The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 9:00 made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
CONDOLENCES
Whitlam, Hon. Edward Gough, AC, QC
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 21 October 2014 of the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam AC, QC, former Member for Werriwa and Prime Minister, and place on record its appreciation of his long and highly distinguished service to the nation and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (09:01): Let me end on a personal note. I was born in 1972. When my mother's pregnancy reached the nine-month mark she pinned an 'It's time' badge onto the part of her shirt that covered her belly. Gough's vision and optimism helped shape my political life.
Canberrans, too, have always treasured Gough. He ensured that ACT residents got Senate representation. Given that he spent 10 years living in Canberra full time as a child at Telopea High and Canberra Grammar, and then as a resident of the Lodge, plus two more decades travelling here as a member of parliament, Canberrans are rightly proud to claim Gough as one of our own.
On the crypt of the great English architect, Christopher Wren, is engraved 'si monumentum requiris, circumspice'—if you seek his monument, look around you. It would be a fitting epitaph for Edward Gough Whitlam.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (09:02): Edward Gough Whitlam left on extraordinary legacy which has been captured by numerous speakers. This is my personal reflection. I was a year 8 student at Campbell High School in the ACT at the time of the dismissal. My family was delighted. My mathematics teacher was anything but. My memory is of him at the front of the class glaring around, face brick red, sleeves rolled up, declaring: 'There will be no maths today. Hands up anyone who, if they could vote, would vote Liberal at this election?' Needless to say, I did not put up my hand.
Gough's social reforms have quite rightly been celebrated. Helping to end the White Australia policy and making Indigenous and new Australians feel welcome and included are to me standouts.
The social mobility that he initiated was the beginning of the end of the class system we had inherited from Britain. Above all, Gough demonstrated with wife Margaret what a partnership based on love, equality and respect look like in a modern world.
Gough left a one-of-a-kind legacy in my electorate of Farrer. Albury-Wodonga was selected as the primary focus of the federal Whitlam government's scheme to arrest the uncontrolled growth of Australia's large coastal city, Sydney and Melbourne in particular, by encouraging decentralisation. Grand plans were made to turn Albury-Wodonga into a major inland city.
As Professor Bruce Pennay from our local Charles Sturt University notes that Whitlam from opposition and then in government was 'personally responsible for imagining the rapid and joint development of Albury-Wodonga' as a collective—one city straddling the New South Wales-Victorian border.
Drop into our border towns today and many people you meet will say the growth centre concept was both bold and imaginative. Some will say it was too rushed and less than well executed. It is somewhat ironic that the federal body known for most of its existence as the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, which was set up to carry Gough's eventually unrealised visions from 1972, will come to a close at the end of this financial year. Regardless, Whitlam remained an enthusiast, and would visit from time to time to hail any new endeavour to promote the two cities as one and of course to rebuke those who would dare set them apart. The tax office in Albury, with over 600 staff, has provided employment and a career for many local people. In my case it was my first job after part-time study and the birth of my children, and it set me on a professional pathway that was largely instrumental in my coming to this place.
As many would be aware, the parliament owns Clifton Pugh's famous portrait of our 21st Prime Minister. The story of the picture reflects the intersection of art and this democracy of ours in several ways. When he won the Archibald Prize with his portrait of Sir John McEwen in 1971 Clif did not know Gough Whitlam, but he casually announced to the press that he would win the next year with whoever the Prime Minister was going to be. Whitlam, just as informally, sent a telegram agreeing to sit. They were relaxed times back then. My cousin-in-law, Judith Pugh, was Clif's wife and she explains that, as part of her role to keep the attention of Clif's sitters, she outlined to Gough the plan for the arts that had been developed by a number of creative and performing artists and persuaded him to be minister for the arts. What the artists at the time acknowledged but has become rather overshadowed is that, from the second Menzies government, Sir Robert and the subsequent coalition prime ministers developed a program of travelling exhibitions that engaged us with Asia, developed a remarkable collection of art and planned a national gallery in which the collection could be displayed. Gough Whitlam signed off on that gallery and of course it is now a place to see Australian and international art—a place of scholarship, a place of education and a tourist destination. Clifton Pugh's Archibald Prize-winning painting was bought by the Historic Memorials Committee, and it is fitting that it should be the most visited picture in this building, no doubt much as Whitlam would be happy to be remembered—thoroughly larger than life and just as important now that he has gone.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (09:07): Gough Whitlam changed Labor and he changed this country. He and his cabinet brought modern Australia into being. They created our modern social democracy. Last week, after we had heard the news, the Labor family walked to Old Parliament House to pay tribute to Gough together. As we walked up the steps, the member for Moreton asked me, 'How do you feel—a girl like you, a working-class girl from Cairns—to be here at such an occasion?' I said to him, 'Well, that's the point. That's what Gough did for us' and he agreed, because we both know that Gough wanted to create opportunities for everyone and he wanted to work for a more equal society. Like countless others, I am a direct beneficiary of that.
Earlier this year I gave a speech for Gough's 98th birthday. In that speech I thanked Gough for the opportunities I had had to get a higher education, and I thanked him for a lot of other things as well. I am pleased to say that he heard about the speech and that he knew of my gratitude. I received a message: 'You have made an old man very happy.' I must have been one of so many people who thanked him for everything he had done over the course of his life.
Remembering Gough reminds us all that politics matters and that public life matters. It reminds us that we must be here in this place with a sense of purpose, determined to improve the wellbeing of our countrymen and women. We all share in this great responsibility to build on his legacy. I do not claim to know Gough; I have only met him a couple of times. I was there at our national Labor conference when he and his beloved wife, Margaret, received their national life memberships of the Australian Labor Party. They were the first two people to receive those memberships from the party's national conference. But even though I did not know him it is impossible not to be grateful to him for what he did to change our nation. As I said, he also changed the Labor Party. That is important, because this nation and its people depend on Labor to be the party of great reform. The Liberals and Nationals can claim to have instigated very few of the nation's great reforms since the 1970s but, under Gough's leadership and since, our movement has won, and defended, for all Australians so many reforms.
I do not need to repeat the list of them and there are too many anyway, but I want to mention, as the member for Lingiari did much more extensively last week, Gough's work to improve the rights of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders.
As he said in 1972:
We will legislate to give Aborigines land rights—not just because their case is beyond argument, but because all of us as Australians are diminished while the Aborigines are denied their rightful place in this nation.
It is because of Labor's reformist tradition that Australia needs Labor. There is no other party able to govern that will do what is needed to build our nation at the same time and make it a fairer place for everyone.
Gough understood the imperative to make Labor a better party so that we could fulfil that obligation. As Senator Faulkner said in his speech on Gough's 90 second birth day:
… he was determined to make much needed changes to get Labor out of opposition and into government.
He pursued party reforms to make the party a viable alternative government, and policy reforms to make Labor's platform one that truly met the needs of modern Australia.
In 1977, the year I was born, Gough came to Queensland and told our Labor-In-Politics Convention bluntly that we had to get our house in order. He said:
Whenever things go badly, there is a natural tendency to look for far-fetched answers and blame the people instead of ourselves. I don't think we need to go beyond the obvious for an explanation of our troubles: the party has been run down and defeatist, our policies have been too-little explained and too-little understood.
He went on to say:
Let us not delude ourselves that dissatisfaction with Mr Bjelke-Petersen is enough to put Labor back, any more than dissatisfaction with the Fraser government will put us back in the national parliament. We must put our own house in order first. A reformed and invigorated party in Queensland must be the first step to a Labor government in Brisbane and a new Labor government in Canberra.
In 2014, we can take a great deal of inspiration from Gough's policy achievements and we can also take a great deal of instruction from the way he worked to make Labor electable again. We owe it to him to be Labor, at Labor's, best every day.
I finish by expressing my sincere condolences to Katherine, Nicholas, Tony, Stephen, their partners and their families.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (09:11): There are but a few faces that represent an era. Yet we can certainly say that Gough Whitlam's name, voice and face bring to mind a political epoch. His features themselves can conjure memories of turbulent times—times of great aspiration and times of great controversy. He was and remains synonymous with dramatic national transformation.
Gough Whitlam was nothing if not a passionate, driven and energetic man. He implemented reforms in almost every field of government endeavour ranging from foreign policy to education. The frenetic pace at which he led this change left many gasping for breath. But his convictions led him to leave no stone unturned. Indeed, some stones he hurled metaphorically into the next paddock. Whether or not one agrees with his policies, his vision and sheer grit are characteristics worthy of our deepest respect.
I believe all sides of politics will concur, regardless of our own political inclinations, that last Tuesday we lost a great Australian. Whitlam did leave many valuable legacies, driven by passion, ideals and character. He had a strong relationship with his wife of almost 70 years who herself was an inspiration to the women of her time and an advocate for women's rights. It was from the publicly witnessed strength of such a strong relationship that he could make on marital laws so much more humane through the passing of the first no-fault divorce procedure in 1975.
The Whitlam government fought for equal pay for women and the establishment of an inquiry to lay the basis for lands right for Indigenous Australians. He also brought in the first cuts to tariffs led by the inspirational modest member Bert Kelly. So there are certainly policies to celebrate.
Whitlam also made a significant contribution to Australia' identity. He had a confidence in Australia and brought with it the idea that Australia has the power to determine its own ideals and that, even as a small country, we can still have big ideas and aspirations. Indeed, with his exciting political dash, he had the capacity to make Australians feel part of something much bigger.
However, as Greg Sheridan pointed out in The Australian, there are misperceptions surrounding Gough Whitlam's prime ministership. Greg cautions that we do not turn Whitlam into some form of political god, because many of his actions were a continuation of sensible trends. For instance, he is often credited with being responsible for the removal of Australian troops from Vietnam; yet most of the troops had already been repatriated by the previous coalition government.
Many have spoken of Gough's brilliant foreign policy legacy, in particular his engagement with China. He did recognise the new government of China after the revolution, and the Chinese government itself has, on his passing, recognised him as the father of Chinese-Australian relations. Yet he was not without flaws in consideration of other peoples and nations. For example, he recognised the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over the Baltic states without taking into account their right to self-determination. Furthermore, he was decidedly unwelcoming to Vietnamese immigrants, even when they had been very helpful to Australians in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Whitlam was a great Australian.
