexities surrounding overseas adoption, essentially involving the visa requirements of bringing the adopted child into Australia for the first time. Currently, children adopted under bilateral arrangements require a passport from the country they are being adopted from, and a valid visa to Australia. This certainly has been causing some delays and administrative hurdles, particularly given the child being adopted is very unlikely to have a passport from that country. These would be the same arrangements that would apply to countries that have signed the Hague agreement.
The government's position is that if a country is, first, willing to participate in an intercountry adoption arrangement, and, second, will meet the standards and safeguards equivalent to those required under the Hague convention, then it should be treated as a Hague convention country for the purposes of overseas adoption. Some countries in Asia have not signed the Hague convention due to concerns around provisions relating to inter-country marriages, which is a separate issue to intercountry adoption. Nonetheless, I am particularly keen to see that there is the utmost scrutiny and control of this process for the non-signing countries if we are going to proceed down this path.
I note the Prime Minister said in his speech that under the legislation an application can only be approved if the adoption has been finalised in the overseas country and an adoption compliance certificate issued by the authorities of that country. He said that the adoption must also have the effect of terminating the legal relationship between the child and his or her previous parents. Further to this, the Prime Minister said that the minister retains a discretion to refuse an application which meets the requirements which would be relevant if fraud or some other irregularity came to light or concerns about the identity of the child were raised before the citizenship is granted. I support this intent, but again raised this point with the Prime Minister and his office and I am confident that there are enough investigative avenues on the ground in these countries which we have bilateral agreements with and processes in place to ensure the integrity of the system to refuse applications when needed. So I think the Prime Minister is correct when he says that he is not pretending everything will be a simple and straightforward immediately. We need to be taking incredibly careful steps in this area.
I acknowledge there is bipartisanship for this bill and that the legislation will pass this chamber and head to the Senate. I acknowledge the good intentions of those on both sides of the House when it comes to intercountry adoption, but many times in the past good intentions have not produced the right result for the adoptees. So in that context I urge caution in the implementation of this legislation and the processes to ensure the best outcomes for all involved and for Australia as a nation. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:21): I believe it is safe to say that all of us in this place feel blessed to live in Australia, indeed to be Australian citizens, for many of us since birth. We live in a great nation, a strong nation and a nation I am proud to call my home. As the Prime Minister has often remarked, to be born in Australia is to win the lottery of life. The coalition government's bill we are debating today, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014, will mean that those children not born in Australia now have the chance of becoming Australians, living in a safe and loving home and enjoying the rights and freedoms we all enjoy.
Adoption is all about giving children a better life. There are too many children who have no parents, or no effective parents. They deserve a better life. Adoption is a way of providing this. For too long, adoption has been in the too-hard basket; for too long it has been too hard to adopt and for too long this has been a policy no-go zone. This must change. The coalition is determined to see this change, which is why I am proud to be standing in favour of this bill today. There are too many foster parents in our country who would like to adopt. There are many foster children in our country who would like to be adopted. There are millions of children in orphanages overseas who would love to have parents, and thousands of those could come to Australia. We need to make it easier for that to happen.
One of my constituents, Mr Sean Crookes, for a number of years represented the African adoption community on a Queensland government advisory committee. In June 2012 he was told that there were seven Queensland couples with files in Ethiopia, three approved Queensland couples with files waiting to be sent to Ethiopian and a further 10 couples under assessment for the Ethiopian adoption program. Nationally, many more families were affected. Mr Crookes was also told that the most current document available from the Attorney-General's Department detailing their activity and program development was dated October 2010, two years earlier.
Mr Crookes wrote to me in June 2012 as the father of an Ethiopian-Australian adopted child who had had his dreams of extending his family and giving his son an Ethio-Australian sibling crushed. He was informed by Adoption Services Queensland that they had been told of the Attorney-General's Department's decision, but that instruction included not informing the families until the following week, the last day of the parliamentary sitting, making it very difficult to rally any politicians' support, and by which time the representatives of the Attorney-General's Department were already in Ethiopian terminating contracts and agreements and undoing years and years of work and negotiations
He felt they had planned very carefully to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover the program. Mr Crookes had started his proceedings eight years earlier, in 2004.
I was shocked to hear of this policy shift and the injustice to parents and, more importantly, to the children who missed out on loving families. Since talking with many affected parents and local families, I have followed the progression of these new laws and was very pleased to hear of the announcement by the Prime Minister that Australia would be amending these adoption laws.
This bill facilitates a grant of Australian citizenship to children adopted by Australian citizens through bilateral adoption arrangements between Australia and countries not party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The purpose is to create an entitlement to citizenship for children adopted under bilateral arrangements equivalent to the entitlement currently provided for children adopted under Hague convention arrangements.
Intercountry adoption first became a recognised phenomenon in Australia following the airlift in 1975 of Vietnamese war orphans to Western nations, with 280 children coming to Australia from orphanages in Saigon and being adopted by Australian families. Since that time, many Australians have adopted children from overseas, with numbers reaching a peak of 434 in 2004-05. In more recent years, we have seen a decline in the numbers. In 2012-13, there were only 129 adoptions, with the characteristics of children available for adoption also having changed.
Intercountry adoption is also a global phenomenon. Just as intercountry adoptions are declining in Australia, intercountry adoption rates are declining worldwide. The Hague convention was negotiated because of the lack of uniform standards in relation to intercountry adoption. The convention entered into force on 1 May 1995 and was ratified by Australia in 1998. As at January 2014, there were 93 contracting states to this convention. The object of the Hague convention is to establish safeguards that will ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interest of the child and with respect to his or her fundamental rights. It also establishes a cooperative system among contracting states so that safeguards are respected, and the abduction, sale of, and trafficking in children is prevented. It ensures that contracting states recognise adoptions made in accordance with the convention.
Australia has intercountry adoption programs with 12 Hague convention countries—the most recent addition being South Africa—and has bilateral relations with two non-Hague convention countries: Taiwan and South Korea. The program with Taiwan is now Australia's largest program. Australia requires that all programs are ethical and meet the standards and principles set by the convention. Some programs have been suspended or cancelled because of concerns about failure to meet the convention standards.
Following the 2013 election, the coalition government moved quickly to investigate possible improvement of Australia's intercountry adoption program, with the Prime Minister announcing on 19 December 2013 that he would establish an interdepartmental committee on intercountry adoption to report to him, in March 2014, with options for implementing reform within Australia over the next 12 months. The committee's report identified a range of impediments to the intercountry adoption, including the lack of nationally consistent state and territory regulation, prohibitive fees and waiting times, and the standard of post-adoption support services. Among the committee's more significant recommendations, was the proposal for a new national intercountry adoption service to apply to all Australians wanting to adopt a child from overseas. This proposal was put to the May COAG meeting, where it was then agreed upon that there would be a national system of intercountry adoption by early 2015. The COAG communique states:
Under the new service, the Commonwealth will fund either a new accredited non-government organisation or organisations, or a Commonwealth agency, to provide services for intercountry adoption by early 2015.
The Commonwealth and the States and Territories will work closely together to make sure there is a smooth transition to the new system.
I would like commend the advocacy of Deborra-Lee Furness in support of these reforms. I understand that she had been in discussion with the Prime Minister about their shared passion for reforming Australia's adoption laws. I am delighted to see these laws finally coming to fruition. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (20:29): I rise to support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Intercountry Adoption) Bill 2014. I think the measures that we are taking as a country are a welcome opportunity for many within Australia. In my own electorate, I have couples who for some time have wanted to adopt but there are two elements that have made it difficult for them. One is the red tape, but the other is the requirement and rigour they have had to go through. They wanted to adopt from China, because the mother-to-be is of Chinese origin. Each time they went through an adoption advisory service they were given encouragement and then, when it came to the final crunch, they were told that it was not possible. This bill opens up opportunities for some of those couples, although some have reached a point where age will work against them, which is a pity because I know that they would have made tremendous parents.
Because of the fields I have worked in, I am always wary when I look at the history of intercountry adoptions. I have always had a concern about the safeguards that ensure that children being adopted and brought into a family context will be brought into a safe environment. The majority of the placements are to good homes and to good parents who, under an Australian way of life, give the children the fulfilment that they seek in being part of a new family. When I have travelled overseas I have seen orphanages and have been struck by the fact that there are children of young age, who have no family around them, who have no family home life and who do not have the supports that we often take for granted. I have often wondered why we do not see greater rates of adoption of overseas children in this country, given the number of parents and couples who would like to have additional children to become part of their family unit.
In one sense, if we embark on this process and we allow liberalisation, to encourage and support parents, then we will see greater richness added to the life of a child who seeks the warmth of a family, the hug of a mother. Certainly, in this country they will be given the opportunity of pathways that will enable them to access levels of education and health care and to access an environment in which they will be safe. However, one of the things that we need to seriously consider is the enculturation factor, that we will be taking children from an environment in which their predominant culture is from a nation from which they come. Whilst we welcome the opportunity to bring them to Australia and for them to become Australian citizens, one thing that we should not forget is that the essence of who they are is embedded in the culture into which they were born. The coding of the life and their learning were often in those first instances with their maternal mother. We think of some of the countries in Africa that have been torn asunder by wars, famines and HIV, and we see children who are left struggling in orphanages. But part of that also means that the safeguards have to consider the way in which we enable them to learn, fundamentally, about their roots and their origins, because that is an important element.
My first experience of children who were adopted were those who were brought out from London and Liverpool and, in Western Australia, were housed at Fairbridge. I was talking one day to a gentleman I was working with. I asked about where he had come from. He said he had been brought out from Liverpool and he had no idea of who his family were. He had been adopted three or four times, but each time was sent back to the institution. In that instance, he felt the loneliness of not having compassion, but he still surged ahead to make a way for himself.
But there is another thing that strikes a chord for me when thinking of the bill. It is not only what was experienced in the stolen generation. Recently I watched the film Philomena, which looked at the way in which a mother went looking for her child and eventually found and tracked the path he had taken into America. But the sad part for her was the way in which she learnt about how he was taken, how his identity was changed and how the authorities had blocked her from finding her son. When she returned to where he had been raised she found out that the sisters in charge of the school had not told her that her son had come back a couple of times looking for her. They made no attempt to connect them. I would hope that in our amendment through the intercountry adoption bill to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 we will also be cognisant that there are times in which we should encourage connectivity between children and their countries of origin.
I heard one of the members opposite, the member for Isaacs, raise the issue of trafficking. That certainly is an underlying concern. I hope that the assurances given to the member for Swan by the Prime Minister prevail with quite some rigor. In one of my visits with an ASEAN country we were talking with authorities with respect to the trafficking of children and also predators looking for children through the context of adopting. I am assured that the measures that we will put in place will ensure protection of children in the future.
I think our stance is a good one, providing fundamental human rights opportunities for children. I think the way in which we enable families who want to adopt children is strengthened by this amendment. In the future, I think we will see more and more children whose circumstances are not what we would normally expect being adopted from overseas.
The other element that has to be important is the role of state and territory governments in ensuring that children who come in through adoption are also monitored for a period of time to ensure their successful transition from their home country to Australia and to look at the levels of support and intervention that may be required. We have not always had a good history when we consider some of our child protection agencies. There was a story just recently in our local paper about the abuse of a child. But humanity should prevail very strongly in providing the type of support that is required.
As the Prime Minister said, there are too many children who have no parents or no effective parents and deserve a better life, and adoption is a way of providing it. I certainly support any initiative that is taken to ensure that adoptions bring children the opportunities that they need.
I will not linger any longer. I congratulate the minister for the work done in this area. I congratulate those who have been key drivers in ensuring that the Commonwealth government has moved to amend the bill. I look forward to hearing of the happiness and enjoyment from having a child of people within my electorate who I have had dealings with. I know the love and care they can give will now occur through a much easier pathway than others I know have experienced. Let us hope that this is the beginning of a decision that brings an incredible richness not only to families but also to Australian society.
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (20:39): I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this bill today, which is inherently about safeguarding the best interests of children and preserving the integrity of intercountry adoption for all Australians. For many couples across Australia and around the world, adopting a child will be one of the most significant, momentous and joyful decisions of their lives. For many children, being adopted by a caring and loving parent into a stable home will be one of the best moments they will ever experience.
For children who do not have parents to look after them, adoption provides for a second chance at a better life where they are loved and looked after in a nurturing and secure household. For this reason, I believe this bill should be supported by both sides of parliament.
Australians are giving and charitable by nature . It is part of our egalitarian ethos. Australia is a country where individuals are selfless with boundless love to give to others, where parents dream of giving each and every child the best possible start in life.
The reality is many Australians dream of adopting a child, whether as first-time parents or to add to their existing family, and they would want nothing more than a seamless efficient process that is in the paramount best interest of the child.
Unfortunately, this journey can be challenging, difficult and lengthy. Despite the fact that adoption allows for the mutual needs of the child and parents to be addressed, the bureaucracy, lengthy waiting times and red tape surrounding adoption makes for a heartbreaking experience, despite the joint benefits for all parties involved.
The coalition encourages parents who are willing and able to adopt to be able to do so with ease, particularly when it is in the best interests of the child. After all, adoption is about giving children a better life. The coalition believes that the role of government is to enable and better facilitate this process so that parents wishing to adopt children from overseas can do so without the unnecessary red tape burden and lengthy waiting times.
Bureaucracy with excessive red tape becomes the ultimate obstacle in children being adopted within a reasonable time frame. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments
(1) Title, page 1 (line 1), before "establish the Asset Recycling Fund", insert "encourage privatisation and".
(2) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), omit "Asset Recycling Fund", substitute "Encouraging Privatisation (Asset Recycling Fund)".
(3) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9), omit "1 July 2014", substitute "the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent".
(4) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 30 and 31), omit "Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997", substitute "Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013".
(5) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 16 to 18), omit the definition of Education Investment Fund.
(6) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 19 to 21), omit the definition of Education Investment Fund Special Account.
(7) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 24 and 25), omit "Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997", substitute "Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013".
(8) Clause 8, page 9 (line 1), omit "appropriate", substitute "permissible".
(9) Clause 8, page 9 (line 3), omit "powers", substitute "power".
(10) Clause 12, page 11 (lines 10 to 12), omit "Special Account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997", substitute "special account for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013".
(11) Clause 12, page 11 (lines 13 to 17), omit "Special Account" (wherever occurring), substitute "special account".
(12) Heading to subclause 13(1), page 12 (line 4), omit the heading.
(13) Clause 13, page 12 (line 5), omit "(1)".
(14) Clause 13, page 12 (line 5), omit "On the commencement of this section", substitute "At the start of the 28th day after this section commences".
(15) Clause 13, page 12 (line 14), omit "subsection 34(1)", substitute "section 34".
(16) Clause 13, page 12 (lines 16 to 28), omit subclause (2).
(17) Clause 16, page 15 (lines 16 and 17), omit the note, substitute:
Note: See section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with special accounts).
(18) Clause 17, page 17 (lines 13 and 14), omit the note, substitute:
Note: See section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with special accounts).
(19) Clause 18, page 17 (after line 23), at the end of subclause (1), add:
Note: See also section 21A.
(20) Clause 18, page 18 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Minister who recommended the specification of the grant (see section 19)", substitute "Infrastructure Minister".
(21) Clause 19, page 18 (lines 7 to 16), omit the clause, substitute:
19 Recommendations about grants payments
(1) The Finance Minister must not make a direction under subsection 18(1) in relation to a grant for an infrastructure project unless the Infrastructure Minister has recommended that a direction be made.
(2) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant for an infrastructure project if:
(a) capital expenditure on the project is $100 million or more; and
(b) Infrastructure Australia has not done both of the following:
(i) given the Minister an evaluation of the project (see subsection (3));
(ii) advised that there are likely to be productivity gains from the project.
(3) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of an infrastructure project mentioned in subsection (2) must:
(a) contain a cost benefit analysis of the project, including an estimate of the productivity gains from the project; and
(b) set out any other matter that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the project.
(4) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to a grant for an infrastructure project if:
(a) the grant is for expenditure incurred under the National Partnership Agreement on Asset Recycling; and
(b) the grant does not relate to a transaction that the Treasurer has approved by legislative instrument.
(5) An approval under paragraph (4)(b) must specify the State-owned assets, or the parts of State-owned assets, to the sale of which the transaction relates.
(22) Clause 21, page 19 (line 22), at the end of subclause (2), add "The State or Territory must comply with any such terms and conditions.".
(23) Page 19 (after line 24), at the end of Subdivision B, add:
21A Cost benefit analyses to be made public
If a direction is made under subsection 18(1) in relation to a grant for an infrastructure project, the Infrastructure Minister must:
(a) table in each House of the Parliament, within 14 sitting days of that House after the direction is made, a copy of the evaluation by Infrastructure Australia provided to the Minister under section 19; and
(b) within 14 days of the direction being made, ensure that the following information about the project is made available on the Infrastructure Department's website:
(i) a description of the project;
(ii) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed.
(24) Clause 22, page 20 (lines 2 and 3), omit "Special Account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997", substitute "special account for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013".
(25) Clause 22, page 20 (lines 4 to 8), omit "Special Account" (wherever occurring), substitute "special account".
(26) Clause 23, page 20 (lines 14 and 15), omit the note, substitute:
Note: See section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with special accounts).
(27) Clause 24, page 20 (after line 26), at the end of subclause (1), add:
Note: See also section 28A.
(28) Clause 25, page 21 (lines 4 to 7), omit the clause, substitute:
25 Recommendations about payments
(1) The Finance Minister must not make a direction under subsection 24(1) for the purposes of making infrastructure payments for an infrastructure project unless the Infrastructure Minister has recommended that a direction be made.
(2) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to infrastructure payments for an infrastructure project if:
(a) capital expenditure on the project is $100 million or more; and
(b) Infrastructure Australia has not done both of the following:
(i) given the Minister an evaluation of the project (see subsection (3)); and
(ii) advised that there are likely to be productivity gains from the project.