His legacy is enormous but he has also left us with lessons which we must not forget. All can agree that Whitlam was responsible for one of the most rapid periods of legislative change in Australian history. However, his approach, that government is the solution to every problem, is not one that fits well with many Australians. Big government often diminishes its citizens—their choices and their opportunities. Whilst Prime Minister Whitlam was enacting rapid social change, it is my view that the economy was neglected and indeed mismanaged. Government spending increased by 40 per cent, tax rates soared and in one year unemployment doubled. In one short year, between 1974 and 1975, the Whitlam government managed to completely lose control of the budget. According to the economics editor of The AFR, Alan Mitchell, it took '20 years and four prime ministers to get it back under control'.
This was his ultimate legacy to the Labor Party and the legacy that, sadly, has been repeated by Labor prime ministers since his prime ministership—for then, as now, we cannot spend beyond our means, even when implementing a dramatic reform agenda. There seemed to be a concept at the heart of his government that inflation, which reached double digits, and prudent budget administration could be handled after other reforms had been achieved. We have since learnt the important lesson that vision must come hand in hand with economic management. If we do not plan to pay for our changes, the ultimate payment is extracted from our children and their children in an uncontrolled and unplanned manner. Real leadership involves responsible choices. A great leader has a vision and an economic plan for the nation. Without these two essential ingredients a national leader can do more harm than good.
It is also true that Whitlam's management of his government was chaotic. Unable to control his own ministers, the government's inability to finance its big spending program revealed itself to the public in the Khemlani loans affair, which involved a $4 billion loan from the Middle East from undisclosed sources, meaning a bypassing of the Loan Council. The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Connor, was sacked along with the Treasurer over this loans scandal. Perhaps these economic problems and scandals contributed to the souring of his relationship with the Australian public, as evidenced by Whitlam's landslide loss at the election in 1975.
In remembering Whitlam, we remember a period of legislative change the like of which Australia has never seen before, economic problems of the Whitlam government's own making but also an increase in tolerance. Whitlam will be remembered as significantly shaping the Australian that we love today. He used the power that he had as an agent of change and reminded us all of our national identity and how proud we should be to call ourselves Australian. He was a man of great courage and vigour, so regardless of whether or not we agree with his policies it is no sin to feel saddened by his passing and blessed to have lived in the same epoch as such a man.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (09:18): It is with some sadness that I rise to speak on the condolence motion to farewell the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam AC, QC, the 21st Prime Minister of Australia. It is time for him to be with his beloved Margaret and it is time for us to say goodbye to a great Labor leader. But where to start when one talks about the most influential leader that this country has ever had? As so many have said, he was truly a giant of a man. He had a great intellect and he had a great vision, but he was also kind, funny and warm, and he had a loving family.
Gough dared to dream. He dared us to dream, to dream of what a future Australia should look like, and then he told us that we could make it so. Gough entered this parliament in 1952. He chose to do this because he believed politics is an honourable profession. He could have stayed with the law. He had served his country in the Air Force. He had so many options, but he wanted to serve his country as a member of parliament. I am sure, knowing Gough, that he would have been confident early on that one day he was going to be Prime Minister. He was Prime Minister for such a short time but it was a very busy time, with Gough and Labor in a hurry to implement their ideas and their policies after so many years in opposition. The government that he led, that implemented his vision, made so many changes to policy in this country that forever changed the people of Australia, how we thought about ourselves and how others viewed us from outside.
After winning the 1972 election, it was of course a Tasmanian in Lance Barnard, the member for Bass, who formed the two-part cabinet with Gough that made so many sweeping changes. It is hard to decide which of the many reforms had the biggest, most enduring impact. His changes to education meant so many Australians had an opportunity to get a tertiary education that would not have happened without his reforms. So many of us in this place have a story about the first ever family member who did go or is going to university because of Gough. His changes to the social security system gave poor people the dignity of being accepted and treated as equals in this country. So many children of those affected by these changes have had opportunities that they would not otherwise have had because of Gough. There were his changes to our health system, with Medibank, now Medicare, providing universal health care to so many and the start of the great Medicare. So many lives were enhanced, extended and saved because of what Gough did.
From health to education, from social security to antidiscrimination, to his wonderful land hand-back to Aboriginal Australians, to his passion for the arts, to his visit to China, to his commitment to equal pay and what he did for women's rights, to his starting to reduce tariffs, Gough really did modernise and change the face of this country. He reformed the Labor Party itself. He told us we had to believe we could win government, that we needed to win government. Indeed, he told the ALP's conference in Victoria in 1968 that 'only the impotent are pure' and that we need to change our platform and we needed to change our party.
He also changed the country's voting systems. To quote from Gough's speech from 2001 at the Federation anniversary dinner in Melbourne, celebrating the centenary of the federal ALP's caucus, Gough said:
Tonight we celebrate more than a century's commitment to change and reform through Parliament. My most constant objective has been to make Australian Parliaments more representative of all voters. The nadir of the Party's electoral fortunes was reached in March 1968, when the Dunstan Government was defeated despite winning 52% of the votes.
Only one of Australia's 13 Houses of Parliament was left with a Labor majority, the Tasmanian House of Assembly. Tasmania alone had equal enrolments in all electoral divisions in the State and Federal lower houses. In the winter of our discontent, Lance Barnard and I, the Leader and Deputy Leader in the Senate, Lionel Murphy and Sam Cohen, Premier Eric Reece and the Leaders of the five State Oppositions met in Hobart. We resolved to achieve equal franchise—one vote-one value—in the House of Representatives and in all the State Houses of Parliament.
At the joint sitting of both Federal Houses in August 1974, the House of Representatives was made the first legislative body in Australia to be elected on the principles of one vote, one value and regular redistribution.
Gough was truly a democrat. He believed in the parliament. He believed in people and their ideas.
I had the great privilege of meeting Gough on several occasions, particularly when he came to Tasmania, my home state, and, importantly, when he and Margaret were presented with their life membership at the ALP national conference in Sydney—the first people to receive a national ALP life membership.
In closing, my sympathies go to Gough's children, his family and his friends. On behalf of my electorate of Franklin and on behalf of the people of Tasmania I say, simply: 'Thank you, Gough.'
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (09:24): I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this condolence motion for the Honourable Gough Whitlam AC, QC. Like most Australians, I did not know Mr Whitlam. I was not born when he became Prime Minister and I was just one year old when he left office. Like most Australians, there was much about Mr Whitlam I respected. I am fortunate to have the opportunity to express my views in this place.
It seems to me that much of the battle in public life is about having the courage to ask the big questions. You cannot move things forward unless you are willing to at least contemplate some radical ideas. Wisely, we generally shy away from radical ideas once we have contemplated them, but every once in a while it takes a leader to grasp tomorrow's conventional wisdom today. Mr Whitlam demonstrated that leadership ability in a few important ways.
He established diplomatic relations with China. He was ahead of his time. He did it during the Cold War. If, politically, Richard Nixon could go to China, it was much more difficult for Mr Whitlam—but he did do that and it has been, clearly, to the benefit of our nation in the ensuing decades. He decolonised Papua New Guinea, recognising that the era of colonies was over and belonged to another time. He drafted the first Land Rights Act for Indigenous Australians, which put us on the path we have been on for some time since and that path towards acknowledging the legal fiction of terra nullius. Importantly, he cut tariffs by 25 per cent in 1973, a very aggressive idea at the time with little public support. It was certainly not supported by his union constituency or many others but was something that helped set us on that path of tariff reduction, which has been so important to our future prosperity.
None of us are any more than human and Mr Whitlam was just a man. He made at least his share of mistakes and pursued economic policies that the Australian people understandably rejected. But he was a man blessed with the intellectual depth to conceive of big ideas and he had the powers of persuasion to make them happen. He could never be accused of entering politics simply to occupy the crease. He had ideas. He pursued them with all vigour. We can ask nothing more of a public servant. I pass on my deepest condolences to Mr Whitlam's family at this difficult time.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (09:27): Due to my age and the longevity of my political involvement, I am indisputably the only person in this parliament who was at the 1969 and 1972 victory functions at Gough Whitlam's home. I want to correct an earlier contribution regarding that, because the second 1972 event certainly was at his home. He had previously received the results at the Sunnybank motel, room 7, and then walked to the function that night.
In 2010, after the strange, brief disappearance and then revival of the seat of Reid, and in a checkmate of political faction leaders and union honchos, I found myself the member for Werriwa. I soon found two very distinct aspects of that electorate. The first is a sense of difference, a belief that the Macarthur region was distinct. If you go to any fundraiser in that electorate they always promise people that all the money will stay in the region. That is a hangover from the rural nature of Campbelltown and its environs.
I also found that not only Labor loyalists but also the general electorate had a belief that it was a great thing they lived in the electorate of Gough Whitlam. Again, in 2013, when the Liberal Party plastered the electorate with money, and pundits in both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party thought that I would lose the seat, I had newspaper commentary which constantly stressed that the iconic seat of Reid, the old seat of Gough Whitlam, would be lost to the Labor Party. So he is very much centrally involved in the history of that electorate.
I had the opportunity of observing another aspect of his political life. My father shared with him state and federal responsibilities for significant periods. They went through the obvious requirements of the electorate—attending school fetes, balls and dances and other events of the burgeoning Maltese, Italian and German communities. There were also functions at the nascent RSLs and bowling clubs. On many occasions he dropped by our house. He would take off his shoes and have a few drinks with my parents. My mother being raised in the Riverina was no mean cook, and on many occasions she commented on Gough's fondness for the tooth—a proclivity for cakes et cetera.
I want to stress that from the moment of the 1949 by-election—I have an advertisement of it here provided by Richard James Ford for a meeting at Liverpool Town Hall on 25 November—Gough Whitlam was a person who very much involved himself in the electorate, with the local education of the children and sporting and training events. He was a person who actually treated very seriously his civic responsibilities and his engagement with the local electorate. It is not only a matter of what he accomplished for this country but also the fact that he was very much a participant in local democracy within the electorate. It was, as I say, the reason that we now see such a fondness for him within that electorate.
He is respected for many breathtaking innovations during that period, and it is an important point to bear in mind that those changes still affect us today. Both sides of politics have talked about the NDIS and, hopefully, we will now see action in regard to Australia's disabled. A person called Gough Whitlam was, 40 years ago, calling in the wilderness for a national compensation scheme. In the last few months, Australia has been very proud to make its opinions known on matters as diverse as ISIS and the shooting down of the plane in Ukraine and also to make its presence felt on the Security Council. This accomplishment is very much related to a person who, in contrast to many other prime ministers, knew that there were capital cities in this world beyond Washington, Wellington, Tokyo and London. He had an incredible knowledge of the world, its diversity, and a belief that rather than being the arse end of the earth this country through is pioneering accomplishments, through its remoteness and through its independent need to survive the Second World War et cetera did have something to present. The fact that we can now see ourselves on the Security Council, that we can have a role independent to some degree of the United States—at least a degree greater than it was previously—owes much to him.
In regard to university education, a matter of controversy these days, I want to quote some figures to show how bad things are in the United States, which some people in this country would like us to emulate. Christopher Benfey in the New York Review of Books last week revealed that 100 United States schools, representing 0.3 per cent of the United States education system, were able to provide 22 per cent of the entrants to Princeton, Yale and Harvard. This is the kind of outcome that Gough Whitlam vigorously opposed. We know that he abolished university fees, introduced student income support, moved the federal sphere very strongly into tertiary education and changed many other aspects of the policy.
Another issue on the agenda today that has some connection with him is Gonski. One of the issues back in his political career was the question of state aid for schools. I have a letter here from Brother Kelvin Canavan, who was a long-term activist on this issue. He talks about Whitlam at state and other rallies in 1969. He notes:
His message was always the same. Australia must increase spending on education and both government and Catholic schools should be funded according to need. Gough had a very clear view that the Commonwealth must make "a comprehensive and continuous financial commitment to schools, as it has to universities."
A few years ago, I located a sound recording—of the Town Hall speeches. I sent a copy to Gough who phoned me the next day with his reminiscences of the campaign by Catholics for financial assistance their schools.
… … …
He took considerable pride in the role he played in ensuring that all students had access to well-funded schools.
On a number of occasions, he came back to the 1969 rallies. He lamented the passing of public meetings that provided a stage for a gifted orator. "Television is a poor substitute for the Town Hall," he said.
He recognised another area where Whitlam's views are still relevant today. His belief that there needs to an emphasis on areas of need for those regions that are deprived so that people have access to university and an equal education in primary and secondary schools.
In my association with people, the most common reference to Whitlam is in connection with education. The number of people who say that they personally would not have gone to university, had the livelihood that they have, brought up their family in the way that they have or had the opportunity to broaden their knowledge without Whitlam's reforms in education is the most evident of those changes.
We also have—and many people have raised this—the recognition of China. It is interesting that in the last fortnight that Jimmy Carter—who only accomplished US recognition of China in 1978 and in the process was vigorously attacked by Barry Goldwater—was treated very badly in China. It was, as I say, six years after Australia that the United States normalised responsibilities. It was a breathtaking initiative by an independent country—a country asserting its place in the world.
Finally, there was the war in Indochina and the decision by Labor to stop this lottery and to give people the opportunity to avoid involvement in this conflict which had long been opposed far more vigorously even than by Gough by other elements in the Labor Party over the previous decade.
I salute Gough and Margaret's contribution to Australian politicly life; and to his family, I express my own, my electorate's and my family's condolences.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (09:37): Gough Whitlam our 21st Prime Minister was born on 11 July 1916 and passed away of 21st October 2014 aged 98 years. The 98 years of his life, although our country has gone through many ups and downs, saw an unprecedented improvement in the prosperity and the welfare of the average Australian. We saw vast improvements across our living standards during that period.
Here are a couple of examples: when Gough Whitlam was born, life expectancy for the average Australian was under 60 years. When Gough Whitlam died, it was approaching 85 years. Australians born today have been given the gift of a quarter of a century of life.
We also saw during the time of Gough Whitlam's life substantial decreases in infant mortality. In fact, at the time of Whitlam's birth, there were around 100 deaths for every thousand live births. Today it is down to less than three for every thousand live births. It has come about through improvements in prenatal and post natal care; new medicines; mass vaccinations; and improved sanitation.
We have also seen during Whitlam's life a massive decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. When Whitlam was born, there were around 143 deaths per every thousand people per year from infectious and parasitic diseases. Today it is down to just nine.
We also saw substantial increases in real wages and increases in household wealth when we look at what we take for granted today like motor vehicles. In the 1920s, when a young Gough Whitlam would have been considering getting a car, there were only 21 motor vehicles in the country for every thousand people. Today it is over 560 for every thousand people.
When we look at household appliances, communication and education, Australians today enjoy so much prosperity because we inherited the legacy of our previous generation.
The other thing we should be very thankful to our 21st Prime Minister for is his war service. We know that Gough Whitlam registered for the Royal Australian Air Force the very day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He was called up in June 1942 and he served as a navigator, spending much of his time stationed at Gove. He moved further north and undertook bombing raids on enemy supply camps in the islands of the Philippines. We Australians today who enjoy the peace and prosperity that we do should always be thankful to that generation of Australians who fought and served during the Second World War.
Gough Whitlam also had ties to the electorate that I represent, Hughes. In fact, Gough Whitlam tried to run for the Sutherland Shire Council but was defeated twice. He also ran for the state seat of Sutherland in 1950 but was again defeated. Many might say that the Sutherland Shire's loss was the nation's gain, although some of the Sutherland Shire might put it the opposite way. In 1952, he was finally elected in a by-election for the seat of Werriwa, which at that time encompassed much of the Sutherland Shire and much of the seat of Hughes that I represent today. In 1955, the electorate of Werriwa, then the most populous in the nation, was split in two, with the older part of Hughes being created—the electorate that I proudly represent here in parliament today.
It took Gough Whitlam 14 years in this parliament, which is a substantial amount of time by today's standards, before he was elected leader of the Labor Party. He went on to lose the 1969 election, but in 1972 he finally led Labor into office after 23 years in opposition.
I believe that all our past prime ministers have been great patriots of this nation and they all wanted to see our nation succeed and our prosperity continue to increase. Therefore, I believe that they would all want us not to engage in mythmaking but to look upon their terms in office critically, to look at the things that they did wrong—not for the sake of criticising but for the sake of hoping to learn from those mistakes. The Whitlam government, although they certainly did many interesting things, they did a few things that we should look at and we should learn from those mistakes.
One, I believe, was the recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states: Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. That was undertaken by the Whitlam government on 3 August 1974. That was in the midst of the Cold War, the real struggle in the second half of the last century, the struggle between communism and the West. By recognising the communist takeover, we said it was okay for those people to remain locked behind the Iron Curtain, that the Iron Curtain was a permanent feature that we had accepted and that we had surrendered in the fight of the Cold War. History shows that that was the wrong thing to do. We have shown that that was standing on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, many other nations stood by the Baltic states, especially the Americans. When those states were finally liberated in the nineties, that recognition, unfortunately, was a very sad part of our nation's history. Thankfully, it was reversed after a short period of time.
The other thing that the Whitlam government was given much credit for was recognition of China, but that came at the expense of Taiwan. We withdrew from Taiwan and closed down our embassy, and we recognised China. We have to remember that the China that we deal with today is a different kettle of fish to the China of the 1970s. One reason, I would suggest, that China has gone down the track that it has and has seen its prosperity increase so much is that, during the eighties and nineties, the Chinese leadership had the opportunity to look at how their nation was progressing and compare it to the island of Taiwan. Whereas China's economy, GDP and standard of living were flatlining almost for decades, the economy of Taiwan continued to increase substantially. The prosperity the Taiwanese people enjoyed multiplied several-fold while the Chinese economy was flatlining. One of the reasons was that the Taiwanese people went down the track of free markets. They went down the track of democracy. They went down the track of creating an entrepreneurial culture, of allowing their own people to own and create wealth and to start up their own businesses.
I would suggest it was that prosperity—seeing the difference of the standard of living those two systems delivered, in terms of material welfare—that was one of the major reasons the Chinese government, in the 90s, decided to open its economy.
By pulling out of Taiwan, by closing our embassy there, we threatened the Taiwanese economy. In fact, the Taiwanese economy went through a very dark and harsh period, during the early 1970s, when countries such as Australia no longer recognised them—and recognised China. It is also worthwhile remembering that even in the 1980s our exports to China only represented 2½ per cent of our nation's exports. Today they represent over 30 per cent. That increase has come about because the Chinese have realised they should have followed the economic policies of the Taiwanese. What Australia and many nations did, by pulling out of Taiwan, threatened the very thing that has created the modern China of today.
There are also the mistakes we made about the Vietnamese refugees, and this was covered by a debate yesterday in this parliament. There is the decision of creating independence for Papua New Guinea. We see Papua New Guinea today experiencing as a nation great difficulties. Perhaps we rushed into giving Papua New Guinea independence. Perhaps it was because of an anti-colonialist attitude that we thought having another country as a colony—although we never treated it that way—was a bad thing.
Before we became a federation we were able to enjoy 100 years of British traditions and the establishment of those institutions to create the democracy that we have, the rule of law that we have. Perhaps we rushed into giving Papua New Guinea that independence. Perhaps we should have stayed there and helped that nation establish those British institutions, help establish the rule of law, help establish the Westminster system and help establish its infrastructure. Perhaps if we had done that Papua New Guinea would have been a stronger nation today.
The other thing we can learn from the Whitlam era is the way that we treat our troops when they come home. Much is said about the Whitlam government bringing the troops home from Vietnam, but history shows that this all happened under previous Liberal governments. When Labor came to power there were only 120 Australian troops left in Vietnam, most of those guarding our embassy. And none of them were conscripts. There were the attacks from the left when those troops came home—the demonisation of those troops—that caused many of those men many more problems than they had experienced fighting in the war.
We realise now those mistakes. We realise now the importance, whether people agree or disagree with the war, of treating our troops and armed service men and women, who serve and fight in those wars, with the utmost respect and dignity when they return home.
We also learned about the issue of so-called free education. Much is said about Whitlam making education free. We know there were many scholarships and grants, and the majority of people in university when Whitlam was in power were actually there on some type of scholarship system. We remember the word 'free', but nothing is for free. Someone always has to pay. So unless we are going to turn our lecturers in universities into slaves, someone must pay. If we are giving someone a free university education or even a subsidised university education, it means someone else out there in society—often someone who never would have the opportunity to go to university—has to pay.