(3) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of an infrastructure project mentioned in subsection (2) must:
(a) contain a cost benefit analysis of the project, including an estimate of the productivity gains from the project; and
(b) set out any other matter that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the project.
(4) The Infrastructure Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to infrastructure payments for an infrastructure project if:
(a) the payments are for expenditure incurred under the National Partnership Agreement on Asset Recycling; and
(b) the payments do not relate to a transaction that the Treasurer has approved by legislative instrument.
(5) An approval under paragraph (4)(b) must specify the State-owned assets, or the parts of State-owned assets, to the sale of which the transaction relates.
(29) Clause 27, page 22 (line 12), at the end of subclause (2), add "The person must comply with any such terms and conditions.".
(30) Clause 28, page 22 (line 26), at the end of subclause (2), add "The person must comply with any such terms and conditions.".
(31) Page 22 (after line 28), at the end of Subdivision C, add:
28A Cost benefit analyses to be made public
If a direction is made under subsection 24(1) for the purposes of making infrastructure payments for an infrastructure project, the Infrastructure Minister must:
(a) table in each House of the Parliament, within 14 sitting days of that House after the direction is made, a copy of the evaluation by Infrastructure Australia provided to the Minister under section 25; and
(b) within 14 days of the direction being made, ensure that the following information about the project is made available on the Infrastructure Department's website:
(i) a description of the project;
(ii) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed.
(32) Page 23 (after line 10), after Division 4, insert:
Division 4A—State-owned essential services
29A State-owned essential services
A grant or payment mentioned in this Part must not relate to a transaction that relates to the sale of State-owned assets that provide essential services.
(33) Heading to subclause 34(1), page 26 (line 19), omit the heading.
(34) Clause 34, page 26 (line 21), omit "subsection 13(1)", substitute "section 13".
(35) Clause 34, page 26 (line 23), omit "On the day that this section commences", substitute "On the 28th day after this section commences".
(36) Clause 34, page 26 (line 26), omit "subsection 13(1)", substitute "section 13".
(37) Clause 34, page 27 (lines 10 to 31), omit subclauses (4) to (6).
(38) Clause 35, page 28 (lines 17 and 18), omit "Section 39 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997", substitute "Section 58 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with investment by the Commonwealth)".
(39) Clause 47, page 36 (lines 26 to 28), omit the clause.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:44): I move:
That amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7 to 11, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24 to 26, 29, 30, 35, 38 and 39 be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is twofold: that the House agree to the first proposal of agreement; the second is that the House agree to the proposal of disagreement The question is that the first proposal be agreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (20:45): It is extraordinary that the government is moving that Senate amendments (3), (4), (7) to (11), (14), (17), (18), (22), (24) to (26), (29), (30), (35), (38) and (39) be agreed to. It is extraordinary because they are government amendments. There are 18 amendments to its own legislation. Why can't they just get it right when they write the legislation in the first place? We will be supporting the proposition of these amendments, as we will be supporting all the amendments that have been carried in the Senate and, indeed, insisting on them, because we believe this was very much flawed legislation. If you want evidence that it was flawed legislation, it is that essentially the whole parameter of this proposal, which came through the budget, was to take money that was already in the budget, in the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund, to call it something else—the Asset Recycling Fund, because that is far more polite than calling it 'privatisation encouragement'—and then to pretend that somehow this was something new.
The other big difference is that, with the BAF, the Building Australia Fund, and the Education Investment Fund, there were proper provisions to make sure that taxpayers' money was put to good use. What this government wants to do is to have the privatisation of assets being seen automatically as a good thing. The fact is that—as even the Productivity Commission showed this week in its report that was very critical of this proposal by the government—it is aimed at encouraging a fire sale of assets, without regard to the merit. We in the Labor Party do not regard privatisation in itself as being automatically good or bad. We believe that there needs to be a proper analysis of whether it is in the public interest and, by doing so, doing it in the long term. As the Productivity Commission pointed out, you can make the books look better in the short term but if you privatise an asset that produces a return to government that can then be invested in terms of state government—back into education, back into health and back in services—then often you cut your nose off in spite of your face. I take the example of what is occurring at the moment with some of the ports that have been privatised around the country that are leading to a massive escalation in costs. You will not hear that from those opposite. They talk a lot about costs to consumers. Well, there has been in some cases a 400 per cent increase in fees from privatised ports. They were privatised in order to seek a maximum return. There was inappropriate regulation, so there was no consumer protection placed in there; therefore, you have an increase in cost that is eventually passed on. This came up at meetings with bodies and groups such as the Australian Logistics Council and Asciano in the last week. They are examples of what is occurring.
We support a range of amendments that will consequentially be dealt with by the next motion to be moved by the parliamentary secretary. We support these 18 amendments, as we did in the Senate. But it does show how tardy this government has been. Here we are, in July, and it is one of the few budget bills from May. There are still bills relating to the budget that have not even been introduced into the parliament. We will support these 18 amendments, but we take the opportunity to point out that it just shows how chaotic and hopeless this government is when it has to move 18 amendments to its own legislation.
Question agreed to.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (20:49): I move:
That the amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 to 21, 23, 27, 28, 31 to 34, 36 and 37 be disagreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (20:50): What a chaotic government this is! I thought they would be pretty bad. We knew that they had a plan to get into government but not a plan to govern. To have a proposition now whereby the Senate, having scrutinised this legislation, has carried 39 amendments to this legislation is quite extraordinary. The Australian Labor Party does not control the Senate; we have 25 senators. The Senate, with its diverse range of senators who have been elected by the Australian people, has voted for all of these amendments, and we support them in that. We have a view that you work with the parliament that the Australian people elect. We did that during the last term of office. We see such arrogance from those opposite. Normally they wait till the Senate has dealt with measures and then they come and say, 'Can we have a discussion?' If they had talked to us about the policy principles here, they would have received a hearing and some good advice.
The amendments that the government is rejecting here do a number of things. The first is: they keep the Education Investment Fund separate to this asset recycling fund. Why? Because the only thing that is actually being recycled in this legislation is money that was already allocated in the budget to the Education Investment Fund and the Building Australia Fund. So why is $3.5 billion that was there as support for educational institutions and research institutions being put into a so-called asset recycling fund without any scrutiny around it? The government's position is: 'Sell whatever you like. Sell hospitals, sell schools, sell water—whatever you like—and you'll get a one-off top up for it.' Common sense tells you that that is not a sensible way to go.
The amendments would also empower the Parliament of Australia to scrutinise the assets that will be privatised by requiring the government to table a disallowable instrument for each privatisation and reinvestment transaction. Surely, if you have confidence in your arguments then you are not frightened of parliamentary scrutiny. In the Senate, we put the parliamentary scrutiny into this legislation. They want to take it out again by opposing these amendments.
The amendments would further ensure that new projects valued at over $100 million receiving the incentive payment are assessed by Infrastructure Australia with a published cost-benefit analysis. What is the problem with that? It is actually the coalition policy that they took to the election. We know that they have put $1.5 billion to the East West Link project in Melbourne without a cost-benefit analysis, and they have paid it up front. They paid $1.5 billion last month before a cost-benefit analysis had been published and before there was even a hole in the ground, let alone a road. They said they were going to pay on milestones once construction had actually occurred. This is an idea that has not come to anything at this point, yet they want to put it forward.
I have a view that the M4 needs to be continued to take people to the city and the M5 needs to take goods to the port. The WestConnex project, at the moment, does not do either of those things, and there is chaos. I will seek leave to table two letters here to a constituent of mine, Mr Vince Crow of Haberfield. They are both dated 26 June from WestConnex. One says: 'What does this mean for my property? Your property is still required to construct the M4 East.' That is the letter that he got, signed by the senior project manager. On the same day, he received a letter that says: 'What does this mean for your property? The WestConnex Delivery Authority has determined that your individual unit, Lot 4'—and then his address is shown—'is not directly impacted and will not need to be acquired by the New South Wales government.'
This is what happens when you do bad planning. This is what happens when you give $2 billion to the New South Wales government as a loan before you have a cost-benefit analysis. (Extension of time granted) On the same day, these two letters were received from the same person, signed and dated 26 June 2014, one telling my constituent that they were going to buy his home, the second saying, 'We don't need to buy your home.' This is what happens when you do not know where our road is going—except to a traffic jam. This is why you do proper planning. This is why you get it right. This is why we moved the amendments.
There is a nursing home on Parramatta Road at Ashfield that was told it was going to be acquired. They did not put in a sprinkler system because they were told that people were going to be moving out. This nursing home is still half-full of elderly people and without proper facilities in terms of fire protections because they were told it was going to be shutting down. Yet, under those circumstances, now they have been told they will not need to be acquired. This is what happens when you get planning wrong. This is why we created Infrastructure Australia. This is why we moved these amendments in the Senate.
We also supported amendments in the Senate that ensured that, for states and territories to access the 15 per cent incentive payment, the asset being sold could not be an essential service. Why should we, as a parliament, give a blank cheque to those opposite who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy in terms of keeping the commitments that they made at the election when you look at the implications of the budget on health, education and pensions? Why should we give a blank cheque to say, 'Yes, any privatisation, no problem.' Why should we give that blank cheque for health, hospitals, education, fire and emergency services or water? We will not do that. We have a view that governments have a role in improving people's lives and providing essential services, and it is one of the fundamental differences between the political parties. Those opposite think if government just gets out of the way, the market will sort it out.
A government member interjecting— Hear! Hear!
Mr ALBANESE: That is not our view. 'Hear! Hear!' we hear from those opposite. They do not want the government to provide the fire brigade or the ambulance or the hospitals or their education. Well, mate, if you get sick, do you know where you will end up? In a public hospital. If you get an acute illness, that is where you go. Whether you are a pensioner in my electorate or the late Kerry Packer, if you have a heart problem, you end up being looked after in a public hospital. That is our view, and it is a fundamental difference from those opposite. That is why we supported that amendment.
We have a very clear view about these amendments. I find it extraordinary that those opposite are rejecting these amendments by the Senate. They supported their own 18 amendments, but the other 21 of the 39 amendments that were carried into legislation show just how flawed this legislation was. Our position, to be very clear, is that we will insist on these amendments. We will vote against the motion that has been moved by the parliamentary secretary, and if it goes back to the Senate we will continue to insist that we will not support legislation which is flawed. The government itself has conceded that it is flawed by its own 18 amendments.
I acknowledge, in conclusion, the support of our friends on the crossbench in the Senate, who sat down and were prepared to have discussions on the basis of reason. Many of the amendments that are being rejected were moved by crossbench members as well as by Labor senators. What we did was make sure that the legislation was improved and I call upon the House to reject the proposition that has been moved by the parliamentary secretary. This is deeply flawed legislation. As a result of the Senate amendments, it has been improved and it should be supported on that basis. I seek leave to table the letters regarding WestConnex to 26 June.
Leave not granted.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (21:01): There is a reason why at this late hour there are only a few glum-looking coalition members sitting in here. It is because they have been caught out by the Senate. I cannot count the number of times that I have sat in this chamber and listened to members on the government benches say, 'You should not put a dollar into a public project without a cost-benefit analysis'. I sat here listening to members of the government say: 'The NBN should not go ahead because there has been no cost-benefit analysis. How could you possibly put any kind of money into infrastructure without a cost-benefit analysis?' Today they have been held to account on that claim, and they are not willing to live up to it.
Anyone who lives in Melbourne can tell you the story of the East West Link and what is happening with the east-west link. Before the Victorian government had even completed its own business case, this Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, came to Melbourne and said, 'We are going to give $1½ billion, taken from the foreign aid budget, and put it into an expensive tollway that will destroy communities and turn inner Melbourne into a rat's nest of on and off ramps without having even done a cost-benefit analysis'. He then went on to say: 'We’ll find even more money. And not only will we find more money, we'll actually give it to the Victorian government before contracts have even been signed and before we've even done a cost-benefit analysis.' Why? Why were they so scared to even require the cost-benefit analysis be done for this project? What we found out through Senate estimates, after we asked this government to come clean and be transparent—something this government is appalling at—is this: for every dollar of public money that is proposed to be put into the East West Link, you will only get 80c back. It will lose money for taxpayers.
That is why in the Senate we supported the amendments that are now here before the House that hold this government simply to their own standards that they have been proselytising to us for years and years and years—that is, if you are going to build a significant piece of public infrastructure, do a cost-benefit analysis first. What any sensible cost-benefit analysis of the East West Link in Melbourne will tell you about the billions of dollars they are ripping from here and there to put into it—at the expense of public transport—is that it will only make congestion in Melbourne worse. Any sensible analysis will tell you that, which is why they are hiding from it—but they have been caught out.
And they have been caught out on something else too. We very proudly moved in the Senate an amendment that said none of this bribery, this toll road slush fund, can be used to get rid of essential services in a state government. That is a very, very simple point, something that anyone should be able to appreciate. When it comes to hospitals, when it comes to water, when it comes to those things that people say are a public good and therefore should be in public hands, the government should not be able to use an unaccountable slush fund to bribe states to sell those things off. Part of the reason we did that is that we believe, in principle, that public goods should remain in public hands. The other thing to remember is that this comes at the same time as this government is taking $80 billion away from state governments for education and health. They are taking away from state governments with one hand and then saying with the other, 'Why don't you go and sell off some of your essential services and maybe we will give you a bit of cash to do it.' Worse than that, they are saying, 'We will put a billion-odd into the bank account of the Victorian government until the state election has concluded at the end of this year, without even requiring a cost-benefit analysis, without contracts even being signed and without even any milestone having been reached.'
When the government comes here today and says, 'Don't support these amendments', they are refusing to be held to their own simple standards of requiring that the ruler be run over any significant project before Commonwealth investment goes into it. When the government tells the parliament, 'No, don't require these amendments', they are very clearly saying, 'We refuse to be held to our own standards.'
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (21:06): Those listening to this debate would think there was no cost-benefit analysis, given the contribution from the opposition and from the Greens. This is not the case of course. There is no hypocrisy from the government; there is consistency.
The amendments passed by the Senate require cost-benefit analyses and evaluations performed by Infrastructure Australia to be tabled in parliament and made available to the public. The amendments add red tape with no additional benefit. The coalition has already committed to Infrastructure Australia undertaking a cost-benefit assessment for our major investment decisions that receive Commonwealth funding of over $100 million. State governments will undertake their own cost-benefit assessments as part of decision-making processes to privatise assets and reinvest in new infrastructure. These are rightly matters for the states. It makes no sense to duplicate cost-benefit assessment processes.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:07): The difference between the government's rhetoric and actions cannot be left unchallenged. It is true that their policy says that they will have proper assessments for projects above $100 million. We put it in the bill and the government are voting against it. Why? Because they do not do it in practice. There has been a $1.5 billion advance payment for the East West Link in Melbourne. It did not receive a proper cost-benefit analysis. There has been a $2 billion loan given to WestConnex in Sydney at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars that did not receive a cost-benefit analysis.
I put on the record that I support extending the M4 to take people to the city and freight to the port. At the moment, the plan does neither. A constituent of mine in Haberfield received two letters on the same day—one saying, 'We are going to purchase your property' and the other saying, 'We are not going to purchase your property.' That shows how absurd it is. That shows that the government does not even know where the road is going—let alone having done a cost-benefit analysis. We are seeking to address that with this amendment.
I note that another amendment carried by the Senate was to rename the bill—Encouraging Privatisation (Asset Recycling Fund) Bill 2014. Why would you not have an appropriate name? I note again that tonight the parliamentary secretary has not mentioned that this is about privatisation and selling things off, but that is the fundamental reason for doing this. They are saying, 'If you sell things off, it is a good thing in and of itself.' We, on this side, do not think that is the case. We think each case should be examined on its merits.
We also know that the government's rhetoric does not match what it is actually doing. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said there would be 'cranes in the sky' within 12 months of his election. The Perth project came out of thin air and the WA government itself says that it has not provided any funding and that the project has not had any proper analysis. There are other projects which are new—which are very few—all of which are funded from taking money that was already allocated in the budget for projects that had proper cost benefit-analysis around them such as the M80 in Victoria, the Melbourne Metro and the Cross River Rail project. What we sought to do was take the politics out of infrastructure investment by creating Infrastructure Australia and listening to what its recommendations were—and we funded all 15 priority projects that were recommended. Those opposite are turning the clock backwards. They just want to be able to fund things on the back of an envelope or a light beer shandy coaster when the Prime Minister is travelling around the country. That is not good enough.
The SPEAKER (21:15): The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
The House divided. [21:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (21:20): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to amendments of the Senate: (1), (2), (5), (6), (12), (13), (15), (16), (19) to (21), (23), (27), (28), (31) to (34), (36), (37) and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate Amendments—
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), omit "Asset Recycling Fund", substitute "Encouraging Privatisation (Asset Recycling Fund)".
(2) Entire bill: Omit "Asset Recycling Fund Act 2014" (wherever occurring), substitute "Encouraging Privatisation (Asset Recycling Fund) Act 2014".
The SPEAKER (21:22): I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (21:22): I move:
That the amendments be disagreed to.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:22): We support the Senate amendments and oppose the motion of the government. The fact is that the government has a choice, which is to understand that in the Australian system we have two houses of parliament. These Senate amendments have been carried, because they are sensible amendments and they should be supported.
The SPEAKER (21:23): The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
The House divided. [21:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (21:25): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 21:26 to 11:03
Friday, 18 Ju ly 20 14
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Malaysian Airliner Flight MH17
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (11:02): I crave the indulgence of the parliament to make a statement about some very significant events that have happened overnight. This is a grim day for our country and it is a grim day for the world. Malaysian Airlines, MH17, has been shot down over Eastern Ukraine, it seems, by Russian-backed rebels. Two hundred and ninety-five people have been killed. At least 27 Australians have been killed.