We also learned about our Trade Practices Act. It is often said the Whitlam government introduced the Trade Practices Act, but we had a Trade Practices Act preceding that in 1965 and we had a Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1971. Perhaps, with hindsight, one of the great mistakes of that Trade Practices Act was section 49, the provisions on price discrimination where, rather than following the entirety of US antitrust law at the time and implementing what was the US Robinson-Patman Act for price discrimination, we went with other wording. We tacked on the other end of our price discrimination act a substantial lessening of competition test, and that has led to much concentration in our markets today across all sectors.
The Whitlam government was certainly one of great historical importance and interest to our nation. As I said, we cannot sugar coat the period. We need to look at the mistakes that were made so we can learn from those mistakes. Of course during that period we also saw unemployment triple, we saw the tax take almost double, we saw the deficit blow out and we saw inflation soar to almost 20 per cent. When the Australian public was finally given the opportunity to give a verdict on those Whitlam years at the 1975 election, Labor were tossed out in a landslide. There was a 7.4 per cent swing against them and, of the 66 seats that the Labor Party held, 30 seats were lost. Almost half of the government lost office, with a two-party preferred vote of 55.7 per cent to 44.3 per cent. Whitlam stayed on in parliament and contested the 1977 election. Despite that, there was just a 1.1 per cent swing back and they only won back two of the 30 seats they had lost. It was still a landslide victory to the coalition.
Gough Whitlam was part of an era, a generation of Australians that has enabled my generation and my children's generation, and hopefully my children's generation in the future, to enjoy enormous prosperity. For all the errors, for all the mistakes, we must be greatly thankful for our 21st Prime Minister.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (09:51): On a balmy night on 30 November 1972 I walked down Balaclava Rd from my grandmother's house in Carnegie to the 'It's Time' rally at the St Kilda, now Port Phillip, Town Hall, and there I met for the first time, and heard, Gough Whitlam, with whom I have been intermittently in contact throughout my time in politics and indeed before my entry to parliament. He was an inspiring but flawed leader. I suppose we are all flawed.
The Menzies government was the first one to tentatively introduce state aid to independent schools in the form of funding for science laboratories, but it was Gough Whitlam who ensured that the funding of non-government schools was for ever non-partisan. Prior to 1970, the hard left anti-Catholic sectarians who dominated the Victorian Labor Party hated the idea of the federal government funding of non-government schools. Whitlam understood that unless there was a needs based, non-sectarian funding of all schools Labor would remain unelectable. Indeed the issue of state aid to independent schools destroyed the career of my predecessor, then leader of the state opposition, Clive Holding. Just days before the 1970 election the local newspaper, the Herald Sun, reported Bill Hartley, the infamous anti-Israel head of the Victorian central executive, overruling Holding's pledge to give government money, state aid, to church schools. This caused Mr Whitlam, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, with the support of then ACTU President Bob Hawke, to intervene in the Victorian Labor Party and insist on the replacement of its extreme left executive. Excising the hard left Victorian central executive, dominated by the little remembered but prominent at the time figures Bill Hartley and George Crawford, is widely judged to have been crucial not just at a state level but also nationally to Labor's election for the first time in 23 years in 1972.
Despite the ghastly ghouls in the Greens party trying to steal Gough Whitlam's mantle after his death, Whitlam was a centrist and long an enemy of the hard left. Only in conversations since his passing have I been told it was he who alerted the Red Fox, Alan Reid, and his photographer to the scene of him and Arthur Calwell, then the Leader of the Labor Party, lurking under a dim street lamp. I do not know whether it is true, but it was said to be designed to embarrass the 36 faceless men who comprised the national conference of the Labor Party, determining Australia's foreign policy without our national deputy leader present and our attitude to the then important issue of the communications base at North West Cape. It was typical of Gough if he in fact did it. His doctrine was, as in many other issues, crash through or crash.
I have to record, unfortunately, that Mr Whitlam in my view sullied his reformist record in 1975 by proposing to take a donation from the Iraqi Ba'ath party. There is and there was grainy contemporaneous footage of Saddam Hussein dragging out dissident members of the Ba'ath party from their national congress to be murdered. These kinds of events about Iraq and the Ba'ath party were known at the time.
Nonetheless, Mr Whitlam was removed by, in my view, an unethical blocking of supply, and the Governor-General's, Sir John Kerr's, dubious exercising of his undefined reserve powers in unfortunate collaboration with a former Liberal Attorney-General, the Chief Justice of the High Court at the time, Sir Garfield Barwick. As a university student leader, I organised many manifestations of ongoing public outrage at Mr Whitlam's removal. Most memorable was an American-style picket of the Royal Commonwealth Society in Queens Road in early 1976, when Sir John Kerr appeared for the first time since the dismissal. As president of the University of Melbourne student representative council, I organised over 300 students, all garbed in top hats made out of black cardboard to mock the pomposity of the then Governor-General Kerr and to highlight his constitutional improprieties.
Occasionally through the years I saw Gough Whitlam, and our relationship slowly revived. He occasionally sought to refine my speeches and questions in this place and approved of many of the historical, linguistic and geographical allusions in my parliamentary contributions. Our last conversation was several years ago at the ALP National Conference in Darling Harbour, where Mr Whitlam, typically, exhibited a keen interest in my role, as he had done with many Labor members of this parliament, as the ranking member then of the federal parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Former Prime Minister Whitlam was very anxious that the Liberals not roll back one vote, one value. He was passionate about electoral reform and believed that federal Labor had unfairly lost three federal elections in 1954, 1961 and 1969 because of the perversions of the electoral process, including gerrymandering and archaic voting laws. Although he tried to reform them in his time, a blockage in the Senate meant that those fair electoral laws which we now have presiding over Australia were only adopted when his colleague Bob Hawke was elected as Prime Minister in 1983, and great reforms of electoral matters took place in those days.
As Mr Whitlam stepped into his car at the ALP conference in Darling Harbour, his parting remarks to me were in his famous deep, self-mocking tone: 'I pass to you, Danby, the torch of electoral reform'—a treasured compliment, as is his memory.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (09:58): I rise in support of this condolence motion for the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC. I want to make special mention of Gough and Margaret's surviving children, Tony, Nicholas, Stephen and Catherine, as well as his sister, Freda. All too often in circumstances such as this, it is the family of those who have passed who are treated as the epitaph, an afterthought at the end of speeches and news reports. I want to mention them first because as a nation we lost our 21st Prime Minister; their loss is the greatest loss of all. I recently suffered the loss of my father, and to Gough and Margaret's family I want to say this: for all the intrusions that the politics of this nation have made into your lives over the years, thank you for sharing your father and your mother with all of us. Your sacrifice has helped to make us the country that we are today.
The passing of a Prime Minister is a national event. It is something we all rightly mourn and for which we show our deepest respect. Regardless of whether any of us agreed or disagreed with Gough's politics, there are times when our humility triumphs over our differing political views, and this is one of those times. As polarising a political figure as Gough was in life, I for one have been humbled by the fact that we as a nation have all come together to celebrate his life, his triumphs, his failures and how he contributed to our view of ourselves as Australians. I do not believe that anyone in this place could be unmoved by the way that Gough's passing has brought us together, political opponents united in respect for one man.
Even in death Gough is challenging us to think beyond our petty squabbles and hatreds. As my parliamentary colleague the member for Wentworth has said:
… hatred, as we know, destroys and corrodes the hater much more than it hurts the hated, and so many people in our business, in politics, find themselves consumed by hatred and retire into a bitter anecdotage, gnawing away at all of the injustices and betrayals they have suffered through their life.
This was not the case with Gough, as both he and another former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser demonstrated over many years.
There have been many superlatives spoken about Gough this past week, just as there have been many less forgiving and quite blunt appraisals of his competence in government—or, rather, the lack of it. This must be really confusing for a generation of Australians who did not live in Gough's time. Where does the truth lie? For me, it is a little of both. It is properly acknowledged that Gough thought big. He had big ideas, big dreams and, by all repute, a big ego which eclipsed both. I believe he genuinely wanted to change the lives of all Australians for the better. I do not believe he knew how to best go about achieving that goal, but his belief in the ideal was admirable. His government ended conscription and recalled our troops from Vietnam. He recognised China, introduced Medibank, abolished university fees and gave Papua New Guinea its independence. He transformed our approach to Indigenous Australians and he championed the cause of women. His government's incompetence in the management of the economy, however, would ultimately prove that Labor was not fit for office at that time.
In the passing of Gough, we must guard against a temptation to canonise a man who was, as Prime Minister Abbott has rightly described, a 'giant' in our country's history. There are lessons we can learn from Gough, from his successes and his failures. As a young country still creating the depth of its political mythology, it is only right and healthy that we have such debates and contest these ideas, that we seek to learn. But we cannot learn if we view our own history through rose-coloured glasses. One lesson I believe we can take from Gough is that style over substance is no way to lead a country.
But, in saying that, and as Henry Ergas said in The Australian yesterday, unlike some Labor leaders who have come after him, Gough was:
A self, not a selfie, he had character …
Edward Gough Whitlam was an Australian statesman and a patriot. He was an optimist and unashamedly ambitious for this country. If there is any legacy from Gough that we should seek to emulate it is this: we must never stop trying to make this lucky country of ours even better.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (10:03): The death of Gough Whitlam is mourned across the nation as the passing of a great Australian, a leader who changed this nation for the better and left us a magnificent legacy that continues to enrich our lives today. Like many in this place—on all sides, it seems—I treasure memories of my meetings with Gough and Margaret. In my case, it was during their visits to my electorate of Ballarat.
Gough first came to Ballarat as Prime Minister in 1973 to unveil the restored Eureka flag at the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery. I know that he was pleased to hear that it had eventually gone back to where the Eureka Stockade had occurred. It now sits within the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka. In a landmark speech in 1973, at the time of the unveiling, he noted that:
It is a truism, perhaps, that the importance of an historical event lies not in what happened but in what later generations believe to have happened.
Gough was a great champion of the spirit of Eureka, attending numerous functions in Ballarat to mark what he believed to be both an event of great significance in the evolution of Australian democracy and a true symbol of a proud, independent nation. So, as the member for Ballarat, I particularly wanted to contribute to this condolence motion to thank Gough on behalf of the people of Ballarat for your faith in us and your continued belief in the spirit of Eureka.
Whenever I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to Gough, I was always struck by his incredibly cheeky sense of humour. In fact my very first meeting with Gough came shortly after I was elected as the federal member for Ballarat. We had our annual Eureka walk. I had worn a pair of Blundstones because the walk was quite lengthy. Gough had been brought to the event in a car. I had met him the day before. I was sitting on the podium with him and he looked down and peered most curiously at my footwear. He beckoned to his staff member, Stephen, in a very loud voice and pointed so that everybody in the audience could see him pointing at my boots, and said, 'Look, Stephen, she's got Stott Despoja boots on.' I always thought it was a difficult situation—how do you deal with someone as great as Gough suddenly taking the micky out of you? It was quite a funny experience.
In 2004, my husband and I, together with about 25 guests, hosted Gough and Margaret at our house in Ballarat. It was an enormous privilege to experience for a few hours their shared passion and extraordinary knowledge of history, culture and travel. I will never forget a young girl who since has subsequently gone on to work in politics, Susan, who I remember spent a lot of time talking to Gough. Gough was incredibly kind, generous and engaging with her. There he was in his 80s, frail, but still wanting to know about her and her aspirations for life. He encouraged her to continue her engagement with politics.
Gough not only loved Ballarat's history but also our architecture. He considered the streetscape and buildings of Ballarat to be some of Australia's finest, and Lydiard Street, where my electoral office is located, to be one of Australia's truly great preserved streetscapes.
Gough's passing has been the trigger for many of us to reflect on his legacy and his achievements. All of us who were fortunate enough to be elected to this place come here because we want to make a difference. But few politicians in this nation's history, if any, can point to a legacy as great as the one bequeathed to this nation by Gough Whitlam: ending conscription, recognising China and tearing down the last vestiges of the White Australia policy to make us a truly multicultural nation. Whitlam's government recognised land rights, introduced no-fault divorce, pursued equal pay for women and made the dream of many parents for their children to become the first in their family to go to university a reality. He introduced Australia's first consumer protection and trade practices laws and promoted the arts in all its myriad forms that today so proudly reflect our national identity. And, of course, what will come as no surprise for anyone to hear me declare is that his finest achievement was universal health care.
These are the achievements of a true political giant, a leader with a sweeping vision who saw this nation as a place that could, and must, be better than it had been; a nation that should be a fairer, decent and more inclusive society, where its rich natural resources and great wealth were shared with all of its people; a nation which pursued a vision of itself every bit as great as the continent it inhabited; a nation where we stood tall on the world stage, proud of who we were, and no longer able to be dismissed as a British outpost at the far end of the earth.
Critics often dismiss Gough's achievements as reforms that were going to happen anyway, suggesting he just happened to be the one around at the time. One only has to look at the struggles to this day to give Australia access to decent universal health care to know that this argument is false. Without Gough showing the way, demonstrating that universal health care was an idea which could be delivered, it would have been so much harder for Bob Hawke to have fought and won that battle once more. Forty years after those tumultuous times of 1975, it is now clear the Dismissal only ended Gough's time as Prime Minister, not what he sought to achieve during that brief time he was in office. His far-reaching reforms to make Australia a more modern, open, inclusive and fairer nation endure.
'If you seek his monument, look around you,' reads the epitaph of Christopher Wren in the magnificent St Paul's Cathedral. So too does Australia stand today as that monument to Gough. His monument is all of us. This nation was fortunate to have had such a great statesman in Edward Gough Whitlam. We mourn his passing, but we celebrate a life that has left us all the richer for his time among us, and we thank his children for sharing him with us during what has been a very important time in our history.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (10:10): I join with the member for Ballarat and others who have already spoken in relation to this condolence motion. I am humbled to speak in relation to our 21st Prime Minister, the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam, known universally as Gough. On behalf of all Gippslanders, I would like to extend my condolences to the Whitlam family, particularly his children—Tony, Nick, Stephen and Catherine—and also the Australian Labor Party. Our political parties are a bit like our extended families and Gough was the patriarch of the modern Labor family.
I would also like to acknowledge the members and senators from all sides who reflected so fondly on the memory of Gough Whitlam. I think we saw last Tuesday parliament at its absolute best. The condolence motion spoken on by the opposition leader, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others reflected very favourably on the way this House can pull together at appropriate times and rise to a higher standard, and I think the Australian people deeply appreciate it when we manage to reach those levels.
It was a celebration of a momentous life, and there is no question or any suggestion that Gough Whitlam ever adopted the small-target strategy which seems so popular in modern politics. Gough lived life large and to the full, and it is a great credit to him and his family that he was able to excite political debate at a time when the Australian community was desperate for someone of his ilk. So it is important that we use these events—and I cannot for a second suggest it is a sad event, because I think it is actually a celebration of a magnificent life—to recognise former leaders of our nation, particularly one who lived to the ripe age of 98 and continued to make a contribution well into what other people may regard as retirement years, often at great personal sacrifice and sacrifice from his family as well.
I do not think this is a time or a place to be running a report card on the former Prime Minister, on how we think he performed, either at the time or afterwards. I even saw on the weekend a media outlet encouraging people to give him a score out of 10, which I think is a great disservice to a Prime Minister. Whether he was 'Australia's greatest Prime Minister' or 'not our best Prime Minister' I do not think particularly matters. It is not for us mere mortals to make those assessments of a man of Mr Whitlam's great ego, if you like, as reflected on by other members last week.
Everyone will have their own opinions, but I think we can focus on the things that we do agree on—and that is, that he was a giant of political life in Australia. He was a powerful motivating force who sought to make a difference, and I think that is a great contribution. What really matters, I think, is that Gough Whitlam showed great pride, determination and passion for Australia and he pursued his policy agenda. He knew what he wanted and he set out to achieve that agenda with great passion and vigour.
I think these are the qualities that the Australian people are looking for today, perhaps even more so than in the past. They want to see members on both sides of this chamber coming here with a clear vision, a determination to participate in the great contest of ideas this parliament provides for, and pursuing their agenda with passion but with respect for each other. I think we can have a robust contest in this place—at all times we have a robust contest—but we can maintain a level of wit and good humour which I think Gough Whitlam demonstrated on many occasions.
I think there can be few more appropriate examples of members who have come to this place with a clear vision of how they wanted to shape the nation, in their mind for the betterment of the nation. I do not think we need to agree, as I said, on his success or failure, but surely we can agree that he was determined to make a difference. He had a relentless optimism and a belief in our nation.
I think the media, perhaps unfairly, over the last week or so have used the passing of Gough Whitlam to reflect on the inadequacy of current politicians and the current parliament. I would encourage the media to be a little bit less churlish in that regard. I am not going to stand here and lecture the media, but I think they could be a little bit less churlish. Rather than make comparisons with Gough Whitlam and his era and use the occasion to reflect adversely on members of the current parliament, take the time to meet many of the members in this chamber, on both sides of the House, and you will find many extraordinary community leaders who are doing some great work in their individual electorates. No-one gets elected to the House of Representatives without some ability. We may dispute the choice of the individual electorates. We may fiercely contest the next election and then try to defeat those individual candidates. But no-one makes it to the House of Representatives without some level of ability, something that appeals to their electorates. I think we have a shared passion and commitment to our individual regions. I encourage the media in that regard. Rather than reflect on the adequacy of current members of parliament, get out there, meet some of these people in their electorates and understand the work they do on a daily basis.
It is an opportunity for us to reflect on the great contribution that Gough Whitlam made to the Australian Labor Party in particular. It is an opportunity to recommit ourselves as members in this place to working together whenever we can. I accept there are many occasions when we do not agree. But, whenever we can, it is an opportunity to work together on some of these significant national projects of importance and to demonstrate the respect and personal integrity that we need to stand in this place and to have that great contest of ideas.
If there is one great legacy for Gough Whitlam—and take aside all the individual policy areas which we may dispute—it is that he excited a generation of young people to get interested in politics. His ideas excited debate in the community. He motivated young people in particular to show an interest in the great public debates of our time. He encouraged a generation to become engaged in the political process. As I learned last week, to my great surprise, that included our own Deputy Prime Minister. Warren Truss, the member for Wide Bay, remarked that many on this side were inspired to get involved in politics for the opposite reason. They thought it was necessary to stand up against some of the things that he stood for. I did indulge in a bit of tweeting at the time. I could not quite imagine my great leader and great friend the Deputy Prime Minister out there chanting slogans and manning the barricades with billboards. But you learn something every day. It is true that the member for Wide Bay was excited to enter politics through the activities of Gough Whitlam, though of course on the opposite side of the political agenda.
There were many great speeches last week and I will not go through them all now in terms of the contributions that people made. But I think the point made by the Leader of the Opposition that he articulated again last week was a very valid one. Gough's ambition went beyond his desire to service our nation. He wanted to transform it completely and permanently—and he did. And, as members here gather throughout the year, I say we all accept there are things we need to improve in our nation, that it is an ongoing process to continue to work wherever it is possible on the reforms that are required. I do not accept for a second that any government is perfect, nor do I accept that any government is a complete failure. I look at the previous government, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, and I see some reforms which occurred in that time frame which I think will be reviewed quite positively by the electorate in the longer term. Perhaps the failure of that government relates more to the capacity to pay for some of the reforms when they were made. But there is ongoing reform required in issues related to education; child care; aged care; health services; making sure that people who are socially or economically disadvantaged have the support they require; making sure that we support older Australians in an ageing population; and, in an area where Gough Whitlam himself was an enormous reformer, Indigenous affairs. Particularly on the issue of land rights, that work continues today. I do not suggest for a second that we are anywhere near finished that journey, but I believe the Whitlam legacy in that regard has been a positive one and I am confident the members on both sides, members of good faith, are heading in the right direction in relation to Indigenous reforms and making sure that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people get the support they need to be full and complete participants in our great nation.
So the work of government is never done and there is still need for enormous reforms, but I congratulate the Australian Labor Party and its patriarch of the modern era, Gough Whitlam, for the work they undertook in that tumultuous time. No-one is suggesting for a second they were not divisive days. No-one is suggesting for a second it was a perfect time. But it certainly did excite political interest in our nation.