Our hearts go out to the families of all the dead. Our thoughts and prayers are especially with the families of the Australian dead. We cannot restore them to life but we can and will do everything to support them in this sad and bitter time, because that is the Australian way. We help in times of trouble.
A Department of Foreign Affairs team is preparing to leave for Kiev. Next of kin and families will be notified as soon as possible. They will be offered counselling and assistance, and bodies will be repatriated to Australia as quickly as possible.
We owe it as well to the families of the dead to find out exactly what has happened and exactly who is responsible.
As things stand, this looks less like an accident than a crime. I want to repeat this: as things stand, this looks less like an accident than a crime. If so, the perpetrators must be brought to justice. So I can inform the House that, as quickly as possible, Australia will be working at the United Nations Security Council for a binding resolution calling for a full and impartial investigation with full access to the site, with full access to the debris, with full access to the black box and with full access to all individuals who might be in a position to shed light on this terrible event. I can also inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will shortly summons the Russian ambassador to seek a categorical assurance from the ambassador that the Russian government will fully cooperate in this investigation. We owe it to the dead and to their families, we owe it to the peace and stability of the wider world, to establish the facts, and we will do all we humanly can to bring that about.
Let me conclude with this: the bullying of small countries by big ones, the trampling of justice and decency in the pursuit of national aggrandisement, and reckless indifference to human life should have no place in our world.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (11:06): I rise to support the words of the Prime Minister this morning, and I thank him for the conversations we have had this morning. This news that we woke up to this morning is worse than shocking; it is debilitating and bewildering, with bewildering losses. Travelling at six miles height, this is unimaginable. This is a violation of the rules of civilisation. It is a tyrannical, wild act. And I appreciate that when I rang the Prime Minister this morning he was most forthcoming and, in a time when international events require one to put aside partisan issues, I greatly appreciate it. I acknowledge too foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and my colleague Tanya Plibersek, who have also been working on this.
As the parliament convenes right now and throughout the day, there will be anxious families having their worst fears confirmed. Three kilometres from the town of Grabovo, near the Russian-Ukrainian border, on a patch of disputed ground currently controlled by separatist terrorists lies the scattered ruin of MH17. Two hundred and ninety-eight innocent people have lost their lives in sudden, unspeakable circumstances. When I spoke to the Ukrainian Charge D'affaires to Australia, he said he believed a surface-to-air missile had shot down the plane. But most tragically amongst this terrible news, there are at least 27 Australians who have been murdered: mothers and fathers; brothers and sisters; neighbours, colleagues, classmates and teammates. There are Australians who would have planned to be at the airport tomorrow night to collect friends and family, amongst them some of the world's leading AIDS experts. The cost of this will be felt in many parts of the world. We grieve for all of them.
This does reach beyond Australian shores. I spoke this morning with the ambassador from the Netherlands and conveyed my sympathies for her country's terrible losses. One hundred and fifty-four Dutch nationals were on this flight, including, as I mentioned, world-renowned researchers and the former president of the International AIDS Society Dr Joep Lange. This flight is one of the most popular flights between Amsterdam and Melbourne and Sydney, via Kuala Lumpur. Undoubtedly many of the Dutch nationals on this plane were coming to visit friends and possibly Australian family in Australia. In Afghanistan, Australia and the Netherlands stood united in their courage for the service of peace; today our countries are embraced in a shared grief.
I have also spoken with the Malaysian High Commissioner to Australia, whose country is reeling from this sudden blow. It is truly a tragic day in a tragic year for Malaysia. For the people of Ukraine, this is another terrible chapter in a conflict that has already come at a most terrible human cost.
In Australia, we are immune and protected from much of the conflict in the world, and for that we should be thankful, but on recent estimates more than 500 people have already died—civilians and Ukrainian soldiers—in the conflict in the Donbas region in the last weeks and months. This horrific situation can seem far removed from our daily lives, but there is no question that the conflict in this disputed part of the Ukraine has now reached Australia. The missile that brought down MH17 and the missiles that have claimed numerous Ukrainian aircraft could not possibly be made by the people who possibly fired them. These separatist terrorists are obtaining these instruments of murder from elsewhere. This must be investigated and it must be stopped. The Ukrainian Charge d'Affaires informed me this morning that they will be inviting experts from around the world to assist with investigating this matter. Labor most certainly supports the comments of the Prime Minister with regard to the United Nations Security Council. And Labor supports the chorus internationally calling for a full, independent, international investigation of this tragedy.
This is a time for national unity. As the Prime Minister discussed with me this morning, it is a time for temperate responses, cool heads and measured action. That is, indeed, the strongest possible response that Australians expect from us, but it also demands, as I believe the Prime Minister was saying, strong resolve. I say this to the Prime Minister today: Labor understands the complexity and the difficulty of the decisions that you will face. We understand that, as people are working through the pain and the grief, there will be many understandable calls for all sorts of action. I say that Labor is prepared to support the government and will cooperate with the Prime Minister and the government on what is the right next step to be taken in this most bewildering and shocking event. Whether or not that involves anything to do with the G20, we say to the government: we will work with your measured approach.
More generally, in relation to the situation in the Ukraine, Russia carries a significant and central responsibility in helping manage this crisis and resolving the dispute peacefully. We will support the government in vigorously pursuing and asserting this position in our position at the United Nations Security Council and in representations to the Russian government.
Today the parliament mourns the loss of all on MH17. We pay tribute to their memory. We are conscious that there are members of our Australian community who do not yet know what has happened to people they love. And we renew our commitment to a safe and more peaceful world.
The SPEAKER: Normally, we only hear from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Without creating a precedent, this morning I am going to give the call to the member for Melbourne to make a short statement.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:13): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate it. Melbourne has been getting ready for some time for the AIDS 2014 conference. This weekend the city was looking forward to welcoming a number of people home and also welcoming a number of distinguished international guests and researchers. Thousands of lives are going to be touched by this tragedy. It is a reminder that any of us in this parliament or in this country could have been on that plane. As the member for Melbourne and on behalf of the Greens, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: As Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed with the Greens. I am to address that conference on Monday and I know there will be many empty spots. I think that what we are doing is mourning with all the world and all who have been lost. We want to see justice but in a measured way. I would ask everybody, both in the gallery and the chamber, to stand as a mark of respect.
Honourable members and those in the gallery having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House and those in the gallery.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (11:16): The Manager of Opposition Business in the House and I have communicated this morning and have agreed that the House will be suspended, except for essential items of business returning from the Senate, as a mark of respect to those who have lost their lives in today's tragedy.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:15): Just for the clarification of members, I indicate that, for this suspension, it is my understanding that we are expecting transmission relatively soon. So it is important for people to remain within the building at the moment to await the ringing of the bells. We are expecting a longer break when we wait for the message on the Qantas bill. That is for the information of members.
The SPEAKER: The House will now suspend and resume at the ringing of the bells for five minutes. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and repeat that it would be good if people could stay in close proximity so that they will hear the ringing of the bells at a time when we receive a message from the Senate.
Sitting suspended from 11:16 to 11:35
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2]
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate 's a mendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column 1), omit "9", substitute "6".
(2) Schedule 7, page 37 (line 1) to page 39 (line 3), omit the Schedule.
(3) Schedule 8, page 40 (line 1) to page 45 (line 9), omit the Schedule.
(4) Schedule 9, page 46 (line 1) to page 49 (line 24), omit the Schedule.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:36): I move:
That the amendments be disagreed to.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:36): It will be the relevant shadow minister who speaks on behalf of the opposition on this issue, but for the information of members I have had a conversation with the Leader of the House and with the crossbench. We will be indicating our position on this and voting on the voices only. Given the nature of the day, we have made a judgement call that it is not a day for formal divisions.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (11:36): First of all, Madam Speaker, I join with you, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to offer my condolences to all of those affected by the terrible events overnight, relating to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. All of us are of course reeling from this tragedy. Nevertheless, it is my job to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2]. This is the third time that this bill has been before the House. The reasons for Labor rejecting the bill a third time have not changed. I will go through the reasons very briefly. One would have to say that the campaign against the tax has been full of contradictions. On the one hand, there are claims that they tax is a burden on Australian business. On the other hand, there are claims that it does not raise enough revenue. It cannot be both. Labor believes that minerals belong to the people and the benefit of the minerals in Australia should be shared.
This bill contains a number of other measures. It contains many cuts to payments received by ordinary families and low-income Australians. That is another reason why Labor has moved amendments and will oppose this bill. The schoolkids bonus is a proud Labor initiative which supports low-and middle-income families with the cost of their child's education. Labor introduced the schoolkids bonus because we care about everyday families, and we will do everything we can to protect it. When Labor introduced the schoolkids bonus it was done by replacing the education tax refund. The education tax refund was designed in 2008-09. We knew then that, despite the existence of the education tax refund, families were still struggling to meet the up-front costs associated with sending their children to school. Many could not find up-front the money to buy much-needed educational equipment, and many were not claiming the rebate at all. Labor made it easy for these families to get the support they need with the schoolkids bonus, redesigned as a direct payment. If this legislation was to be passed, Australian families would just last week have received the last schoolkids bonus. Labor will do everything we possibly can to make sure that that schoolkids bonus payment was not their last.
In addition to abolishing the schoolkids bonus, the government is trying to abolish another of Labor's payments, the income support bonus. This is a tax-free, indexed, non-means-tested payment that is paid twice a year to some of our most vulnerable citizens—people on Austudy, Newstart, ABSTUDY, Youth Allowance and a number of other social security payments. This income support bonus was intended to provide additional support to those groups to manage unanticipated costs—things like medical bills, urgent car repairs and so on.
This is much needed support, especially for people who are unemployed or very-low-income earners. The income support bonus has already provided extra cash for more than one million low-income Australians. This legislation seeks to take it away.
Last night in the Senate, every single non-government member voted to retain the low income superannuation contribution. Only rarely is the Senate so united. The Senate sent a clear message that they want this measure to stay. And stay it should, because it is helping some of Australia's lowest-income workers to save for their retirement. The low income superannuation contribution provides up to $500 for people earning less than $37,000 a year—truly our lowest paid workers. Its abolition will mean an increase in superannuation taxes on one in three of Australia's lowest paid workers, nearly three-quarters of whom are women.
So Labor's amendments seek to protect the measures in this bill that provide important support to low-income Australians. Labor cannot support the bill and, as the Leader of the Opposition Business has indicated, that will be our position. We will not formally divide on the motion.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:41): The government rejects the amendments that have been put forward. We have taken the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax to two elections. As amended, if accepted, the bill would see the inclusion of some $9.6 billion of additional expenditure. So the government's position is that, in relation to the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus, having taken these to the election, the government disagrees with all the amendments that were moved. I will confine my comments to that.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:42): On behalf of the Greens, as we have outlined in the Senate during this debate, we do not support the repeal of the mining tax. If there is a problem with the mining tax not raising enough money, then let's increase it. And we do not support the repeal of the measures associated with the mining tax. Therefore we will not be supporting the government's motion.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:42): I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the Senate amendments and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The House will again suspend this sitting and will resume at the ringing of the bells for five minutes. We are awaiting more legislation and messages from the Senate.
Sitting suspended from 1 1 : 44 to 14:35
BILLS
Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate Amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 5), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 1—Amendments
Qantas Sale Act 1992
1 Paragraphs 7(1)(aa) and (b)
Repeal the paragraphs.
2 Paragraph 7(1)(d)
Omit ", (b)".
(3) Schedule 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 16), omit the Schedule.
The SPEAKER: I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (14:35): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:36): I rise to speak in support of the amendments to the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014. Obviously, today, I do so against the backdrop of this terrible tragedy. The bewildering news of the loss of life envelops not just our parliament but our world. I know that Australians are still adjusting to this wild and tyrannical act. Our hearts, again, go out to the families and friends of these people. No words really capture the depth of our sorrow. Nothing we can say can lighten the burden of people's grief.
Today is not a day for rancour and adversarial statement. Today is not the day for division or some of the heated clashes we have seen in this parliament when it comes to the future of Qantas, our national carrier. Today is the day to recognise that despite our differences—despite the different values we hold—this parliament does have the capacity to build consensus on the challenges facing our country, our future and our national interest.
There is no doubt that the future of Qantas is one of those big, important issues which go towards the future of our nation. The Qantas story is a remarkable story. It is remarkable in itself, but even more remarkable in how it is entwined with Australia's national story. In 1920 two World War I veterans, Paul McGinness and Hudson Fysh, their aircraft mechanic Arthur Baird and business partner Fergus McMaster, started Qantas in Longreach, Queensland.
Their first fleet consisted of two biplanes—one of which, I understand, was purchased for the princely sum of £450 from a local stockman. They had two planes and one dream—the dream to start Australia's first air service. And the very next year, with their first mail flight from Charleville to Cloncurry in Queensland, the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services, Qantas was born—the only word starting with Q not followed by the letter 'u'.
Ninety-four years on, there are few things more Australian than the flying kangaroo. Those two planes are now a fleet of 140 aircraft. Those four Qantas employees now number around 30,000—30,000 highly skilled and dedicated men and women who repair and maintain aircraft, look after thousands of passengers and keep the planes running on time. For Australians, Qantas is more than just an airline. It is an icon. It is Australia.
That is why I am pleased that the government has concurred with the opposition's proposals to keep Qantas majority Australian owned. I understand that this was a debate, and I understand that there has been compromise. I also place on record the contribution of my shadow spokesperson, the member for Grayndler, in helping to drive this compromise. Simply, though, our country could not afford to see our national carrier go overseas. We do not believe that our nation can afford to lose these thousands of skilled jobs overseas.
The bill we considered today ensures some important things. Qantas must be majority Australian owned. The Qantas head office will always be located in Australia. Two-thirds of the Qantas board will remain Australian. The bulk of Qantas facilities and services must remain located in Australia. The maintenance operations and aircraft-housing facilities remain in Australia. Critically, I believe that Labor's amendments, which have been accepted by the government, will ensure that Qantas jobs will be kept in Australia
There will be sensible changes to investment rules in the act—removing the 25 per cent ownership cap on a single foreign investor and the 35 per cent share ownership cap on foreign airlines. This will help Qantas, critically, access new sources of investment—investment than can be used to purchase new planes for its fleet or to open routes into new profitable markets.
On a day like no other in the parliament, I am proud that on this issue the parliament has been able to reach a consensus, a compromise. I understand that what we vote on is not everything that everyone wanted, but there is more here that we agree upon than disagree upon. We can be proud that members of parliament and senators on both sides of the debate have been able to come to this accord. We can be proud that when it matters, on a significant issue like the important debate about the future of our aviation industry and our national carrier, on balance our parliament has the sense to agree to fair and reasonable changes such as this we vote on. This is how the big questions get answered. This is how key problems should be solved—Labor, Liberal and National working in good faith, working together, on matters of national importance.
Today, with this vote, we guarantee that Qantas has a bright future as well as a proud past. By our actions we are ensuring that Australia's flying kangaroo will continue to bound across the skies of the world for generations to come. Long may it be so. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:41): The Greens support the amendments that have been made in the Senate. We are disappointed that changes have been made in respect of ownership rules. This will make it much easier for an overseas airline or an overseas government to take an effective controlling stake in Qantas. Nonetheless, we support the changes that have been made which will see local jobs remain here.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:41): The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 is a key part of the government's commitment to ensure the Australian aviation industry can grow in an environment that is safe, fair, competitive and productive. Australians want a strong and competitive Qantas, and the coalition wants Qantas to remain a profitable Australian company. We want Qantas to be as successful as it possibly can be in domestic and international markets, which is why the government had sought to repeal part 3 of the Qantas Sale Act 1992 which places various restrictions on Qantas's ownership and governance arrangements that do not apply to its competitors. The government maintains that the best way to assist Qantas in its present difficulties is to remove part 3 in its entirety and, in doing so, level the playing field by ensuring the same investment and operational rules apply to all airlines operating in Australia.
The constraints on Qantas's ability to compete and engage in the marketplace place Qantas at a disadvantage. However, it was clear that the Senate would not accept the bill in its original form, and the government determined that the best course of action in the current circumstances would be to accept the opposition's amendments. These amendments remove only the 25 per cent restriction on individual foreign share ownership and the maximum 35 per cent total ownership by foreign airlines. Foreign investment will still be subject to approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board.
The bill, as amended, will go some way to ease the restrictive investment provisions that apply solely to Qantas. Qantas will still operate under restrictions that do not apply to any other Australian airline but will have greater capacity to attract new investment. Qantas has said that, while removing part 3 was their preferred outcome, they support the amended bill as a step in the right direction.
This week the government has repealed the carbon tax, which had a significant impact on Australian airlines. The carbon tax represents a $114 million cost to Qantas in 2013-14 alone. Today the government will remove the foreign investment sub-limits that uniquely apply to Qantas under the Qantas Sale Act to allow Qantas greater flexibility. The fundamental job of government is to ensure our economy is strong as possible. That means getting the fundamentals right. It means getting taxes down, red tape down and productivity up. Whilst the amended bill is not the government's ideal solution to assist Qantas, it is progress towards this goal. I thank all members and senators for their contribution to this debate.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:44): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
I thank the members of the House for their forbearance in remaining in Canberra in the parliament on Friday to suit the Senate. I wish them a safe six-week break. I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition today with respect to MH17. I add my condolences to the families of those people who perished on MH17. May God bless them and our country at this very difficult time.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 26 August 2014 at 12 pm.