Just briefly and in conclusion, I want to remark on a story that was retold to me by some of my local electorate residents. As far as I can tell, during his relatively short term in government Mr Whitlam only had limited opportunities to the visit the electorate of Gippsland. I did manage to find a speech where he was at the Gippsland Field Days. This was in 1974 at Lardner, near Warragul. This is not quite in my electorate but in the electorate of McMillan nearby. I would suggest it would have been a pretty tough crowd for a Labor Prime Minister. There were reports of heckling and jeering farmers armed with tomatoes. There were no reports that Warren Truss was in the crowd, but it was a tough crowd for a—
Mr Tehan: What about truss tomatoes?
Mr CHESTER: I acknowledge the member for Wannon. He would have hardly been a twinkle in his mother's eye at that stage!
It was 1974. But, with his usual charm, humour and robust debating style, he held his own and apparently placated the masses. He even thanked the crowd for receiving him so warmly. So I think that as Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, said last week:
In person, it was hard to disagree with and impossible to dislike such a man …
I am sure his presence left an impression on the masses that gathered that day in 1974.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, the contribution that our former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam made to the Royal Australian Air Force. Mr Whitlam signed up with the RAAF in 1941 and started training as a navigator/bomb aimer in May 1942. He was later posted to the RAAF No. 13 Squadron, operating out of the Northern Territory, Dutch New Guinea and northern Western Australia, often flying very long sorties. He served with distinction, as he went on to serve with distinction in this place, and the war experience no doubt emboldened his sense of public duty and the service which he maintained throughout his career both as a barrister and later as a parliamentarian.
It takes courage to be a RAAF officer. It takes courage to enter this parliament and to stand at the dispatch box and contest the great ideas that our nation needs to contest for its future. It was a brave decision by Mr Whitlam as opposition leader to visit China in 1971, and history will judge him very kindly for making that decision. Just look at our relationship now with our northern neighbours. It is a type of courage in decision making that we should all aspire to. As the Prime Minister said, there is a lot to be learnt from the giants of those times. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, some of the big changes Gough Whitlam influenced during his tenure are widely accepted now. He had the courage of his convictions and he acted upon them.
I will leave the final comments to the member for Sydney, who reflected that Gough Whitlam, in his own words, might be considered 'eternal but not immortal'. Certainly, when it comes to the story of our great nation, Gough Whitlam will always hold a special place. I commend the condolence motion to the House and I again extend my condolences, on behalf of the people of Gippsland, to the Whitlam family, its friends and the Australian Labor Party.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (10:22): It is indeed an honour to speak on the condolence motion for Edward Gough Whitlam, the 21st Prime Minister of Australia. Throughout the course of this debate—and yet again from the member for Gippsland—it has been wonderful to hear many personal reflections about the impact that Gough Whitlam had on people's lives and how he shaped their views, beliefs and actions, on either side of the divide.
In my office sits a photograph of my baby brother—Paul will always be the baby brother!—Paul's graduation day. He graduated from Monash University, the same university that I, my sisters, Nina and Sophie, and my other brother, Tony, all graduated from—all five Burkes. The day Paul graduated, my brother Tony—who is not one for getting publicity—contacted the local paper and the Herald Sun and wanted to make comment on this momentous achievement: five children from the one family all graduating from the one university. But what he really wanted to tell was the story of how we got there and why we got there and to praise the fact that, if it had not been for Gough Whitlam, these five siblings would never have made it to university. I suspect my elder brother and sister would have, as they had gone through school on full scholarship, but my parents would have been left with the choice of which child then would not get to go. It was a choice my grandparents made in respect of my father, who never got to go to university.
So this was a momentous day for us, and both papers came down and took the photo, and the Herald Sun actually ran the story. It was not just about us completing university; it was the trail that had been blazed for us to get there. This was an absolutely magnificent day for my family—most particularly for my mother, who struggled through all those years to get us to university. As I have said in this place before, one of the proudest days our family had was seeing my mother graduate many years later as a mature-age student, something again not possible without the intervention of Gough Whitlam.
I know I am not alone in this place in my appreciation of Gough for the advantages I received in life because of his vision. Many of us here are of the generation which benefited most from Gough's reforms to our education—an education my parents dreamed of for their five children but could never have afforded otherwise, an education my father-in-law's parents dreamed of for him but that they could not have afforded. He sat his matriculation twice, not because he had not passed brilliantly the first time but because he had not passed brilliantly enough to get a full scholarship. His school allowed him to resit his matriculation so he would get a full scholarship to go on and complete his medical degree at Melbourne university. I think, if he had not had parents who were that savvy, the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne would have missed out on a phenomenal practitioner. There was no way that the tram conductor's kid was going to get to university and do medicine! But he got there the hard way. It is something Gough took away in ensuring that all the next generations did not have to blaze that trail. The essence and principle of Gough's visions have endured. When cost is not a barrier to education, all Australians are able to access the educational opportunities that are their right—a right this government is trying to rip away as I speak. But it is not a time for partisan politics in these remarks.
Gough Whitlam viewed Australia not just through the narrow prism of an economy; he also saw Australia as a society and, in every way, he worked to improve our society as a whole to make sure that people are not excluded and that, as much as possible, everyone is given an equal chance—an equal chance, not an equal choice; a chance to strive based on your ability, not your parents' income. To quote the man himself:
Poverty is a national waste as well as an individual waste. We are all diminished when any of us are denied proper education. The nation is the poorer—a poorer economy, a poorer civilisation, because of this human and national waste.
Hear, hear, I say. It is funny how some things change but many do not. And it is a waste if we cannot ensure that everyone has access to a proper education. Gough was enormously successful in reducing this divide and in reducing the poverty in our nation as a whole.
In fact, it is hard to name a Prime Minister who has managed to achieve such a long list of lasting social changes as Gough Whitlam. As many people have remarked since his passing last week, the Whitlam legacy very much defined what we understand to be modern Australia. Even those people whose political ideology drives them to seek to destroy everything Gough Whitlam established are the first to say that no Prime Minister has changed Australia more, and it is true. Gough Whitlam made this country fairer. He broadened our horizons, made us braver and reshaped our view of ourselves and all we can achieve.
The appreciation the Australian community has not only of the Whitlam legacy but of Gough Whitlam the man has been amazing to witness. The sheer outpouring of emotion by the country when Gough died says far more about the depths of gratitude and awareness of his great contribution than any speech ever can. Indeed, my older Labor Party branch members in Chisholm, many of them who are still fighting on today will tell you they joined the party because of Gough. It is what you hear reverberate time and time again: 'I joined in 1970 because of Gough. I joined because of the Vietnam War and what Gough did.' And they are loyal to the party to this day. The fact that even today, in the modern political environment, we are still wrangling over so much that was central to the Whitlam reforms says even more about just how much Gough Whitlam had to fight to achieve change.
Gough Whitlam fought to achieve universal health care. He fought hard. It took six blocked bills, a double dissolution election and a joint sitting of the parliament to establish Medibank. Now, four decades later, all Australians enjoy access to Medicare, even though it remains under attack by the same ideology that fought so hard to prevent its establishment in the first place. It is the rock bed of what we consider to be almost an inalienable right in Australia, Medicare.
I think one of the reasons Gough Whitlam's passing has so captured the imaginations and hearts of so many Australians is how contemporary so many of Gough's reforms remain. Gough Whitlam ended conscription and completed Australia's withdrawal from the Vietnam War. He scrapped knights and dames, and introduced the Australian honours system. He established no-fault divorce. Gough removed sales tax from contraception and added the pill to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, abolished the death penalty for federal crime, supported the case for equal pay for women, reduced the voting age to 18 from 21 and changed our national anthem from God Save the Queen to Advance Australia Fair—all things we are still debating in this modern era, although hopefully not the national anthem. But, while it is hard to find people who can recall and sing the second verse of the national anthem, it is now a far better reflection of the values of modern Australia which were awakened by Gough.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to Gough for the strength of our multicultural society. It was Gough Whitlam who took the first step in recognising Aboriginal land rights and addressing the profound inequality and discrimination experienced by Indigenous Australians—a lasting legacy to this day. Gough Whitlam saw past the fear of the other and reached out to the communist government of China, beginning our relationship with our most important contemporary trading partner. Again, he did this in spite of fierce opposition. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial at the time of Gough's first visit to China lambasted him:
If … Whitlam thinks that this wholesale selling out of friends to gain a despot's smile is diplomacy, then Heaven protect this country if he ever directs its foreign policy.
As the representative of an electorate that is home to more than 20,000 people of Chinese heritage, a multicultural community where half of everybody's parents were born overseas, I would like to pay particular thanks to Gough for his commitment to our multiculturalism. We are a better community and a better country because of it. Opening ties with China was visionary, and I do not think you will find anybody lambasting it as the editorial of the paper did back then.
In life, Gough Whitlam was a guiding light to his party and country for both his success and his failure. He showed the Labor Party and Australia what we can achieve if we are true to our values and our principles and maintain the courage and the rage to pursue policies of fairness and equality no matter how strong the opposition. He also showed us strength in the face of the greatest act of political bastardry that this country has ever seen. In 1997 Gough Whitlam remarked, 'I have more influence now than when I had the power.' And, in death, I imagine that Gough Whitlam's legacy and his influence will continue to grow. And so it should.
Gough Whitlam will always be a giant of Australian history, a giant of the Labor Party and a giant in our hearts. Vale, Gough Whitlam. May he rest in peace.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (10:32): Gough Whitlam's death marks the passing of a truly remarkable era. It is funny that, as a young boy when the Whitlam government came into power, I cannot remember a lot about the debate that took place—the fierce policy debates, the fierce questioning of the economic management, the fierce questioning of some of the social programs that were put through this parliament. But the impact of what was occurring was obviously significant because, as a young boy at primary school and in junior primary school, I can still remember having discussions—fairly juvenile discussions, I must say, but discussions—about what was happening in Australia. It does show how remarkable those times must have been because it was reaching down into grade 1 and grade 2 of primary schools across the nation. I am sure that our discussions in the playground or in the classroom were similar to what was occurring around the nation. Obviously there was fierce discussion taking place across the dinner tables at teatime across the nation as to what was happening to the country. And there were remarkable things that were happening.