House ad journed at 14 : 44
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Ms Claydon to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to the United Nations, global extreme poverty has been halved since 1990 but more than 1.2 billion people remain in extreme poverty;
(b) as an economically rich and developed nation, Australia has a responsibility to be a global leader in delivering overseas aid programs and funding;
(c) in 2008, Christian Aid estimated that developing countries lost more than $160 billion (USD) through just two forms of multinational tax evasion—transfer mispricing and false invoicing; and
(d) Micah Challenge:
(i) is a global movement of aid and development agencies, churches, schools, groups and individuals speaking out against poverty and injustice in support of the Millennium Development Goals;
(ii) has identified that Australia, as Chair of the G20, has a unique opportunity to bring tax evasion and corruption to the attention of the world in 2014; and
(iii) urges Australia to take a leading role in tackling tax evasion;
(2) condemns the Government for:
(a) cutting the overseas aid budget; and
(b) its lack of action on multinational tax avoidance; and
(3) urges all Members of Parliament to take an active role in ensuring Australia continues to be a leader in the delivery of overseas aid programs and funding.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 9.30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Holt Electorate: Indian Community
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:30): I rise today to provide an update on the enormous contribution that is made to my electorate and to our country by the Indian community. In Australia there is a rapidly growing Indian community and this is true in my electorate of Holt. According to the 2011 census, approximately 295,000 people living in Australia were born in India and there are about 390,000 people of Indian ancestry. In 2011 those migrating from India were the largest source of permanent migration to Australia, forming 15.7 per cent of the total migration program in 2011-12, whilst according to the 2011 census there were 11,116 people of Indian ancestry residing in my federal electorate of Holt.
We see the contribution that the Indian community make in so many forms, be it in the fields of science, medicine, law—you name it. These people who have come to our country have made an enormous contribution to our country in so many different ways. You see the richness and the vibrancy of their culture and festivals like the Holi festival at the Carrum Downs temple, or the Diwali festival, the festival of lights, which will be held in October this year. I celebrate those events with the community at the Shri Shiva Vishnu Temple in Carrum Downs.
If we are looking at a particular grouping that has made a very, very successful transition from their country to Australia, you would put the Indian community right of top in terms of the contribution they have made. The other thing I would like to point out is not just the fields of science and medicine but the area of small business. There are a number of people I want to mention who have made a contribution in my area. There is Harry Singh from Hampton Park, who is the owner of the India Bazaar International. This company opened 15 years ago in Dandenong and is one of the biggest grocery stores in Melbourne.
Sudesh Singh is the owner of a number of Indian clothing stores in Dandenong in an area called Little India, which includes Little India Fashionz, which specialises in selling saris and other items. There is Megh Singh Yadav from Lynbrook, who established one of the biggest sweet stores in Melbourne. There is Harjap Singh from Narre Warren, who opened Josan Motors in Hallam last year.
They are just some of the people. Each of their stories of coming from different places has now become the Australian story. Each of those small business people I have mentioned have taken the risk of establishing a small business and they are showing the courage, energy and initiative that is required to continue to create employment and employment opportunities in this country. As I said, I have the great privilege of interacting quite frequently with the community. I congratulate them on the wonderful contribution they are they are making to our country.
Lyne Electorate: Surf Life Saving
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (09:33): I rise to publicly acknowledge the contributions and commitment of Surf Life Saving Australia around the nation but, in particular, the Lower North Coast Branch, which held its awards of excellence at the Tuncurry sports club recently. I attended along with members of six clubs from Crowdy Head to Pacific Palms. The New South Wales president, Tony Haven, was also joined by Newcastle Permanent Building Society and guests Leslie Williams and Steve Bromhead, our state MPs.
It was a terrific night featuring presentations on the activities of members engaged in many of their varied roles and responsibilities. Brian Wilcox, the branch president, recounted the past season and there were lots of enjoyable and admirable stories. Importantly, a number of awards were presented. All of the lifesavers involved deserve an award, but particular mention was made of junior lifesavers of the year Toby Jones and Sarah Ward from Forster. Allan Davis from Crowdy Head was lifesaver of the year and Rod Croker and Brad Sawyer were lifesavers of the month, along with Shane Riemann. Administrator of the year and most outstanding contribution was Bernadette Nicholson from Black Head Surf Club. Team of the year was the Cape Hawke ladies surfboat crew. There were several awards granted for rescue of the month, and hearing the stories you can see what personal risks they put themselves through to save people who are isolated out at sea. The Lower North Coast Branch rescue of the month in January 2014 went to the Black Head Surf Life Saving Club, involving Maddi, Darren, Sandra and David Rowe; David Quinliven; Geoff Jackson; Mark Dew; Paul Kremer; and Noelene Young. There were also awards given to Jan Clingeleffer, Kim Rayner and Ryan Rosenbaum for services to the Taree Old Bar Surf Life Saving Club and to the Lower North Coast Branch. Our MC for the night, none other than AJ, Andrew Jones, received a national service medal.
I commend the work and efforts of our surf lifesavers and the organisation around the country, but on this occasion I want to bring to the attention of the House the work that the Lower North Coast Branch does. I have other branches in my electorate and I enjoy attending their functions as well. Congratulations to them all.
Murphy, Mr Conor
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (09:35): I want to take a few minutes to talk about a remarkable young man, Conor Murphy, who sadly passed away on Monday morning. Conor was a member of my staff and he was my friend. He had worked in my Fremantle electorate office since early 2012 and he came across to work in my Parliament House office on a couple of occasions, too, including to speak at a Rare Voices event. Conor was remarkable for his strength of character, his political commitment and his drive to tackle injustice and promote social inclusion but also for his offbeat sense of humour, for his fearsome independence and, from time to time, for what can only be described as a magnificent ginger beard.
Conor was born with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and as a result his strength and mobility at the time he came to work for me were limited to his forearms and hands. That did not stop Conor from driving his wheelchair with panache and sometimes even with a bit of reckless speed, something he might have picked up from playing wheelchair rugby and soccer. His limited mobility did not stop him from producing work at a pace and standard that is rare to see from any 22-year-old, as he was when he started in my office, or from getting involved in all aspects of political work, from policy analysis to working in a booth on polling day.
A storm swept over Fremantle in the very early hours of Monday morning and caused widespread blackouts. Unfortunately, the power cuts jeopardised the operation of the respirator that Conor relied upon when he slept and, for some reason, the backup generator and alarm also failed. Tragically, both Conor and his friend and housemate Kyle Scolari lost their lives as a result.
In this place we all know that despite the political battlelines and the fact that we too often fall into an adversarial way of relating to one another, both between and within political parties, we are nevertheless a community, politicians and staff alike, who broadly share a common purpose and commitment and who share work and workplaces here and in electorate offices around the country. Conor was one of us; he was a member of this community. That was a matter of pride for Conor, and rightly so. There are speeches I have given built on Conor's research and drafting skills. There are letters of mine that have argued successfully in support of grant funding, in favour of community projects, or on behalf of a constituent who needed help, and that succeeded only because Conor lent his skill and his heart to their composition. Conor Murphy was a lovely young man and a talented political staffer. He was also a person who showed what is possible if we open our eyes to the capability and potential of people with disability.
My staff and I are obviously very sad to have lost our friend and our colleague. At the same time we are incredibly grateful to have had the gift of his company, his spirit and his joy in life. We send our thoughts and our love to Conor's mum and dad, Lesley and Maurice, who have given so much to make sure that Conor could live his life to the full, and to all his family and his many friends, including his carers, Jeremy and Tracy. We also send our deepest condolences to Kyle Scolari's loved ones. These two fine young men have given us all something to live up to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just say to the Member for Fremantle: I am sure we all feel as she does. You rightly reflected that we are a community, and sometimes we, as members of parliament, lose sight of the fact that we are members of a community, across the divide, and I would just like to say—I am sure, on behalf of those members of parliament in the House of Representatives that I can speak for; I hope I am speaking for them—that we share in your words of condolence on Conor and the tragedy that has ended his life. It is tragic, and you need to know that we will be feeling for you and your staff. It is very much part of all our lives. Without our staff we are nothing.
Forgotten Australians
Mr IRONS (Swan) (09:40): I, too, would like to acknowledge Conor Murphy and the contribution made by the member for Fremantle. I had the privilege of meeting Conor with the Rare Voices group and have spent much time with his mother Lesley, and my heartfelt condolences go out to the Murphy family. I also acknowledge the member for Fremantle for employing a person with a disability and giving them an opportunity to join with the rest of us in this wonderful place in the life of the parliament, so I acknowledge that contribution you have just made.
We are coming up to the fifth anniversary of the apology to the forgotten Australians. I know many of my colleagues have heard me talk before in this place about the forgotten Australians and the need for an inquiry into the systematic abuse and neglect of wards of the state that took place in state government and religious institutions throughout Australia. Thankfully the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was formed and it has sought to provide these innocent people with a voice to fight back and regain some semblance of control over the physical, sexual and mental abuse they suffered.
Having a voice is a powerful thing, and for too long these innocents have suffered in silence or had their claims of abuse dismissed by those who were meant to protect them. As a former ward of the state myself, I have championed the issues of forgotten Australians since entering federal parliament through my involvement with the apology and by calling for a royal commission. I have now added my support to the commission's request for a two-year extension and associated resources to continue its inquiry on behalf of all those who, until now, have had no justice and no protection. I have expressed in writing to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General my support for these things and also the need to structure an independent national body to oversee the implementation of a redress scheme for funds contributed by states, churches and charities. These are the key steps that should be taken to give sufferers of abuse and neglect the closure they need, and to send a message to perpetrators, both past and present, that society and government will not tolerate a repeat of this sorry period. I announced this support publicly at the 14th anniversary celebration of Care Leavers Australia Network, or CLAN, a support group for the victims of child sex abuse, on 5 July, along with the members for Jagajaga, Blaxland and Corio, who attended that celebration as well.
I also had the honour of launching a truly inspirational book about twin sisters Sonia and Sarah who spent the first 14 years of their lives in five different orphanages and children's homes in Sydney from 1950 to 1964. Sonia St Claire wrote The Girl in the Locker not only to have a written account of her life and her struggle to overcome adversity but also to help others who have suffered the lasting effects of abuse. I have read and been told many stories of those who have suffered acts of abuse and neglect in institutions, and I thank those who, like Sonia, have had the courage to share these stories—particularly with the royal commission and by putting pen to paper. The stories of the forgotten Australians need to be believed, they need to hear an apology from their abusers and they need to be provided with the access to services such as counselling to help them deal with the abuse and neglect they were forced to endure.
Sharks
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (09:43): I would like also to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Fremantle and to pass on my condolences to Conor's family and to Melissa's staff. It has been a very difficult time for them, but I also associate myself with the remarks congratulating Melissa for being prepared to accept the ability and not be deterred by the disability of Conor.
I want to speak on a different topic today. The Western Australian government has spent $22 million on a shark drum line trial this year. It caught 163 sharks—that is $200,000 per dead shark. The problem is that none of these sharks were great whites. All of the seven deaths that have occurred in the last four years in the southern half of Western Australia have been by great white sharks.
Yesterday in Parliament House, we had an impressive presentation from a group of scientists from the University of Western Australia Oceans Institute. They were urging the federal government not to renew the exemption that had been given to the state government to enable them to avoid the EPBC Act's endangered species provisions for the duration of that trial. They asked us to recognise that the scientific evidence of the ineffectiveness of those drum lines is reflected in the fact that not one of the culpable species was caught.
They set out the nonlethal alternatives. The institute is part of a massive collaboration, tagging nearly 200 great white sharks. This has provided a massive amount of data that gives us a much better understanding of shark habits. Over summer, they tweet the alerts about the presence of sharks near beaches. They also set out the progress of the Optus-Google R&D project, Clever Buoy, which can detect untagged sharks. This shark detection system has been trialled on the Abrolhos Islands and it is still being finessed. Their algorithms still need to be developed a little further so that they can successfully distinguish between dolphins and sharks to make sure that they do not give false positives.
The scientists also endorsed the effectiveness of Shark Shield, which is the personal shark repellent device. They dispelled the misinformation that has been spread about that technology, such as the rumour that it had the potential to attract sharks to swimmers and surfers. All in all, it appears that there is a great deal of capacity for us to deal with this problem in a much more scientific way, and I urge this federal government to listen to this research. (Time expired)
Braddon Electorate: Economy
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (09:47): As many of my colleagues well know, the mining industry has always been a significant contributor to the economic fortune of my state of Tasmania. It is a matter of concern that many in Tasmania's west coast mining community are currently facing uncertain times with the recent news that Tasmanian copper mines Mount Lyell and Henty will close. The Mount Lyell mine will close immediately after 121 years, and Unity Mining's Henty mine will close in 2015. It is estimated that more than 350 jobs will be lost as a result of these closures.
The expected closure of the Henty gold mine next year and the extreme disappointment being felt by the closure of the Mount Lyell copper mine will not only have significant economic and employment implications for the state but also potentially critically impact a number of Tasmania's small west coast community businesses. It is important in these early days following the closure of Mount Lyell that immediate financial and emotional support is provided to the workers directly affected. That is why the federal government is mobilising key Centrelink staff to provide on-site support including customer service advisers, financial information service officers and social workers. This is the appropriate first response of a responsible government. It is true that many workers will receive redundancy payments, but it remains essential that professional advice and support is in place, like it is now.
Now that there are support workers on the ground in Queenstown, it is extremely important that the focus turns to pursuing realistic, innovative and sustainable commercial opportunities that will assist in etching out a new future that not only replaces the jobs lost but creates more jobs through growth industries that include new mines and aquaculture as its base—and also adventure tourism and other service industries. I welcome Premier Will Hodgman's decision to establish the West Coast Economic Working Group to provide support and look to how we can build a strong and sustainable future for the west coast. At the request of the state government, I have committed to working closely with my good friend Adam Brookes MP, who is leading the group to an outcome that results in this region restored as the economic powerhouse of Tasmania as it once was.
Since the devastating news of these closures I have been working tirelessly doing what I can to assist the community at a federal level. While my focus in the first few hours after the announced closures was to ensure appropriate front-line services were mobilised, in the days following I have been meeting with major business leaders from the west coast and in the region who already have projects underway and are investing heavily. I asked the Prime Minister to have the mines closure issue placed on the agenda of the Tasmanian economic council meeting and I have met with senior ministers about what we can do to fast-track projects in the region. There may be cheap shots coming from the other side, but as a responsible government we will do what is appropriate and what is sustainable. The one thing I will not be doing is raising unrealistic expectations for people that are in a delicate position at this point in time.
Early Childhood Education
Mr MARLES (Corio) (09:50): Early childhood education is a fundamental part of development. For most it is the first educational experience which drives learning and intellectual, social and emotional development. But it has become abundantly clear that the Abbott government does not recognise this with its attack on access to affordable child care. The government has failed to provide certainty for the universal access to early childhood education initiative and plans to rip up the child care benefit. In my electorate, more than 3,500 families currently rely on the child care benefit. For these families across the Geelong region, many parents will be left with no support and child care costs will potentially skyrocket. Across Australia it is estimated this will impact more than half a million families.
The universal access to child care initiative was established in 2008 in recognition that the provision of strong and effective support to children and families in their most formative years significantly advances learning and development. The invaluable initiative enables every child to access 15 hours a week of a quality early childhood educational program in the year before they commence formal schooling.
If the Abbott government turns its back on universal access, the initiative will only be able to maintain the provision of 10 hours of kindergarten. The research here is clear. Ten hours a week is simply inadequate to promote the learning and development this initiative is designed to foster. The removal of federal funding from this vital program would be a move of blatant disregard for the irrefutable evidence which demonstrates a direct correlation between preschool attendance and stronger social and educational outcomes.
On top of this concern, the Abbott government's first budget seeks to deprive hundreds—thousands, really—of Geelong families of the child care benefit which provides an essential helping hand in enabling low and middle income families to afford the cost of child care. By freezing the eligible income thresholds a huge number of families will be denied access to the benefit while child care costs are expected to grow by an alarmingly high seven per cent a year. This heartless and ill-considered move will force many parents to remove their children from early education, making this essential service even less accessible for struggling families.
Recently I met with Councillor Kylie Fisher, the community development portfolio holder of the City of Greater Geelong, about the impact of this move on the city, and the city is deeply concerned. This attack on early education comes at a time when the City of Greater Geelong has invested $30 million in children's services infrastructure to meet the growing needs of our community. This improved infrastructure for Geelong's child care services will go underutilised if parents are unable to afford to access to early education in the first instance. The ramifications of making child care inaccessible go beyond failing to deliver for our children. It will mean parents are unable to take up employment opportunities and trained child care professionals will lose the jobs they have worked hard to qualify for. This is undeniably a situation which no responsible government can allow to occur.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Community Forums
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (09:53): I rise today to provide details about two recent community forums held in the electorate of Hindmarsh with the Hon. Kevin Andrews, Minister for Social Services and member for Menzies. The forums were held in Edwardstown and Lockleys in the north and the south of the electorate. I would like to thank the Lockleys and Edwardstown bowling clubs for their hospitality and assistance in making these forums successful.
The forums were well-attended by the local residents and people in Hindmarsh, particularly seniors, who came along to meet the minister and discuss a broad range of matters relevant to his portfolio. Those who attended were provided with a detailed and informative presentation of Australia's ageing population, the challenges with our transitioning economy, the budget and the expenditure needed going forward to provide essential services, as well as the fiscal outlook going forward. General discussion followed covering many topics, including disability and carers, health, the budget and the government's ongoing support for pensions.
Those attending were pleased to receive a better understanding of the age pension arrangements and future increases, including no reduction in the age pension in the next three years. The pension will continue to increase twice a year. From September 2017 the pension increases will be indexed to CPI rather than wages, and the family home will not be included in the pension assets test.
A number of community groups have contacted me about these matters that are emanating from the budget, including ANFE, the National Association of Migrant Families for the Italian community; COASIT, a peak body for organisations supporting older Italians in South Australia; and a retirees group—to name a few.
The forum provided a great opportunity to explain the government's ongoing support for seniors, including increased annual funding in health in South Australia over the next four years by over $300 million, providing incentive payments for businesses hiring Australians over the age of 50 who have been out of work, and abolishing the carbon tax that will save households, on average, $550 per year but, importantly, the energy supplement will remain.
It was wonderful to have the minister in my electorate. I am greatly appreciative of his visit and I will look forward to the possibility of hosting him again when he returns to South Australia for the Santos Tour Down Under in January next year. One stage of the race will commence in my electorate and I know that the minister is a keen cyclist. I will look forward to, hopefully, riding with him. Also evident at the forum was the issue of the carbon tax.
Finally, I mention the Federation for Hellenic Associations for Pensioners and Aged. Last week, I was invited by Nick, the president, and Jim, the secretary, to join them for some fine Greek coffee. I want to thank them for their hospitality.
Canberra Electorate: CSIRO
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (09:56): Yesterday I attended the CSIRO's briefing—Science for Breakfast: getting more from their science. Improved efficiency and sustainability in the way that we use our limited resources are crucial factors confronting many Australian industry sectors. This briefing was a fascinating insight into the CSIRO's cutting edge work that is focused on increasing efficiency and sustainability, and using innovation to improve productivity.
I am sure my colleagues who attended will agree that this briefing reiterated the fact that the CSIRO is a national treasure. We are incredibly lucky to have this world-class organisation driving science and innovation in Australia. So why is the Abbott government so intent on cutting the CSIRO and cutting science? The Abbott government has cut $878 million from science and research agencies, including almost $115 million from the CSIRO. The Abbott government proposes the biggest job cuts in the CSIRO's history: nearly 900 scientists—at least 500 at the CSIRO, 96 at Geoscience Australia, 64 at the ANSTO and 58 at the Bureau of Meteorology.
Last month CSIRO's staff and supporters rallied at regional and metropolitan CSIRO sites around the country. United in their white lab coats, this was an unprecedented show of support for science and opposition to the government's irresponsible cuts. I am sorry that parliamentary sittings prevented me from donning a lab coat to join these protests myself, but I look forward to visiting the CSIRO's Black Mountain site in the next few weeks to speak to staff about how these cuts are affecting their important work.
The scale of the funding cuts to CSIRO and other science agencies, the potential trebling of the cost of a science degree and the attitudes that drive this government amount to an extraordinary attack on science. This attack is both irresponsible and reckless, and will jeopardise Australia's future prosperity.
We all know that science drives innovation and new technology. The pride of the Abbott government's budget is a new medical research fund. Where does it think the researchers will come from if science degrees are unaffordable and research council funding is no longer available for higher degree research, and the CSIRO has fewer jobs to offer young scientists?
Members will have seen the open letter to Clive Palmer from Australia's state and federal forest industry associations in the The Canberra Times today. It called on him to oppose the government's plans to cut the CSIRO's 33 forest scientists. These scientists support the jobs of over 80,000 Australians who work in the forest industry, but the Abbott government is prepared to take an axe to forestry research, abandoning massive potential for advances in carbon storage, productivity, bioplastics and a range of new industries.
Labor values the work of CSIRO and Australian scientists and we will keep fighting to protect their jobs, in contrast to a government that does not even think that science is worthy of its own minister.
Gilmore Electorate: Hewitt Earthworks Subcontractors
Mrs SUDMALIS ( Gilmore ) ( 09:59 ): Mr Speaker, Gilmore is proud to have HMAS Albatross in our region, especially as it is the new Romeo helicopter training location. Our local subbies secured many of the subcontracts, working extraordinary hours and purchasing additional machinery to comply with the OH&S standards like specific reversing cameras imposed by the contracting companies Lend Lease and Hewitt Earthworks. They were confident in the process of payment: the Department of Defence pays Lend Lease, who pays Hewitt, who then pay the subcontractors. The guarantee for the process is the existence of statutory declarations from subcontractors saying that they had received payments.
After extensive investigation the Department of Defence has determined that their contractual commitments have been met. But somehow the system has failed. Hewitt Earthworks recently went into voluntary administration, with rumours that the company knowingly traded possibly insolvent for around a month before its collapse. Some of our hardworking local subcontractors are facing bankruptcy: the debts are around $2 million and more to come—unpaid invoices go back to March, April and May. Lend Lease was made aware of the potential problems with Hewitt in late March. The only result was that the reporting subcontractor was refused any more work. Mark Nielson of Coordinated Logistics called on Lend Lease to enter into negotiation; this has not happened.
These subcontractors have asked me to put these questions to parliament: where has this process fallen down? When were the non-existent statutory declarations reported, and which company was responsible? Who certified at what stage? These creditors were advised to seek legal counsel and pursue their payments via the New South Wales Security of Payments Act. This is not an option. Hewitt put itself into voluntary administration, meaning that the subcontractors cannot begin, continue or enforce their claims without the administrator's consent or the court's permission—leaving the subcontractors no avenue of redress. They cannot even apply to put the company into liquidation, which would give more payment options.
Where does this leave my local subcontractors? Up the paddock without a backhoe. Other subcontractors have spoken up—they are united and brave. Their chance of more work is now gone. There are others, but the fear of reprisal is too great. Yes, there is an underpinning threat that if you speak out you will not get work. It is a system of threat and corporate bullying. Mark Nielson was the first to speak out and the first to lose work. Now he is faced with terminating his employees, releasing his apprentice, cancelling the purchase of machinery that had been ordered and notifying eight of his subcontractors that there is no more work. I call on the company director, Geoff Hewitt, the administrators and the Lend Lease contract management team to meet with and resolve this appalling situation and save our Gilmore subcontractors. They deserve honest payment for their honest work. There is no honesty or fairness in this situation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (10:02): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
National Disabil i ty Insurance Scheme
Ms HALL ( Shortland — Opposition Whip ) ( 10:0 2 ): On 1 July this year the NDIS celebrated its first anniversary. It is an anniversary that is worth celebrating because it has made such a difference in the lives of so many people. I would like to give special credit to the previous minister and now shadow minister, Jenny Macklin, for the work that she did in bringing this scheme to fruition. I would also like to acknowledge the state governments in the various states that have signed up to the NDIS and the member for Kingston, who also made an enormous contribution.
I am very fortunate in that the NDIS trial site in New South Wales is in the Shortland electorate. I have been able to see firsthand the difference it has made in the lives of those people that have been accepted as clients of the NDIS. It has made a really profound difference to their lives and it is interesting to note that as of 1 July the NDIS is being rolled out in Lake Macquarie. Previously the first stage was a rollout in the Newcastle local government area. It is now being rolled out in the Lake Macquarie local government area in the Shortland electorate, and it will subsequently be rolled out in Maitland. I know from firsthand experience how many people have been waiting for it to come to Lake Macquarie. I have been working with the guardian of a woman who is in residential care. Getting proper housing for her has been imperative and the only way that that will happen is through the NDIS, so she will get the support, the incontinence aids and everything else she needs to ensure she has a fantastic quality of life.
On Saturday night I attended the announcement of the Lake Macquarie business awards. Ability Links, which is an NDIS partner, was one of the organisations that were recognised for the excellence of the service they provide in the area. Charlestown, where the NDIS is, has become quite a hub for disability services. They have relocated to that area so people with disability can visit the NDIS and link into the services they need within their local area.
I am also very fortunate to be on the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which has oversight of the NDIS. The member for Kingston is also on that committee. As we have travelled around Australia we have been able to see and hear about the experiences people have had and the way their lives have changed by being able to access the services that the NDIS make available to them. In a prior life I worked with people with disabilities, ensuring that they had the opportunity to live independently in the community and to return to the workforce, but it was always very much hit and miss. There was no assurance that they would receive the services that they needed, there was no assurance that they would be able to enjoy the quality of life that everybody else enjoys and they were always fighting for every gain they could make. With the advent of the NDIS, and being able to see firsthand in my local area the difference it has made, I know that those days are gone. No longer are people with disability second-class citizens. They now have rights and they now have plans designed for them. I would like to finish with a quote from Nicholas Gleeson, who works for Ability Links:
From all the reports I've heard it's definitely helping people to have greater access to services and improve their lives.
We need to speed up the rollout, not slowing it down.
So I encourage the government to make no effort whatsoever to slow down the rollout of the NDIS, because it is making a real difference to the lives of people.
Carbon Pricing
WYATT ROY (Longman) (10:08): Later day, perhaps even in a few moments time, the Australian Senate will—all going to plan—vote to repeal the world's largest carbon tax. It has been a significant attack on the welfare of the Australian people, on growth, on jobs and on the cost of living of so many Australians. It is a remarkable thing that, when the Australian people voted in such an overwhelming way, members of the Labor Party have consistently voted since the election to support the carbon tax. We have seen the members on the other side of this room vote at least three times in this parliament to keep the carbon tax. That tax is a $550 a year hit on families in my local community. It is thousands of dollars in extra costs for local businesses who just want to get on with the job and employ more people.
This is hopefully an historic day for our parliament when the coalition will deliver on what was one of its largest election commitments, which was to repeal the Labor-Greens carbon tax. What this shows is that we actually have a plan for the future of our country, a plan to go for growth. We do face significant challenges as a nation. In order to rise to meet those challenges we have to give the private sector—not the government but the private sector across the Australian economy—every opportunity to get ahead and do what they do, which is to grow, to prosper and to employ more people. You simply do not do that by imposing bigger new taxes on the Australian people and on Australian business.
There is a great quote from Winston Churchill which says the idea that we can tax a nation into prosperity is 'like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.' Unfortunately, that is the only policy the Labor Party has in the modern era. They do not have a policy to deal with the debt legacy that they left us. The Labor Party has left us, if we do nothing, with $667 billion of debt, which is $24,500 for every man, woman and child. To say that an Australian born today has to inherit that debt from the mess that was left to us by the former Labor government is simply inequitable and unfair to the next generation of Australians. Of course when the coalition left government last time around we had a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank. The Labor Party have left us a very significant debt burden. Not only do they not have any policies to deal with the mess that they left us but they even oppose measures they used to have for savings which they took to the last election. They truly are a party with no political spine; they are simply a populist movement. That is not good enough when it comes to fixing our nation's problems.
Beyond the debt burden we also have the challenge—I would say it is a challenge and not a problem—of the ageing population. Today we have about 5.7 people working for every person who is not working and, even with that arrangement, we are still not funding the needs of our nation. That is why we are heading towards that $667 billion. With 5.7 people in the workforce today for every person who is not, as a nation we are heading to a point where that figure is about 2½. We are not funding the system today with 5.7 people working for every one who is not in the workforce and we are going to go to 2½. The Productivity Commission has looked at this and said that if we do not do other things we will have to increase taxes by 21 per cent. That is an increase in tax before we even deal with the debt burden that our nation faces. On this side of the House we believe in lower taxes not higher taxes. In the Senate today the Labor Party are going to vote against the repeal of the carbon tax and the Greens are going to vote against the repeal of the carbon tax. In the coming weeks I really hope that the Senate have a long, hard think about what they are going to do in terms of our budget repeal measures, because if they do not support some of our measures it is the next generation that will inherit $18 billion a year in interest—that is money we cannot spend on roads, schools and hospitals—it is the next generation that will inherit a society where we do have to raise taxes because we have the challenge of the ageing of the population and it is the next generation that will inherit an Australia where there is a $24,500 a year debt bill. It is now time for the opposition and the crossbench to put up some alternatives, because it will be the next generation that will pay if they do not.
Trade Training Centres
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:13): I rise today to talk about my real concern about the future of Trade Training Centres in schools. This goes to the heart of the future of our young people being able to learn a trade and develop new skills to ensure that we are building a prosperous Australia. We know that the Prime Minister broke his election promise when he said there would be no cuts to schools. Indeed, what we have seen is the Prime Minister rip $30 billion away from schools, which will have a significant impact on many schools in my electorate. Just so that we can get the concept of that, it is the equivalent of cutting one in seven teachers or cutting $3.2 million from every school.
We know that as part of this $30 billion cut the Prime Minister is slashing $950 million from the future of Trade Training Centres. That is the equivalent of 650 new centres. If that was not bad enough, we now see the assistant education minister trying to make an excuse about why she should make further cuts to the Trade Training Centres initiative. When we were in government we recognised the importance of giving young Australians greater training opportunities and of helping address Australia's skill shortage. That is why in 2008 we committed $2.5 billion over 10 years to the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. Funding was available for major capital works, upgrades of existing facilities and industry standard equipment. Indeed, it was our government that funded 378 trades training centre projects that benefited 1,098 secondary schools.
Unfortunately, the assistant minister seems to be talking these trades training centres down. I urge her to go out into the schools—actually leave this place and go out into the schools—and see what is happening on the ground. In my local electorate, the Southern Adelaide and Fleurieu Trade School is a consortium of schools that are working together to deliver trade training facilities and trade training certificates. This is changing the lives of so many students. I have visited many of these centres. I visited Noarlunga, Hallett Cove, Seaford and Christies Beach and saw what a transformation this was making for young people in our community.
I am really pleased that the member for Capricornia is here because, unlike the Assistant Minister for Education, who does not seem to understand the benefits, the member for Capricornia does. Indeed, in parliament on Monday, she said about a trades training centre in her electorate:
This centre is a win for students and a win for local employers and I look forward to the many benefits it will have for job opportunities and economic growth on the Capricorn Coast in the future.
Absolutely well said. I urge the member for Capricornia to speak to the assistant minister and maybe encourage her to go out and visit the Capricornia electorate. I would welcome the assistant minister also to come and see the trades training centres in my electorate, because there is great work being done on the ground. It is having a real impact for students and delivering the training that is absolutely necessary.
I know that many on the other side have been at the openings of trades training centres in their electorates and actually know the benefit. It is time for the backbench of the Liberal Party to stand up for their trades training centres. Nine hundred and fifty million dollars has been cut from a program that is actually making a difference on the ground. Rather than just cut, cut, cut in our schools, it really is time for the government to reconsider their ideological push against trades training centres in schools.
I would like to congratulate the many, many schools that work very hard. In my electorate, the cooperation between schools in sharing, diversifying and ensuring that young people get a trade is really important. For example, students go from Hallett Cove to Reynella East to do their trades training in a specific area. Most recently, on Tuesday afternoon timetables were blocked out so students could go and get expertise at different schools. That is a real sharing of expertise, ensuring that students get the best outcomes.
I encourage those government backbenchers who know the value of trades training centres to get the message through to the assistant minister. This is a good program that is delivering to so many schools. The assistant minister should not be talking it down and cutting money from this important program.
Mallee Electorate: Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:18): The Anzac Centenary Local Grants is a fantastic thing program and has been strongly welcomed across my electorate. There has been a process where we have been able to provide $125,000 and we have brought the RSL leadership from across the electorate together to discuss and look at how we can remember our past. Oddly enough, we have had over $400,000 worth of applications into this program.
Those who fail to remember the past will repeat those mistakes in the future. I remember when, as a young child in primary school, a man by the name of Ellis Smelley came to our school. Of course, we thought it was a great joke, being kids in primary school, that a guy whose surname was Smelley came to our school, so we had some fun with that. But he sat there and talked to us. He told us, and me as a young child, what it was like to sit on a ship and observe the Anzac landing on Anzac Day. Even now, all those years later, I still remember that conversation. It is very important that we remember the past. Actually, out of his own money he paid for a plaque to be placed in the garden in the school.
With this program, we have rolled out 'Remembering the past'. The electorate of Mallee has a very strong link to the First World War.
We have a town called Robinvale. It is the only sister city to Villers-Bretonneux. It was called Robinvale in reference to Robin Cuttle, who was killed in the battle of Villers-Bretonneux. His family named the town, then a small hamlet, Vale Robin—Robinvale. When you drive into Villers-Bretonneux in northern France, you will see that this is the sister city of Robinvale. When you visit the school, you will see that the school in Villers-Bretonneux was built by the schoolchildren of Victoria in a penny drive. So it is quite a strong linkage.
I have walked through the cemetery at Villers-Bretonneux. There you can see where the Germans were, advancing on Amiens, and where the attack was. The Germans were quite successful in their offensive but were stopped only by the determination of the Australian 13th and 15th Brigades, who fought valiantly. Oddly enough, it was on 25 April 1918—a number of years after the Anzac landing but with the same date; it was referred to by the German army as their blackest day—that 12,000 Australian soldiers died in that battle.
For an interesting quirk of history, one of the people who is buried in the Villers-Bretonneux cemetery is Ned Kelly's nephew.
The Anzac Centenary Local Grants has been a great program. It does not glorify war; it highlights to the Australian people the sacrifice that made during the First World War. We need to remember that the Australian population was only about four million, and yet 416,809 Australian men enlisted, over 60,000 were killed, and 150,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. It shows that among human tragedy, there is also bravery. It shows that Australians have always contributed to making the world a more secure and peaceful place.
As we move towards the 100th anniversary of the battle of Villers-Bretonneux in 2018, I have a vision that I might be able to take some students from the Robinvale school—a school, incidentally, that has 415 children and 54 first languages. It is one of the most multicultural schools in Australia. I have a vision that I might take some of those students across to Villers-Bretonneux so they can understand that the very multicultural town that they live in has been built on a sobering history in partnership with the broader world, and that they must remember. It is a great program. I commend the minister, Michael Ronaldson, for rolling out the Anzac Centenary program as we move into 2015. I hope that people remember the war not to glorify war but to learn the lessons from history so that we do not repeat them in the future.
FoFA
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:23): In light of the disappointing developments in the Senate on Tuesday night, which saw the Palmer United Party assist the government senators to scrap important financial advice regulations, I want to highlight the case of a constituent in my electorate whose life has been turned upside down as a result of rogue financial advisor and, in doing so, highlight the value of the Labor government's reforms to the financial sector that have now been scrapped.
Bernard Kelly came to my office last week to describe to us the ongoing heartache he is suffering in the wake of the collapse of Timbercorp. He is not alone. There are thousands of Australians who have lost their hard-earned life savings, homes, and, most distressingly, in some cases, lives as a result of poor and even corrupt financial advice. We have heard some of these stories during the debate on the FoFA reforms, during the Senate inquiry last week and during discussions in light of the Murray inquiry. The details of one person's suffering can never fail to move us or remind us why we are fighting for proper consumer protection and why we need to continue to fight for it.