I think that it is worth recognising the spirit in which this discussion has occurred in this place because it has been incredibly fitting, I think, that both sides have been able to recognise both the successes and some of the shortcomings of someone who was a truly remarkable Australian.
The thing that has struck me most in listening to the eulogies and reading the tributes to Gough is his public service. He was committed to public service like few others have been in this parliament. He volunteered for the RAAF, or the RAF as it was then. He was someone who demonstrated that his public service knew no bounds, because he was prepared ultimately to put his life on the line for our nation. I think anyone who is prepared to do that, for that fact alone, deserves our recognition.
But it was not only that commitment. He then committed to a very long stint in this parliament, ultimately becoming the 21st Prime Minister of this nation. And given everything that he went through, the trials and tribulations, not only in his remarkable transformation of the Labor Party with its internal brawling, he was able to achieve that much-needed reform and then take over the prime ministership. It would only be fair to say that he was Prime Minister during a time of considerable change, but also a time of considerable debate and conflict, ultimately ending with the dismissal. There would be many people who would take their bat and ball and go home after enduring all that, but Gough Whitlam did not. He decided that he would continue to serve the public and became ambassador to UNESCO.
He also never gave up on his commitment and contribution to the Labor Party. As we heard during the eulogies on the day when we first marked his death, his commitment to turn up after he had retired from politics, to attend branch meetings and party functions, became legendary. He did so even in the electorate of Wannon. In 1990 he turned up to Portland and addressed the south-west Labor club down there, of course with much fanfare. He had visited the electorate of Wannon previously in the late 1960s. He visited Warrnambool and Portland then when the then member for Wannon, who would also go on to become Prime Minister, was the education minister. I note there was a hiatus between the late 1960s and the 1990s when he did not come to Wannon—and I imagine there is probably a very good reason for that—but even the conflict and the turmoil that took place between the former member for Wannon and Gough Whitlam, even those scores, were settled after a period of time. Very interestingly, they became what I think you would call political friends after a considerable amount of time, which also goes to show the calibre of the individual that Gough Whitlam was. I think there would be many people who, having endured what he endured and been through what he went through—and this is not saying whether what occurred with the dismissal was right or wrong, but it would have been incredibly easy for him to dismiss Malcolm Fraser and say that he would never have anything to do with him again. Yet he was prepared, after a period of time, to embrace him and to work together with him on areas where they thought there was a mutual interest. That is truly remarkable.
One thing that I would like to go into in a little bit of detail here is a lasting reform commitment, an economic reform commitment, that Gough Whitlam left. There are not many lasting economic legacies that he did leave. Unfortunately we saw government expenditure increase at rapid rates, probably at rates we have not seen until Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister after the GFC. We saw budget deficits increasing; we saw the size of government increase remarkably. We are still grappling with those issues now. But one of the things he did do upon coming to power was to cut the level of protection in Australia by 25 per cent. He cut tariffs by 25 per cent. This was remarkable, because until he did that the consensus, almost on both sides of politics, was very much that protectionism was good and healthy for our country. Gough later recognised that Bert Kelly—the modest member—had had a big impact in the decision that he ultimately made. He came in and decided that he was going to cut tariffs by 25 per cent and basically did it overnight. He also raised the dollar at that time.
That legacy, which both sides of government have taken onboard, has made us a wealthier and more prosperous nation. He knew that ultimately we had to open ourselves up to the world and open ourselves up to our region. In a way, he foresaw the impact that globalisation was going to have on our nation, and if we were not prepared and ready for it then we would be all the poorer for it. This was a brave and gutsy decision because he knew that not only would he get some criticism from our side but also, ultimately, he was going to get a lot of criticism from his own party and from the union movement, but he knew that it was the right step to take.
As we have seen, that legacy has been embraced. We saw it with the floating of the dollar, we saw it with further tariff reductions during the eighties and the nineties, and we are seeing it even now with the government's free trade agendas with South Korea, Japan and, potentially, China. It would be incredibly fitting if, in the year that Gough died and we remembered what he did to begin our modern relationship with China, we could mark the year of his death with a free trade agreement with China.
It would bookend the period remarkably. I, for one, hope that the government can achieve that because in a foreign policy sense, once again, his bravery—and we heard from the previous speaker about what TheSydney Morning Herald had to say about him travelling to China—in taking criticism from both sides and forging that path to begin the modern relationship with China is something which was truly remarkable. It showed that when he knew he thought he was doing the right thing, he had the bravery to do it. I think there are a lot of us here who could reflect on—what some have called a crash or a crash-through approach—a real firmness of conviction and a real bravery in being able to follow your convictions. Ultimately, those who have been through this place and are judged and judged well are those who have had convictions and have been prepared, through the way that they have acted in this place, to ensure that those convictions have guided what they have done. His legacy in that area stands as a tribute to him.
I will conclude there. If I could pass on my empathy and my sympathies to his family. His has been a life well lived. I hope that the passing of time will enable his family to get over the suffering and the hurt that they are feeling, and that they will be able to reflect on a remarkable life.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:44): Here is my Gough Whitlam story: I am in my 20s and I am a newish industrial officer at my old union, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union in the postal and telecommunications branch. A big part of the job was taking phone calls and lots of them. On one particular day, we had been deluged by calls and from recollection there was a stuff-up in the processing of an allowance, so we had a lot of uptight members ringing through wanting to see what the union could do. I had finished this string of calls and decided I would just sneak out for a cup of coffee. But the loudspeaker on the phone piped up and it was reception telling me I had another call. I was at the door of my office and I leaned in and said, 'Can I just go and grab a cup of coffee?' Reception said, 'You'll want to take this call.' I said, 'I will be five minutes'—I was pleading—'take a message and I will grab a coffee.' Reception said: 'It's Mr Whitlam's office. Mr Whitlam wants to talk to you.'
At that moment, you would think that the importance would sink in and that I would respond accordingly, but I said to reception, 'Sure, put the great man through and get me next week's Lotto win as well!' So I pick up the phone and say, 'Hello' and there was silence. Then I heard, 'Comrade' and it was that unmistakable voice. There on the line was the former Prime Minister of Australia. He was ringing because I was the secretary of the Greenway federal electorate council at that time within the Labor Party and we had sent him a letter commending him on his strong response to a very disappointing inaugural speech by a former member for Oxley in this place. He had rung to express his gratitude, but then he went on to do what others have remarked upon and quizzed me about my background—where was I from, where were my parents from, where did my parents raise us, where did we live.
What would you take out of that encounter? Not that Husic is flash at writing correspondence, though I would be grateful for the compliment; rather it was his curiosity, his interest and his care. It is these personal attributes of the man that so many people cherish and remember. Inasmuch as he had an eye for detail, and we have all heard stories of him indexing and footnoting Hansard; there is something else that people valued and I want to get to that point in a way you would not expect. I ask the House: can you remember the name of the Bart Cummings's horse that won the Melbourne Cup in 1974 and 1975?
Mr Chester: Think Big.
Mr HUSIC: Correct. Very good work, member for Gippsland. I will remember to invite you to my next trivia night. If there was ever a horse that was so aptly named for the Whitlam era, it was Think Big—the name of the horse that won in 1974 and 1975.
Many people have celebrated his big range of achievements and they were secured in a compressed time frame. But Gough Whitlam thought big because he had big dreams for the nation. He had a big task of transforming and shaking up Australia and that demanded a big call-up of people. It was here that he did something special and why he is warmly remembered. He not only had self-belief; importantly, he believed in those who in a harder and tougher time did not benefit from the belief of wider society. If you think about it, he made a place for them all—for our nation's first people, for women, for migrants, for the families starting their lives way out in the suburbs and for the communities of our regions. He brought them within the view of public consciousness. That was the power of the Whitlam legacy. It was his faith in the capabilities of his fellow Australians.
Mr Whitlam was brought to life via the stories of my father, the man who tried so hard to peer through the windows of the Blacktown civic centre to see the man destined to become Prime Minister, when he made the call to the men and women of Australia. My dad had only just made it to Australia a few years earlier and mum followed soon after. I might have known Gough through those stories, but I actually knew him better because his belief touched our lives. He believed that working class families deserved access to quality health care or that kids of working class parents should be pushed to pursue higher education, prepared for it via good secondary schooling, or in Western Sydney that our homes should be properly sewered. Thanks to Gough, we never had to dance that dance of fear with redbacks in the outhouse!
I am here in part because of that belief that Gough Whitlam had in multicultural Australia. I am so grateful and honoured to be standing on this floor because Gough Whitlam had faith in multicultural Australia and he called up into national endeavour people of all backgrounds, and I am eternally grateful for that. On his passing, I thought of my dad's generation or the generation of Labor Party members out my way who had their belief ignited in the legitimacy of our party sitting on that other side of the House. It is from there that we can achieve so much for the people who deserve richer and better lives.
Much will be read into Mr Whitlam's style, approach and philosophy but, for me, he will always be remembered as a progressive for progress, not as a progressive championing the status quo. He recognised that the static imprisons the people we care for. It restrains Australians from capturing the opportunity emerging around them. He reformed and prepared his party—our party—as a vehicle for change in our country. As much as Mr Whitlam ushered in big change, huge change, he ensured the support was there for the people affected by it.
He had a grander plan for Australia. He called up people from the breadth of Australian society to help him bring that vision to life. He made sure his government looked after them on the way through, shielding them from the tougher short-term consequences of that change while awaiting the longer-term improvements that these changes would bring. That is a lesson for the ages. Thank you for your service and your belief. Vale Edward Gough Whitlam.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (10:50): I rise to convey my condolences to the House on the passing of the Honourable EG Whitlam AC, QC. In the coming days and weeks a great deal more will be written and said about the prime ministership of Gough Whitlam. It follows decades of discussion, writing and talking about the contribution of his government. One thing that can never be questioned is the modernising and transformative impact Gough had on Australia. The Australia that existed at the start of Gough's prime ministership was vastly different from the one that existed at the end of it.