In 2005, Bernard Kelly decided to seek financial advice to plan for a self-funded retirement. Peter Holt of Holt Norman Ashman Baker was recommended to him by others and, to reassure himself, Mr Kelly rang the ACCC and ASIC to check on his reputation. He was advised there was nothing on the file to suggest that Mr Holt was anything other than reputable. Mr Holt strongly advised Mr Kelly to invest in agribusiness and recommended a share portfolio that included investments in Timbercorp. He told Mr Kelly that the best way to structure his investment was to get a line of credit from his bank using his home as equity. Mr Kelly was given the option of paying his financial adviser an up-front fee or a commission based on the returns of the investment. Mr Kelly, my constituent, chose the latter option thinking it would provide a better incentive for his adviser to invest well on his behalf. However, even with this option, Peter Holt took regular management and share transaction fees. Mr Kelly now knows that Peter Holt also received commissions and other rewards, including overseas trips, in direct return for the number of investors he signed up to Timbercorp.
Peter Holt and his associates were the largest distributors of the Timbercorp product. Peter Holt geared his clients, including Bernard Kelly, in share portfolios and managed investment schemes such as Timbercorp and other agribusinesses. His clients in many cases—and Bernard Kelly was one—were not aware of the agribusiness loans, and the loan conditions were either misrepresented or not disclosed. These loans effectively resulted in some clients being geared twice over. Where gearing was disclosed, Peter Holt assured his clients that margin loans would never exceed 50 per cent. He in fact allowed the margin loans to exceed 200 per cent, resulting in his clients using their entire share portfolio and other assets.
As it turned out, the agribusiness investment did not pay returns. Crops failed and more and more investment was required to build it up. Loans were taken out by Timbercorp which became the liabilities of unwitting investors including Bernard Kelly. In the wake of the GFC, Timbercorp collapsed and was liquidated by KordaMentha. Creditors began calling Bernard Kelly at home demanding payment. When he referred them to his financial adviser Peter Holt, he was told that Mr Holt was too busy to take anyone's calls because he was filing for bankruptcy.
Not only did Peter Holt advise clients to invest in a scheme he personally was receiving benefits from, but it turns out he only had public liability insurance for $2 million, which was totally inadequate for the circumstances that ensued. When Timbercorp went into liquidation, Bernard Kelly found that he personally was liable for some $80,000 worth of loans. Bernard Kelly was not trying to get rich quick; he was doing what he thought was a sensible and responsible thing by investing his modest savings in order to fund an independent retirement and leave something for his children. He did what he believed were the prudent checks, he asked as many questions as he could— but in the end he was not given fair, impartial or transparent advice, and the consequences have been devastating for him and his family.
This is why the Labor government put the FoFA reforms into place. This is why we so vigorously oppose the current government's moves to destroy them—because without adequate consumer and investor protections, decent and hardworking Australians like Bernard Kelly will continue to be put at risk and the so-called burden on the welfare system that this government is wont to complain about will be much greater as people who could have been able to live in comfortable retirement are rendered financially ruined and even homeless, as is almost the case with Bernard Kelly.
It is not just the FoFA reforms that are so important for the protection of consumers. The ability of ASIC to monitor what is going on in the financial sector is also vital, as starkly demonstrated by the findings of the Senate inquiry last week. Their ability to fulfil their responsibilities, when this government has slashed their budget, will be something we need to watch with keen interest.
Elliott, Mrs Lorraine
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (10:28): This morning I want to pay tribute to a great Victorian, a great Australian, a great person, a great wife and mother, a wonderful grandmother and a first-class friend to many, myself included—someone who made the most of life and made a difference to so many individuals and the wider community. I speak of Lorraine Elliott, who passed away on 2 July.
I went to school with Lorraine's children, Tom, Caroline and Edward, so I knew her for a long time—first as another friendly mum at school sport and secondly as a parliamentary colleague. That was when I got to know her well. In 2001, when I was elected to this parliament, Lorraine had been the member for Mooroolbark, an area within the Casey electorate, since 1992. She quickly became a mentor and friend to my wife Pam and I, and an inspiration.
She cared about the community she represented and the constituents within it. She served the electorate for a decade before losing her seat in the landslide of 2002. To this day it is still a rarity for me to visit an RSL or a community group, conduct a mobile office or attend a public meeting, without someone praising the work of Lorraine Elliott.
How she became the member for Mooroolbark says so much about her. She had been a loyal, hardworking and senior Liberal Party member for a considerable period of time when she decided she wanted to serve in the Victorian parliament.
She could, with her background of service and extensive network, very easily won endorsement for a safer seat or entered the upper house. But Lorraine wanted to win a difficult marginal seat and she wanted to represent a community, to serve them and be their champion. So she nominated for the outer suburban electorate of Mooroolbark—a newly created 'lineball' seat. First she won the pre-selection, second she won the election, and third, and importantly for her, she won the respect not just of those who voted for her but of so many who did not. Her tirelessness, her effectiveness, her integrity and her numerous other outstanding personal qualities won her this more enduring accolade—one that is timeless and one that will never dim.
As it was in the community, so it was also the case in the parliament. She won the respect of her parliamentary opponents who could see her decency, quiet strength and deep passion for her electorate matched only by her numerous policy passions. When she lost her seat, in what was an 'electoral Armageddon', she demonstrated pure class—in defeat and in the years that followed.
Lorraine became the first member for Mooroolbark at the election after the seat's creation. In 2002, following an electoral redistribution, she was contesting the redrawn and renamed electorate of Kilsyth. This leaves her as the first and only ever member for Mooroolbark. It will be a fitting, symbolic tribute if that remains the case.
There were many words uttered in an attempt to sum up Lorraine Elliott at her funeral on 2 July. The one that will always be in my mind when I think of her will be 'dignity'—dignity in victory, dignity in service, dignity in defeat. By being so she was never defeated personally. She did not wallow; she was never bitter. She continued to serve Victoria in the arts and numerous other causes for good. She enjoyed more time with her much loved and supportive husband John Kiely. They loved spending time with their families in Melbourne and at Flinders, a holiday home and a sanctuary.
Tuesday of last week was a time to say goodbye. It was a time to reflect and it was a time to be sad for a wonderful life cut short, but simultaneously a time to be proud of a life so well lived. Lorraine's husband John and her three children—Tom, Caroline, Edward—and grandchild Henry gave beautiful speeches that were testimony to the wonderful wife, mother and grandmother that she was.
For her six grandchildren—Henry, Sebastian, Mathilda, India, Lottie and Ava—this is, of course, a bewildering and confusing time. Lorraine will always be part of their lives because of the memories they have and because her qualities will live on in them. As they grow older they will seek out more information about the special lady they called 'Ma'. In the years and indeed decades ahead they might seek out some of the words about the value of her life, some of the tributes to all that she did that are on the public record. If they happen to find these, together with others that have been said and will be said in the Victorian parliament, let me say to you now: you should be very proud of all that your grandmother was and did.
Kent, Mr Lewis and Mrs Vera
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (10:33): I rise today to honour the lives of Lewis and Vera Kent. Lewis Kent was a member of this place as member for Hotham between 1980 and 1990. Although that in itself is a significant achievement for a man of humble beginnings, it is only a very small part of what Lewis did. With Lewis there was always Vera. They were a team; they were a team together for some 64 years. They were, I am very proud to say, friends of mine and people who had a considerable influence over my political career and life.
Lewis and Vera are very much a migrant success story, a migrant success story which relates to the ravages of World War II. There were those who were displaced and faced much horror and then resettled their family in another place—and in this case two places—a situation where, in Lewis's case, you learnt in those early times the nature of suffering. He also learnt the reasons to fight for what you believe in and to stand up when you think something is wrong.
I want to read briefly from the eulogy at his recent funeral, which talked a bit about World War II:
On one occasion as the bombs were falling Lewis and brother hid under the stairs of an apartment block. After the bombing ceased they emerged to find only the stairs remaining. Another time Lewis was residing at his cousins house when the Nazi SS came looking for him. He pretended to be his cousin and told them that Lewis had just left and had gone in one direction and when they left Lewis hastily headed in the other. During the war food was scarce and an elderly relative who was household bound depended on him to find and bring her food. Due to curfews and continual bombing he was unable to reach her for several days and by the time he got there she had already starved to death. There were many such traumatic instances.
… Towards the end of the war Lewis and his cousin escaped to Hungary. When the Russians came to liberate the country they were both arrested with their false documents which made them appear to be Hungarian nationals. They were promptly marched along with thousands of other people considered by the Russians to be the enemy for 11 days without food or water in mid winter. Many thousands perished but he and his cousin survived. They were interred in a Russian prison camp and barely fed. And during this his cousin contracted typhoid and passed away as did many others. He survived and after a few months managed to escape and returned to Belgrade.
From there, under the Communist regime in Yugoslavia, again it became a situation of needing to get out, which they did. Being Jewish, the best chance they had was to go to Israel, which they did. In Israel, though—I make this point because of the comments I made around the question of the Communist regime—Lewis was in fact very unhappy in terms of what he saw as the oppression of the Palestinian people. As a result of that he joined the Communist Party and stood for election. I am pleased to say he was not successful because it meant that subsequently the family moved to Australia. Again, as migrants in those circumstances, they worked hard, sometimes with several jobs.
Lewis worked for some 26 years in the railways before he was elected to federal parliament in 1980. As a local member, Lewis always stood up for what he believed in, sometimes in a situation where he copped considerable criticism. There were death threats. I worked for Lewis for a period of time. He often stood up against oppression, particularly in relation to fascist movements which had come from that part of Europe and whose activities he knew of during World War II. He was always committed to them being taken to task for their crimes.
He suffered as a result of that, but he was a man who had beliefs and he stuck to them. He was someone who worked very hard for the Labor Party in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. He was one of the first to be successful at a federal level with pretty much an unbroken record of success over the last 30-plus years. He was a man of good humour. He was a man who believed in things and stuck to those beliefs. He will be a great loss to the local community.
Vera, of course, passed away a couple of years ago. My condolences go to his children, Alex and Elizabeth, and the many grandchildren—and I think now great-grandchildren. They can rest assured that the lives of both Lewis and Vera were lives well lived. They were lives that inspired others and they were lives that they can all be very proud of.
I did not see as much as I would have liked of Lewis and Vera over the last few years, but he was a great source of inspiration to me and a great source of support in my early years in politics. He has gone now but I will never forget him. He and Vera were people I am proud to call friends and comrades who did a great job for the community that they were part of.
Hyundai: Electric Vehicle Project
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:38): Earlier this week I had the opportunity to attend a briefing by the Hyundai hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle project team who were sharing their passion and vision for a hydrogen highway in Australia. Hyundai are working on the full commercialisation of a practical car—powerful and comparable to current petroleum based vehicles—which runs entirely on hydrogen and where the only emission is water vapour. This is part of their vision to see an environmentally sustainable Australian and global transport sector.
In the past, electric cars have been ignored and simply considered to be a gimmick—and certainly not particularly fast, powerful or practical. However, with advances in technology, this is no longer the case. Now you can fill up your hydrogen tank in the same time as it takes to fill up a car with petroleum. Your car can reach speeds of 120 kilometres an hour. A single fuel tank will last almost 600 kilometres. The hydrogen tank takes up the same space as a conventional fuel tank, ensuring there is no loss of car space or compromise on practicality. When the Hyundai team came to speak to us, they asked us not to see them as representatives from Hyundai but rather as representatives from the global effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to advocate for the infrastructure investment required for the hydrogen future. This is important, as the infrastructure investment outlays required to make hydrogen sustainable and, actually, environmentally friendly, are enormous. However, it is only by an initial large investment in hydrogen that a hydrogen highway in Australia could be possible.
The ultimate goal of the project team is to partner with big business, government and other vehicle manufacturers to establish a hydrogen highway between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, which has been given the project title of the Hume by Hydrogen project. I can say that I am very excited by the idea of this project. The potential of efficient hydrogen fuel cells and zero emission vehicles into the future is not only amazing but also vital, as we face diminishing reserves of fossil fuels and ever-rising prices of oil.
However, before we get too excited, we need to realise this is a long way off. As hydrogen is the smallest element in the universe, it is therefore incredibly difficult to store, as it leaks through almost everything. The materials and methods required to make such storage tanks, which are still inefficient, are incredibly expensive and environmentally unfriendly. Research into storing hydrogen within carbon nanotubes—which, basically, looks like a tank full of feathers—is underway and providing promising results. However, it is still far from commercial viability. The fuel cell itself, which combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce water and electricity, requires precious metals, such as platinum or polonium, making the fuel sale incredibly expensive.
Research into using cheaper catalysts is currently underway at ANU. To be a long-term viable alternative to fossil fuel cars, there would need to be a hydrogen refuel station at every petrol station in the country. Each station would need to provide for hundreds of cars a day and use entirely green hydrogen. Currently, a single station would cost many millions of dollars and, probably, be quickly superseded by better technology.
I refer to green hydrogen because currently the majority of hydrogen produced globally comes from a process called steam reforming, where at upper high temperatures—700 to 1,100 degrees Celsius—you combine natural gas, a fossil fuel, with water vapour. For each three hydrogen molecule pairs, one carbon dioxide molecule is formed. This means current industrial hydrogen is, effectively, a fossil fuel.
However, Professor Ben Hankamer, at the University of Queensland's Institute of Molecular Bioscience in my electorate of Ryan, is part of the global biofuels consortium. One of his projects is genetically modifying algae to produce hydrogen as a part of its normal biological process. This could mean an unlimited supply of clean hydrogen extracted from plants, living and thriving off the most basic of nutrient requirements. While this project is quite advanced and has international support, we still need to be more efficient before it is viable for commercialisation. I will continue to strongly advocate for continued investment in the research and I look forward to seeing what Professor Hankamer and his team can develop.
The only way to bring the hydrogen future to fruition is through investment in research, public education and promotion of the product. I congratulate the team from Hyundai for doing just that as well as the many other product businesses— (Time expired)
Gorton Electorate: Budget
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:43): I rise on behalf of the Brimbank/Melton Local Learning and Employment Network to express my strongest support for this valuable service. It is yet another crucial organisation that has been hit by savage funding cuts inflicted by the government's cruel and twisted budget. Over the past 13 years, the Brimbank/Melton Local Learning and Employment Network has delivered for local young people and young job seekers—particularly disadvantaged young people living in the electorate of Gorton and, indeed, beyond. The Brimbank/Melton LLEN plays a vital role by brokering partnerships and fostering a strategic whole-of-community approach that supports young people's education, training, transitions and employment outcomes.
Key objectives include improved retention rates and educational outcomes, and improved transition outcome and development of work-ready skills in young people living in Melbourne's west. But the Abbott government has entirely cut all funding to youth connections, partnership brokers, and the national career advice programs—programs designed to assist young Australians finishing school and getting work.
These cuts are entirely indefensible. Recently the Brotherhood of St Lawrence releases a report that indicated there are now more than one-quarter of a million young Australians aged between 15 and 24 who cannot find work. More than 50,000 have been unemployed for more than a year. There is an even stronger case, therefore, for continued investment in Brimbank and Melton given the entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage confronting many parts of Melbourne's west. Indeed, ABS data shows that unemployment amongst young people now is about 15 per cent and rising. The recent national unemployment figures for young people has now hit more than 13 per cent. This is a national challenge that the government must respond to, but it is particularly difficult in certain parts of Australia, not least of all in my electorate.
To add insult to injury, the government is cutting income for job seekers under the age of 30 for six months, expecting them, even when they are looking for work each day, each week, each month, to receive no support at all. The government effectively has torn up the principle of mutual obligation. There was a time when you received a modest form of income provided you undertook activities to find work and look for work. Now it does not matter whether you look for work or not; if you are under the age of 30, if the government has its way, there will be no support for you. You may have a family to rely upon, and that will be hard for the family if that is the case; but, if you do not have a family who can provide that support, you are in a very, very dire situation.
Labor believes in helping people to get a job through the right training, work experience and incentives and an appropriate level of support, so investing in our young people is a key component of building a prosperous and inclusive nation. Therefore, it is not just a social good; it is economically sound to provide support for young people.
The Abbott government appears to have turned its back on young people, but there is still an opportunity for the government to do what is right here. The Brimbank/Melton LLEN is not scheduled to close its doors until the end of this year, so there is still time for the government to reverse this counterproductive and cruel cut. I call upon the Minister for Education to reverse this decision and commit to ongoing funding for Brimbank and Melton LLEN. If Tony Abbott really wants young people to improve their levels of education or get a job—earn or learn—his government will reinstate funding for partnership brokers, youth connections and the like. I implore the government to do such a thing.
While I am on my feet I also want to extend my condolences to the passing of a Mr Leo Johnson, who was a loyal Labor member and great community activist in Melton. He passed away this week. He was a fantastic contributor to his community—I knew him as a branch member and a branch officer of the Melton branch. When I first was the member for Bourke, Melton was in my electorate, and he was a great source of support and wisdom. He will be sorely missed by his wife, his family, his friends and the community, who were the beneficiaries of much of the good work he did—particularly where he worked with Djerriwarrh, an organisation that has done magnificent things for many people in the municipality of Melton. (Time expired)
Education
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (10:48): As we move into the 21st century and as we are signing trade agreements with our Asian neighbours to the north, the importance of a productive agricultural sector is now more important the even before. The interesting thing is that enrolments in tertiary courses in agriculture are at an all time low.
The irony of that situation is that for every graduate that comes out of a university with a degree in an agriculture related course, there are 2½ jobs for every graduate. There are wonderful opportunities for professional careers in agriculture. The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation is doing its bit to encourage these young professionals into agriculture. It has developed the Horizon scholarship. Yesterday I was very pleased to meet with four young people from my electorate, the Parkes electorate: Richard Quigley, Kate Johnston, Jack Scifleet, and Felicity Taylor. These four were all here in Parliament house as part of the Horizon scholarship program. The Horizon scholarship provides a bursary of $5,000 a year to university students who are committed to a career in agriculture. I am absolutely sure that these young scholars, Richard, Kate, Jack, and Felicity will go on to be leaders in their field.
To receive a Horizon scholarship, a student must be undergoing a university degree associated with agriculture, such as agricultural science, rural science, agribusiness, agricultural economics, and resource management. Not only do Horizon scholarship recipients receive a bursary for the duration of their degree, they also are able to participate in professional development and mentoring programs to further add value to their educational experience. One of the great things about Horizon scholarships is that they give recipients the opportunity to partner with industry. This gives a very valuable insight into how agriculture works, and provides an opportunity to connect with industry professionals.
Yesterday, as I said, I met with Richie Quigley. He is young man from Trangie in Central Western New South Wales—a magnificent town, Trangie, and one of the strongest country towns you would ever find. He is now nearing the end of his degree and he told me that he has gained a lot from experiences through the Horizon scholarship. Richie has been sponsored by Woolworths and he has spent two weeks at a work placement at head office, where he has learnt more about the business and the other end of the supply chain.
Kate Johnston grew up on a property in Moree—as a matter of fact, the village of Weemelah, which is west of Moree and out towards the Mungindi area. She is currently completing a bachelor of rural science at the University of New England and has a strong interest in beef cattle. Kate is being sponsored by the Meat and Livestock Australia.
Jack Scifleet is a young man from Binnaway, currently studying a bachelor of agricultural economics at the University of Sydney. Jack is being sponsored by the ANZ Bank and he told me yesterday how great it was that he was on the Horizon scholarship, and that it enabled him to meet professionals within agriculture and agribusiness. Meeting professionals from within the industry provides the connection between the theoretical side of studying at university and the reality of business.
Felicity Taylor is a young lady I first met a couple of years ago. She was involved in the Moree showgirl competition. She is from Moree in north-west New South Wales. Felicity is completing a bachelor of agricultural economics. Felicity is being sponsored by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation.
Richie, Kate, Jack, and Felicity all show great potential and are already achieving into their fields. They will go on to become leaders in agriculture. I know these young people, I know their families, and they have got agriculture and a love of the land in their DNA. They have been brought up to respect the land and to have a belief in agriculture. The Horizon scholarship and their studies at university will give them the skills necessary to become future leaders. It is a great privilege as a member of parliament to meet motivated young professional people, and I wish Richie, Kate, and Jack all the best in their future.
Asian Democracy
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:54): On Wednesday, 9 July, Indonesia, a massive nation of 250 million people, and friend of Australia, held free and democratic presidential elections. In April and May, the largest and most amazing of all democratic elections took place in India for the Lok Sabha, India's national parliament. In contrast to these two positive examples, on 1 July in Hong Kong, more than 500 people were arrested for a pro-democracy demonstration of half a million people who were protesting for democracy in Hong Kong.
Let's go back to the financial crisis of 1997, when President Suharto was forced to resign. In the 17 intervening years Indonesia has seen wonderful democratic development. At the same time, in 1997 Britain handed Hong Kong over to China. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong was meant to have universal suffrage as an ultimate objective. Seventeen years thence, the Communist Party has stymied democratic process and, in China's so-called peaceful rise, we have now seen, in contrast to Indonesia, what is happening in Hong Kong.
India's population of 1.2 billion people is almost unbelievably diverse and includes hundreds of millions who still live in poverty. Hong Kong, by contrast, has a highly educated and cosmopolitan citizenry. Yet, where India just transferred power in the largest democratic election in history, in Hong Kong the Communist Party has declared that only party approved 'patriotic' candidates will be allowed for election to the Hong Kong chief executive. Worse, Beijing has also declared that Hong Kong judges, as the great Australian foreign policy expert John Garnaut has pointed out, will be referred to as 'administrators' who must be party approved candidates. Shackling the judiciary in Hong Kong to the will of the Communist Party in this way may well have the effect of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Hong Kong's prosperity depends on impartially administered rule of law provided by an independent judiciary.
Beijing's stance against political liberalisation and its increased bellicosity in the South China Sea do represent a worrying trend. It may be that, as Paul Dibb, one of our top experts, says, Chinese military prowess is grossly overstated, but there are recent announcements that China will be building two supercarriers in addition to the modified Russian one that it already operates. It seems unlikely that this renewed political and military hard line is purely coincidental. Of course, we have seen in President Xi Jinping the rise of the most powerful General Secretary of the Communist Party since Deng Xiaoping.
During Prime Minister Abbott's welcome to Prime Minister Abe last week he referred to Japanese World War II soldiers in this way: 'We admired the skill and the sense of honour that they brought to their task.' Prime Minister Abbott was trying too hard. Friends should be able to speak freely when our views differ. I am personally a great friend and admirer of Japan. It was an honour to be mentioned by Prime Minister Abe in his speech to the parliament. But Japan, like Germany, should not forget its dark past. Let's not forget the 30,000 Australian POWs between 1940 and 1945 who were forced to live in the jungle at the mercy of the elements, endure hours of exhausting physical labour, receive no medical treatment and be starved, taunted, abused, maltreated, beaten and derided by their Japanese captors. Let's not forget the 2,000 Australian and British prisoners of war who died in the Sandakan death march in 1945. Let us not forget the brutal humiliation and killing of patients in the Hong Kong hospital in 1941.
China in 2014 is not Japan of the 1930s. Japan should not forget its past, and China should see in the example of Japan in the past just what comes of nationalism, authoritarianism and militarism. India is as massive as China, and Indonesia with its history of authoritarianism has also had great democratic developments. Japan shares a great cultural history with China. All of these countries can move towards democracy and peace, and I am sure that China can too.
It is very important that when we have good relations with all of our friends in East Asia we do not go overboard to revise sad histories. Germany, by contrast, has an interesting way of approaching this. It gives independent assistance to victims of World War II such as the comfort women of South Korea. I urge Japan to look at that example.
Daniel Morcombe Foundation
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (10:59): On 7 December 2003 a great tragedy befell a Queensland family. Daniel Morcombe was abducted and murdered on the Sunshine Coast. He had been on his way home to do some Christmas shopping. For Bruce an Denise Morcombe it marked the beginning of any parent's worst nightmare, but one thing we have seen unfold from this terrible event is the great strength and inspiration that has risen from the ashes as Bruce and Denise formed the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. The foundation was established as a legacy to Daniel. It has two main aims: to educate children on how to stay safe in physical and online environments and to support young victims of crime.
Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting Bruce and Denise. They are inspirational people who have walked a remarkable journey. Like many people, I have followed their story over many years. As the mother of two daughters I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child at any stage of life, let alone in the awful circumstances that Bruce and Denise lost their son Daniel. Their passion now is to help other children. I was truly humbled to spend time with them to learn more about the foundation they created. Denise told me that the foundation has four main goals: to educate children regarding their personal safety, including abduction; to assist victims of crime, particularly where crime involves children; to keep the memory of Daniel alive through various child safety community events; and to support the families of missing persons, particularly where it involves children.
Denise and Bruce have developed the Daniel Morecombe Child Safety Curriculum for school students in prep to year 9. Denise says the program is based on three main words, encouraging children to 'recognise, react and report' unsafe situations. The program has been endorsed by the Queensland education system and is available to state, independent and Catholic schools. The Morecombes are encouraging other states and territories to also take it up. As a federal member of parliament I urge every school in every town in every state to review and adopt the program.
In my electorate of Capricornia, the Morecombes will next month visit three schools. They will be talking to students at St Anthony's primary school in Rockhampton on 14 August, at Moranbah State School on 15 August and Coppabella State School also on 15 August. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, during 2011-12 there were 252,962 notifications of suspected child abuse and many child deaths and murders. The Morecombes' program will help equip children to have the confidence to recognise, react and report unsafe situations.
When I posted a photo of the Morecombes' visit on my Facebook site last night I got a comment from a lady called Jill, who described Bruce and Denise has 'an amazing family who should have been named Australians of the Year'. Another comment on Facebook, from Robert, said the way the Morecombes took such personal tragedy and use the energy to do good in the world for others is purely inspirational.
This year the 10th annual Day for Daniel, to mark the life of Daniel Morecombe, will be held on Friday, 31 October. It is a few months away yet, but as we head towards the day I want to call on all members of parliament to support their cause. Wouldn't it be an amazing thing if we put our political differences aside and worked towards this goal? I call upon the House and, indeed, even the Senate of this great institution to show bipartisanship support to make the Daniel Morecombe Child Safety Curriculum not just part of the curriculum in various states but part of the national education curriculum in every school in every town in every part of Australia. It is time to show some humanity as national leaders and ensure that the tragedy that struck down young Daniel Morecombe too early in his life was not in vain. Let us as a parliament support Bruce and Denise Morecombe's endeavours to see their program available in every school in the country. If you want to find out more about the Daniel Morecombe Foundation go to danielmorecombe.com.au.
Cosmetics Testing
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:03): In March, federal Labor made a commitment to run a national consultation on phasing out the importation, manufacture, sale and advertising of cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients tested on animals. Recently federal Labor established a caucus subcommittee that will conduct public hearings on this subject right around the country. Cosmetics testing on animals is not banned in Australia but industry says that it stopped many years ago. However, products that have been tested on animals overseas or which contain ingredients that have been tested on animals overseas are sold in Australia. As Clare O'Neil, who is chairing the caucus subcommittee has said:
Animal testing is an area of the law that we believe should reflect the ethics of the community, so that's why we want to talk to as many Australians as we can about whether they think it's appropriate that this still goes on, and whether it's appropriate that products that have been used in animal testing are available for sale in cosmetics in Australia.
We formally launched a website for public submissions which is available at www.alp.org.au/cosmeticstesting. We are working through interested interest groups such as the RSPCA, cosmetics companies and regulators in order to allow as many Australians as possible to have their say in this policy process. Industry, animal welfare organisations and research institutions naturally have an interest in cosmetics testing on animals. As Labor's deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, has said:
Animals should not suffer in the quest for better mascara or lipstick.
Labor has so far received over 1500 submissions to our cosmetics testing inquiry, and there have been over 90,000 Australians that have viewed the page. That speaks very strongly, I believe, to the community interest in this issue. As with the issues of live animal exports, many Australians have made clear that they hold strong views on this issue.
There will be stakeholder hearings and public forums held around Australia: in Brisbane on 15 August, in Fremantle on 18 August, here in Canberra on 19 August, in Sydney on 19 August, in Melbourne on 20 August and also in Hobart on 21 August. I would encourage all Australians who have strong views on animal testing to have their say through Labor's policy process. Federal Labor is keen to engage as many Australians as possible in this important conversation because we believe that it is only though the community having their say that we will reach the appropriate policy perspective. It is vital that we are able to engage through these public forums and to answer questions such as whether or not a full ban should take place in Australia, what would be the most effective and efficient way of banning these practices, what changes would need to be made by industry and government to comply with bans, how the bans would be policed, whether there are additional implications that we need to be aware of for industry, for government and for the community, what would be a realistic timeframe for compliance and whether there are other issues that the subcommittee should take into consideration when thinking through these issues.
The question of cosmetics testing really is one that reflects how the way in which we treat animals has become a first-order policy issue in Australia. It troubles me when I hear the minister for Agriculture in the House castigating Labor for having put in place a temporary ban on live animal exports to Indonesia. We did that so that we could ensure that the industry continued to have a social license to operate and as a result Australia now has a livestock control process right through to the point of slaughter. That is something which decades ago would not have been regarded as a vital issue but now is regarded as an important issue by many Australians who watched images of animals being maltreated and did not simply say, 'That is only an animal' but said, 'That is a moral issue; we need to do something about it.' (Time expired)
South West Football League
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (11:08): I would like to congratulate the players and coaches of the South West Football League who once again have taken out the landmark country week football division 1 championship over the weekend of 10 to 12 July. The team only lost one game in the round-robin lead-up competition which was to the Great Northern Football League by 24 points. However, the same two teams met in the grand final and the South West Football League avenged their earlier loss to run out winner 9-16 to 8-8. As a result of their success South West Football League players made a fifth of the Landmark Country-West All-Stars team. This includes South West Football League coach Crandon Keddy, who was named coach for a fourth consecutive year. In addition, co-captain Don McGinlay, midfielders Jessie Gribble and Michael Bataglia and halfback Simon Parry were named in the playing squad. Don McGinlay from Busselton Football Club was also named Player of the Carnival for his consistency and hard work. Jesse Gribble of the Bunbury club was awarded the South West's best and fairest grand finalist player award. The South West's Aidan Parker and Marc Re were their major goal scorers in the final, with three majors each. Aidan Parker was a powerhouse in front of the goals throughout the tournament, kicking five goals in game 1 and two goals in game 2 on the opening day of the competition.
The first day saw the South West Football League notch up victories over the Upper Great Southern and the Lower South West teams. The second day saw South West overcome the Avon Football Association before succumbing to the Great Northern crew by 24 points.
Luckily, the day 3 grand final saw a reversal of this and a hard-fought victory for the South West team. The South West Football League also performed well in the colts competition, with the colts making it through to the grand final—a close-fought game, but going down to the Peel Football League in that event. It was a great result, however, for young South West players of the future.
I would like to congratulate all of the players, coaches, administrators, families and supporters of the South West Football League on their success last weekend. Country football is alive and well. It faces a number of challenges but it is alive and well in the south-west, and the current generation can hold their heads high. As someone with a very long and loyal association with both AFL and country football, I am especially pleased to see this success both on and off the field. As I know, in regional areas often the general health—the economic health and wellbeing, even—of a small community can be measured by the presence of a viable, vibrant local football club. There are a lot of clubs in the south-west and those in small communities often face ongoing challenges to maintain themselves—in places like Donnybrook and Harvey, where the locals work overtime to keep offering sporting opportunities and community interaction. This is often the hub of that small local community, built around a football club and its interactions and, often, the great role models these young people come in contact with as part of their football club.
On the weekend I went to a round robin junior carnival. I have to commend a little group from Dunsborough—a little group of under-14s who were probably over a year younger than those they were competing against all day. They were little tackers and what I loved about them was that they did not win a game, but they never, ever dropped their heads. They never lost their composure. They were just great young people learning and enjoying. They were a great bunch of kids. I planned to talk to the junior club and say just how proud I was to see young boys who were being beaten, often quite badly—they struggled; I think they got one goal in the competition up until the time I left. That is all they had scored in their games, but those little fellows were running out there. They were doing their best and they were a real credit to themselves and their club.
I also want to commend a coach and a runner in the under-16 age group from the Harvey Brunswick Leschenault Football Club who, when we heard some less-than-appropriate comments from the sidelines, turned around and said, 'Listen mate, it is not appropriate to either abuse the umpire or to make the comments you are making.' To stand up at that point and say 'this is not okay' sent a very clear message not just to the individual but to all those young people who were sitting on the sidelines waiting to go onto the ground.
I commend all of those involved in this great game that is Australian football. It is a fantastic game in this country.
Blair Electorate: NAIDOC Week
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:13): I want to congratulate Anne Martin and Benjamin Mitchell, who were the co-chairs of the National NAIDOC Committee—they have done a great job this year. In 2014, the national theme for NAIDOC was 'Serving Country: Centenary & Beyond', honouring the Indigenous men and women who served in the defence of their country from the time of settlement until the most recent wars Australia has been involved in, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I commend the government for putting up $2.2 million to support more than 550 local community events across the country: flag-raising ceremonies, community barbeques, traditional cooking and art workshops, festivals and the like. I call on the government to make a commitment that this kind of funding will continue. They have cut $534.4 million in the budget from Indigenous affairs, and we need the current Abbott government to commit to continuing NAIDOC every year.
NAIDOC Week this year ran from 6-13 July. Many Australians from many different backgrounds were involved. I was pleased to attend the National NAIDOC Awards, which honoured many people, on the Gold Coast last Friday night. Particularly I want to congratulate all those people who received achievement awards. Linda Burney, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, received a lifetime achievement award. I congratulate Linda, who has spent her whole life working for social justice and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people not just in New South Wales but beyond.
In my electorate of Blair there were many events in which I and many people across the whole region participated. Starting off, we saw the NAIDOC festival in Lowood on 21 June. I congratulate Councillor Jim Madden, the Labor candidate for Ipswich West, who was the prime initiator of this event, which was sponsored by the Somerset Regional Council. At North Ipswich there was an Indigenous thanksgiving service with the Salvation Army for their 10 years of work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in meeting their spiritual and material needs in the Ipswich region. I attempted the flag-raising ceremony at the Yamanto Police Station, the premier police station in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. I go every year. To hear Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander servicemen and servicewomen and those in the police talking about the pride they feel in the work they do and how they serve not just their people but the community was tremendous. The Indigenous Appreciation Day was sponsored by the Ipswich Jets Rugby League team. My mate the CEO, Wayne Wendt, was the initiator of that. I must say once again that a poor refereeing decision robbed the Ipswich Jets of victory, 42 to 40, at the hands of Souths Logan Magpies, another dubious decision that we suffered under.
We also had a tremendous festival sponsored by the Ipswich City Council. I want to congratulate Derek Kinchela, the Indigenous Australian Community Development Officer at the Ipswich City Council. It was a great festival, held at the Briggs Road Sports Club. Many organisations attended, including We Care, the Ipswich City Council, West Moreton-Oxley Medicare Local, the Queensland Teachers Union, USQ, the Ipswich children and family centre and Kambu Medical. They were just a few who turned up on that day.
I thank Paul Pisasale, the Mayor of Ipswich, for the support of the council for this event. Serving Country: Centenary and Beyond was the theme of NAIDOC Week. There were hundreds of people there. The local media were also present, and I congratulate USQ for the work they do publicising this event every year. The achievements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their contribution to community life in the Ipswich and West Moreton region should be honoured. We should do this in every electorate around the country. I think members have a responsibility as they represent these communities to continue to celebrate and recognise the immense contribution to art, to culture, to sport and to the history of this country. It is great that we have acknowledged the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women who, for decades, served our country in warlike situations and yet could not even be counted in their own country and have the right to vote. That is the level of commitment they showed to Australia and its people. I congratulate all those involved with NAIDOC.
Perth Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2014
Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:18): I rise to comment on the Perth Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2014. I stress that it is the preliminary draft. All master plans are important for the airport communities, but this document is particularly significant for the people of Perth and the constituents in my electorate of Swan. This 2014 plan includes for the first time a proposal for a new runway development at Perth Airport. It also includes a runway extension plan for the cross-runway.
Airport master plans are 20-year planning documents that are completed every five years. The last master plan, in 2009, did not consider a need for a third runway at Perth Airport. In relation to the three runway options, the extensions to runways 06/24 and 03L/21R to the north and to the north-east and the new parallel runway, the 2009 master plan actually stated: 'It is considered unlikely that any of the runway developments will be required during the 20-year planning period for this master plan 2009.' The statement on page 19 of the 2014 preliminary draft master plan, 'Perth Airport needs to proceed to construct a new runway during the balance of this decade', represents a significant alteration in plans over the last five years, as does the contemplation of a cross-runway extension within the master plan period. I have been crusading and fighting about noise amelioration and aircraft noise for the last seven years, as did the two previous members for Swan. The airport is based in Swan and it is something that affects a lot of our constituents and businesses. It also affects the electorates of Hasluck, Pearce and Tangney.
Crucially, as far as I am concerned, a clear precedent exists for circumstances where new runway construction or runway extension is undertaken at capital city airports in Australia. This precedent has been demonstrated twice in recent years. After Sydney's third runway was opened in 1994, the federal government agreed to compensate affected residents through the voluntary provision of sound insulation for homes between 30 and 40 ANEF. Following Adelaide Airport's runway extension, which was opened by the Hon. John Howard in 1998, a similar noise insulation scheme titled the Adelaide Airport noise insulation program, came into force on 19 May 2000. This involved the expenditure of $63.7 million over four years. It is worth noting that one public building was determined as eligible for that scheme in 2013 and was included in the 2013-14 budget. I also note that it was in the member for Hindmarsh's electorate and that might have been a reason why it was included in the 2013-14 budget. Both schemes were run in broadly the same way. A passenger levy was applied and the proceeds were transferred to Airservices Australia, which administered the fund over an extended period of time. Both schemes were legislated for at the federal level with the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995, the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995 and the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Amendment Bill 2001 legislated under subsequent governments.
It is my view that with the new runway development and cross-runway extension in the master plan, there is now a clear precedent for a noise insulation scheme to be introduced to accompany these changes with the construction of a new runway. Perth Airport is indicating that it will be seeking to introduce a levy to pay for the construction of the new runway and a mechanism will be in place to run this scheme to pay for the construction. The mechanism is also there to introduce a scheme to pay for a noise amelioration.
Today I renew my call for an airport noise insulation scheme for Perth. It is my view that any noise insulation scheme should be based on a number above system and not on an ANEF system, which is a forecast not a measurement.
The passage on page 23 of the preliminary draft master plan states:
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has been driving significant reform of aircraft noise metrics and options to keep the community informed of noise impacts. The basis of the new noise metrics has been to map the impact of noise in relation to single events which exceed certain thresholds determined to be sufficient to interrupt a normal conversation, which is assumed to occur at 65 decibels (dB). Known as an N65 contour map, this is represented in any events map that shows how many times on an average day that 65dB(A) is exceed relative to a location.
There appears to be a consensus around the 20xN70, the 50xN65 and the 100xN60 system. The sooner we start the process to move away from ANEF, the better. I call for the noise insulation for Perth to be based on this approach.
Abbott Government
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (11:23): One of the most notable aspects of the singularly unsuccessful first year of this government has been the way that the Abbott cabinet has shown itself to be consistently more extreme and more out of touch than even the Howard government at its worst. Say what you like about John Howard—and I had plenty to say at the time—but he was never so extreme that he would sacrifice the jobs of thousands of Australians in the auto manufacturing industry on a bonfire of ideological purity. He was never so out of touch that he would seek to repeal Australia's racial vilification laws against the wishes of 80 per cent of Australians. Even John Howard was never so extreme and out of touch to completely ignore the obligation of those of us in this place to take climate change seriously. For many of those currently opposite, climate change is just another front in the culture wars—a political debating point to be pursued regardless of the real world consequences. But it was not always so. In fact, on this very day in 2007 the then Prime Minister John Howard announced the details of the emissions trading scheme that he intended to commence no later than 2012.
John Howard told the Melbourne Press Club on this day in 2007:
Climate change is a large, complex and serious global challenge that will occupy the world for decades to come. Over time, the scientific evidence that the climate is warming has become quite compelling and the link between emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity and higher temperatures is also convincing.
… … …
Our great and unique natural ecosystems, like the Great Barrier Reef, are potentially threatened and many of our major industries, not least agriculture, are highly sensitive to changes in the climate.
… … …
This challenge, I believe, is best met by a blend of prudent conservatism and economic liberalism. A prudent conservative knows we are but temporary stewards of the environment.
… … …
Reducing carbon emissions will mean higher energy and petrol prices. Australians need to understand that.
… … …
The best way to combat global climate change is to progressively tighten the screws on emissions while encouraging clean technologies for an energy hungry world.
… … …
Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them.
I quote from Prime Minister Howard at length to highlight the contrast between his views and the current leadership of the Liberal Party. Prime Minister Howard made these comments just seven years ago, but they are light-years away from where the Liberal Party has regressed to on this issue under the current Prime Minister. If you listened to those opposite in question time, you would think that Labor's support for an emissions trading scheme, a policy taken to the 2007 election by John Howard, was some kind of socialist plot to destroy the Australian economy.
Of course, it is not only with respect to carbon pricing that the Abbott government is intent on trashing the legacy of the Howard government on climate policy. An additional imminent threat in this regard is the Abbott government's current review of the renewable energy target. Since the RET was introduced in 2001 by the Howard government, we have seen $18 billion of investment in renewable energy in this country. Recent polls show that 77 per cent of Australians believe in keeping the RET and 85 per cent believe that keeping a renewable energy target is the 'right thing to do'. Yet, despite this, the Abbott government has appointed a climate sceptic to undertake its review of the RET, and we read regular leaks in the papers from members of the coalition backbench intent on tearing up this legacy of the Howard government.
The Liberal Party under Tony Abbott is but a shadow of the institution that it once was under John Howard. The kinds of views that we regularly see advanced by those opposite today would have been seen as kooky and extremist even in the Young Liberals of the Howard era. The member for Wentworth belled the cat in 2009 when he stated:
The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is 'crap' and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.
… … …
Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.
The Prime Minister has become fond in recent times of drawing historical comparisons between members of the Labor Party in this parliament and our historical forebears. It is worth pondering how the Prime Minister measures up against this test. In his first year in office, Tony Abbott has already shown that he is certainly no John Howard. Unsurprisingly, for a more appropriate historical comparison for this Prime Minister, we need to look further into our nation's past. We need to look towards a Prime Minister who the former Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony, said was 'just not big enough for the job'. In 1994, Paul Keating described the then opposition leader, Alexander Downer, as 'the most foolish political leader of this country since Billy McMahon'. Well, the Prime Minister has done Alexander Downer a favour because he has now taken the crown. On his performance to date, Tony Abbott can only dream of, one day, becoming as popular and respected as Billy McMahon.
Battle of Beersheba
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (11:28): I rise today to raise awareness of the remarkable Australian light-horse regiments who fought in the Battle of Beersheba and Macarthur's special role as a training ground for these men and their horses. On 31 October, we will mark the anniversary of this armed and bloody battle, which is also known as the last successful cavalry charge in history. Even though our Anzacs emerged victorious from the Battle of Beersheba, this victory occurred against the most fearful odds. Armed with sheer bloody audacity, 800 Anzacs defeated 4,000 Turks; 31 men died, 36 were wounded and 70 horses were killed in this battle. This remarkable and decisive victory changed the history of the Middle East and helped create the Australian light-horse legend.
Historian HS Gullet wrote about the charge of Beersheba:
These Australian countrymen had never in all their riding at home ridden in a race like this … and all ranks from the heroic ground scouts galloping in the front of their squadron leaders, to the men in the third line, drove in their spurs and charged on Beersheba.
He went on to say:
The fine exploit of the 4th and 12th regiments, although only 400 or 500 light horsemen actually made touch with the enemy, had a far reaching effect on the whole campaign.
Fred Eves, an Australian with the light horse ambulance who settled in Campbelltown after the war, said:
When I saw those first lines charge in all I could think was, thank God I'm an Australian. I've never seen boys fight like them!
So whilst Gallipoli is one of Anzacs' best known battles in military history, the Battle of Beersheba is described as one of Australia's greatest military triumphs. An extraordinary and decisive victory of the world's youngest nations, in an ancient land far from home, changed the history of the Middle East and helped created the Australian Light Horse legend.
This battle and the men who fought in it are particularly special to many families in my electorate. Macarthur is a place rich with equestrian heritage, and military records confirm that local Light Horse ranks contain many of Macarthur's skilled horseback riders. Macarthur is also home to Menangle Park, which played a significant role as a training ground for many men and horses that left Australia for the Middle East and Europe in World War I.
Local resident Steve Wisbey is the proud descendent of Frederick Cave Wisbey, his great-grandfather who served in the 7th Light Horse Regiment at Beersheba. Steve's grandfather often shared stories with his family of the 7th Light Horse Regiment in the harsh Middle East desert and the Battle of Beersheba. Frederick Wisbey was 16 years old when he went to war and travelled from Egypt to Gallipoli and back to the Middle East. Fortunately for his family Frederick returned home but, sadly, for so many others that trained on local soil at Menangle Park, that was not the case. Steve told me that his great-grandfather was a part of history that is truly difficult to imagine in all its horror and glory.
Even though it is difficult to imagine the fear and horror our Anzacs experienced in this battle, we must continue to honour and recognise their heroic and brave efforts. That is why I am proud to see that the Macarthur community will honour these brave soldiers and their horses with a series of events over the next four years. This year Tabcorp Park Menangle chief executive John Dumesny and the New South Wales harness racing club have organised a commemorative service and breakfast at the Menangle racecourse to celebrate Beersheba Day on 31 October. I praise John and the racing club for this wonderful tribute. The event will include Australian Light Horse in full uniform to parade and lay wreathes and special guest speaker Col Stringer, author of 800 Horsemen. In his book, Stringer reflects on the battle that opened up the doorway to the liberation of Jerusalem and the way for the foundation of the modern nation of Israel. This is something no other nation had been able to achieve in over 1,400 years. It was the first foreign army in the history of Israel to take Jerusalem, only to give it back, giving freedom to the Jewish people, and not taking it for themselves.
We were the world's youngest nation in an ancient land far from home. So this is truly a remarkable story of man and horse that the Macarthur community wants to honour. To mark the Battle of Beersheba centenary anniversary on 31 October 2017, John and local residents Steve Wisbey and Susan Peacock are working hard to have a statue erected at the local paceway in tribute to the horseback regiment. They are also organising a range of community events to commemorate those who fought in the battle and Macarthur's role in training the victorious regiment.
I am extremely proud of this committee for organising these events so that the Macarthur community can remember and honour these brave young horsemen and their great military triumph. I also praise their commitment and efforts in raising the profile of Beersheba Day and for encouraging community involvement in creating the memorial. I encourage John, Steve and Susan to keep up their fantastic work as they pay tribute to a very special part of Macarthur's history that will be remembered by local residents for many years come.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:33
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
East-West Link
(Question No. 102)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the minister representing the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 13 May 2014:
(1) Is he aware that the East-West Link project is predicated on the need to cater to current and projected population growth, the consequences of which could be major and disturbing to democracy, quality of life and the environment.
(2) Will the Government inform the Victorian electorate that Australia's population growth is more a product of policy choice, than an inevitability.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) All levels of Government plan future infrastructure with regard to many factors, including levels of economic activity, changes to the way goods and services are accessed (such as on-line), fuel prices, any costs to access infrastructure (such as tolls) and changes in population including changes brought about by changes in fertility rates.
(2) Please see response to Question No. 101. There are many aspects of population change in Australia that cannot be accurately predicted or controlled.
National Broadband Network
(Question No. 136)
Ms Rowland asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 13 May 2014
What sum, including (a) internal costs and (b) external costs spent on consultants or reviewers, has or will each of the following cost Mr Turnbull's department and NBN Co Limited:
(i) 'Strategic Review' (NBN Co Limited, 12 December 2013)
(ii) 'Strategic Review Part 2 – Fixed wireless and satellite (referred to in the Strategic Review, page 119)
(iii) 'Broadband Availability and Quality Report' (Department of Communications, December 2013)
(iv) Cost-Benefit Analysis and Review of Regulation by the Department of Communications (current)
(v) Review of NBN Co Limited Governance by Korda Mentha (current)
(vi) Independent Audit of the NBN public policy process by Mr Bill Scales AO (current)
Mr Turnbull: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
NBN Co:
The external consulting costs of the reviews mentioned above to 31 May 2014 was $10,119,442.75 . This excludes the costs associated with implementing the recommendation of the reviews.
(i) 'Strategic review' (NBN Co Limited, 12 December 2013), including Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Korda Mentha Pty Limited and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $ 8,030,566.75 excluding GST.
(ii) Strategic Review part 2 – Fixed wireless and satellite (referred to in the 'Strategic Review', page 119), Boston Consulting Group's (BCG) consultancy fee for the Fixed Wireless and Satellite Review was a fixed fee of $1,576,055 excluding GST (inclusive of all expenses except travel outside Sydney).
(iii) 'Broadband Availabilty and Quality Report' (Department of Communications, December 2013), was commissioned by the Department of Communications.
(iv) Cost-Benefit Analysis and Review of Regulation by the Department of Communications (current), $162,821.00 excluding GST.
(v) Review of NBN Co Limited Governance by KordaMentha (current), $350,000.00 excluding GST.
(vi) Independent Audit of NBN public policy process by Mr Bill Scales AO (current) was commissioned by the Department of Communication.
Department of Communications:
(i) Department of Communications staff undertook work as part of their normal duties.
(ii) Department of Communications staff undertook work as part of their normal duties.
(iii) Internal costs: The Broadband Availability and Quality report was prepared Department staff as part of their normal duties and with no expenditure on external consultants or reviewers. In parallel, the Department built the MyBroadband website which provides consumers with access to the broadband availability and quality analysis for their local area. External costs: Consultant costs for the MyBroadband website are around $23,000.
(iv) Internal costs: Department of Communications staff and secondees from central agencies undertake work as part of their normal duties. External costs: Total external costs at the completion of the project are expected to be around $1.7m (GST inclusive), including public servants seconded from other departments.
(v) Refer to NBN Co costs above, answer (v).
(vi) Independent Audit of NBN public policy process by Mr Bill Scales AO (current) was commissioned by the Department. External costs: Total external costs at the completion of the project are expected to be around $416,000 (GST inclusive), including a secretariat staffed by external public service employees.
Australian Hearing
(Question No. 165)
Ms Rowland asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 26 May 2014:
When Australian Hearing is sold (as announced as a budget measure on 13 May 2014), what will the Government do to assist financially the many young Australians (up to the age of 26 years) and their families currently receiving support from Australian Hearing by way of hearing tests, school aids and batteries, and receiving access to the latest hearing aid technology including updates, replacement and repairs, provided at no cost except for a yearly card renewal subscription.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Government has not made a decision to sell Australian Hearing Services.
As announced in the 2014-15 Budget, the Government has decided to undertake a scoping study. The scoping study will assess the future ownership options for Australian Hearing Services, and, should a sale be agreed by Government, ensure an appropriate model for the agreed course of action is used to continue the availability of high quality hearing services for all eligible Australians.
Once completed, the Government will consider the scoping study and its recommendations in the context of the 2015-16 Budget.
Expo Milano 2015
(Question No. 179)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 5 June 2014:
Will Australia participate in Expo Milano 2015.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In light of the previous and projected budget deficits in Australia and the high cost of participation in world expos, the Government has decided it can no longer justify participating in the World Expo in Milan in 2015.
Through our Embassy in Rome and Consul General in Milan, we will support Australian trade, tourism and networking events in the lead up to, and during, the Milan Expo. This presence will support Australian organisations and business activities to participate in promotions alongside the Expo which emphasise our people-to-people and cultural connections.
Even though Australia is not participating in the Expo, Australia will have a significant public diplomacy footprint in Italy during 2015 through the Australia Council's Pavilion at the Venice Art Biennale.
International Air Fares
(Question No. 196)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 23 June 2014:
Are there any Australian taxes and charges that impact on the significant disparity in airfares between Darwin and Dili (costing $126 to Dili, and $58 from)?
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The only Australian Government charge applied to international air fares is the Passenger Movement Charge (PMC), which is currently set at $55. The PMC is levied on all passengers departing Australia and is collected by airlines when passengers purchase their tickets.
Other 'taxes and charges' applied to international air fares between Darwin and Dili include airport and security charges applied by airports to passengers departing from their airport. Darwin International Airport applies a Safety and Security Charge of $9.74 and a Liquids, Aerosols and Gels Charge of $3.71 (both GST exclusive). These charges are not set by the Australian Government.
Infrastructure and Regional Development
(Question No. 197)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 23 June 2014:
What current discussions are occurring between the Australian and New South Wales governments over construction plans that impact Windsor Bridge and Thompson Square, and what alternatives are being considered, if any.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
There are currently no discussions occurring between the Australian and New South Wales governments regarding construction plans that impact Windsor Bridge and Thompson Square. The Windsor Bridge project is the responsibility of the New South Wales Government.