Gough told us we could aspire to higher personal and national achievements, and we did. He told us we could be confident in the world, and we were. He encouraged us to open generous hearts to the less well-off, at home and abroad, and we did. His love of our country and our people translated through his leadership. He called to all of us to be our best, and we rose to that call. This is what continued to echo throughout the decades that followed his government. Unlike his government, the legacy could not be dismissed.
Gough's vision was as vast as international policy on the recognition of China and as specific as the position—as my colleague has just outlined—of sewer services and transport to the burgeoning public-housing suburbs on the fringes of our cities. Like my colleague, I did do the dance with the red-back spider before my own suburbs were sewered as a child. I have vivid memories of that legacy as well!
He knew we needed education and employment but also that we deserved arts and sports. He knew how to think deeply and to laugh fully. Some people represent their generation, and Gough certainly did that, but a rare few inspire us to imagine and act for future generations. Gough was one of those giants in our national story.
Many contributors to this debate have talked of the depth and spread of his enduring policy achievements and those of his government. It should not be ignored in this significant policy record that in my own shadow portfolio we saw the seeds of a truly national vocational education-and-training system begin to take shape through the Kangan report, the establishment of our modern TAFE system and the ensuing debate on how to grow productivity and participation for all Australians through the VET sector.
Gough did not only see university as a path to opportunity but also recognised the critical importance of skills, training, community and further education. Gough had very strong links to my own electorate of Cunningham. His early seat boundaries included suburbs that are now in my seat—in particular, the suburb of Helensburgh, and he is still very warmly regarded in the community. Like so many here, I was motivated by the experience of the Whitlam years. I joined the ALP, in 1977, as soon as I was old enough to join the party. I had been to many rallies and campaigns in Wollongong with my mum, dad and family.
In 1989 the University of Wollongong awarded him an honorary doctorate and he regularly visited the area to assist in ALP campaigns, including my own in 2004 when I was able to spend a leisurely afternoon with him at the Mt Kembla pub—which was owned by his son Nick at the time—where Gough very generously gave me a lot of his time and wisdom on political life and purpose.
Like many of us in this place, Gough was well-served by his long-term and extremely loyal staff members: Aaron Rule, Penny Sachnikas and Michael Vlassopoulos. Aaron, Penny and Michael devoted many years to working for Gough, and I know they will be feeling the loss particularly keenly.
To Gough's son Nick and his wife Judy, who reside in the Illawarra and are good friends to many of us, I would like to extend my personal condolences to you both. Nick has told me that in the end their dad went quickly and peacefully.
I would also like to extend my condolences to Nick's brothers and sister: Antony and Stephen Whitlam, Catherine Dovey, and their families. Through their hard work and vision, Gough and Margaret opened up opportunities that have shaped my generation and many generations to follow. We thank you for sharing your parents, the powerful partnership that was Gough and Margaret, with the men and women of Australia.
In the few minutes that I have left, I wish to put on the record the words of many locals who have gone onto my website to put tributes into my condolence book. It is a great privilege that we can stand in this place and reflect on our own experiences, and they have been wonderful personal experiences. But many in our communities are also very keen to express publicly their views. These are some excerpts:
Thank you for changing our lives for the better. My parents could have never afforded to send me to university if it weren't for your reforms. Justine Griffith.
Rest in peace, Gough. An inspiration to people across the ditch as well. Mark Byford.
I heard Gough speak many times when I lived in Sydney and always enjoyed the occasions. He was one of the world's best orators along with Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Carol Maloney.
A great and courageous Leader has left us. May his efforts to provide opportunity for all never be forgotten. Idalina Guerreiro.
A great man will be sorely missed A big loss to the Australian Labor Party and to Australian Politics. Jack Timpano.
A great man with a grand vision for what Australia could and should be. Although he will be missed each day we benefit daily from the legacy of his reforming and modernising agenda. Paul Scully and Alison Scully.
Gough Whitlam belonged to the 'great generation'—the one prepared to give of their lives for service to country. He went from RAAF navigator to head of government for all too brief a period. Gough Whitlam understood the important of political drama and seizing the moment. My generation sadly now takes many of his Government's hard-fought policies, in a wide range of areas, for granted Gough Whitlam's leadership and tremendous vision now belongs to the ages. I bid my own farewell to a great Australian leader and a great man. Gino Mandarino.
Australia has lost a truly great thinker, his ideas and courage to implement those ideas has never been equalled. His commitment to equality for all Australians is defined in the free education system we have at the present. Bev and Kevin Reed
A great leader, ahead of his time, who was always optimistic about our nation and what we could achieve. Janai Tabbernor and Chris Snewin
Gough, you will be missed by so many people. Goodbye Comrade. Cohn and Melissa Markham.
Inspirational leader who did so much for our country, condolences to his family. Dionne and Frank Garcia.
My heart is broken. Requiescat in pace sir, and thank you. Lyn Roseman.
My deepest condolences to the family. Rita Pozidis.
He was a truly inspiring man that shaped Australia into what it is today. Jessica Malcolm.
Gough and Margaret Whitlam did so much for our country. They will be sorely missed. Donna Tetley.
The day Gough was sacked I was a young 17 on the steps of parliament house calling out ( we want Gough). He inspired me then and still inspires me today. Mick Woods.
I am one of thousands of working class women and men who were able to go to University after Gough introduced free Higher Education. This changed my life, and the life of my sister, in numerous ways giving us opportunities to reach our fullest intellectual potential. My condolences to his family and may it perhaps assuage their grief just a little to know how many lives were changed for the better by his courage and commitment. Mary Day.
And let's not forget Margaret and her many achievements too. A great man and a great woman ... a great partnership! Eileen Day.
I wish to express my profound gratitude for the life and service of our comrade, Gough Whitlam. I owe a good deal of the standard of living of my life to his courage and determination to bring about the changes he made, particularly for women and for our First People … Let us hope he casts a long shadow, even from the grave, and inspires a new generation in these dark times. Margaret Curtis .
Thanks to Gough I was able to get a tertiary education which my family would otherwise be unable to afford. We should embrace free education. Robyn Howson .
Thank you Gough. Richard Martin .
Remembering a great Australian. Sincere condolences to the Whitlam family. Bob and Anne Bower .
My condolences go out to the Hon. Gough Whitlam ' s family as well Australia for the loss of a truly inspirational leader whose legacy will live forever. Nabil and Lola Issa .
Vale Gough did so much for us, in such a short time. So much work still to do in his name. Liz Farrer .
A great man well ahead of his time . Peter Taylor .
He was a great man for the Country. Cengiz Girgin .
I have the advantage of a tertiary education ' paid for ' by Gough Whitlam — thank you Gough! Chris Cartledge .
Giant of a man for Australia . Dorothy Park .
We have lost a great man — however we have his legacy to continue! Maria Orr .
Our lives are all the richer for your presence in our own journeys, be it close o r afar. Thank you for showing our nation how to dream with courage and lead with conviction. Peter Jones .
A great Australian & PM … He had a social conscience with an agenda for change for all. Bryan Algie.
I think the words of the people, who feel so moved by his passing and so determined to reach out and record his legacy, say it all. I thank the House.
Mr RIPOLL ( Oxley ) ( 11:01 ): It is an honour and a privilege to speak on the death of the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam, AC, QC. There is no doubt that Gough was and is an icon of Australian history; he was larger than life both physically and mentally. He cast a shadow far and wide, influencing people and politics not just across our nation but right across the world. In his nearly 100 years of enormous life, Gough, as he is referred to by almost everyone, was never going to be a man who merely participated in life but someone who would lead and create. Every country has at least one person, someone who has done more than most to affect our way of life and leave behind more than just their memory. For Australia, Gough was one of these people.
Be it through creating Medibank, now Medicare, or through free university degrees, which so many people have spoken about, he also gave a new level of access to Australians by reducing import tariffs and in the way that we educated ourselves. He truly reformed the way Australia saw itself as well as the way that we behaved. It has often been said that you should not measure the success or contribution of anyone, let alone of Gough Whitlam, by the number of years that he was Prime Minister, but more importantly by what his achievements were in that short period of time. Gough worked very hard and he had a great vision for Australia. He saw a bigger Australia, a more confident Australia, an Australia finding its voice on an international stage. He saw Australia as having something to say on our own future, and it was a vision that he would share with many Australians new and old. To say that Gough had courage is an understatement. In a time when the world and even the Labor Party were heading in the other direction, Gough forged a path to China and led the way for many other countries—including the United States, which would follow one month after Gough ' s historic visit to that country.
While Gough Whitlam could see the bigger picture on an international stage, he was also completely committed to domestic politics. He kept his promise to elevate the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to ministerial level once in government. Under Gough Whitlam the Senate was extended to include representatives from the territories. Cyclone Tracy struck in 1974—I am sure he was not responsible, but he was certainly there at the time. He also reformed and changed the Australian honours system. It was established to replace the British honours system. The first enactment of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act took place. The evacuation of Australian and US troops from Saigon took place. The Racial Discrimination Act was enacted and outlawed discrimination on the basis of race. There was the first Family Law Act. And there was the handover, very significantly, of Wattie Creek at Daguragu in the Northern Territory to Vincent Lingiari of the Gurindji people—just to name a few of the more historic changes made by Gough Whitlam and his government. But for Gough, all of these reforms were just part of a relentless drive to contribute and to drag Australia and the Labor Party out of the past and into the future—and that he did very, very successfully.
Everyone has a story about Gough Whitlam; inevitably they all involve some humour, some funny story, some great anecdote—elements of the great wit that the man possessed and usually a whole range of elements brought together that just showed the complexity of the person that he was. For me it was the first phone call that I received in my office. Not long after being elected to parliament, having made a speech in parliament, I got back up to my office and my staff told me that there was a gentleman on the phone who claimed to be Gough Whitlam. I answered the phone to hear that very familiar voice and he quickly told me that he had been listening in on proceedings of parliament, heard my speech, appreciated all of the things I said, but gave me some frank and fearless advice on how I could have said them better. I do not recall all of the detail of what my speech was about, but I do very warmly recall the fact that he took the time—obviously not just to listen to my speeches and contributions here but to also listen to so many members of parliament. It is legendary that up until maybe just very recently he was still reading the Hansard. He still took an interest in the daily politics of Australian life; he still took an interest in what this place did, what it said, what it meant for the Australian people.
I also very fondly recall his visit to Ipswich not so long ago to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the town hall. He was welcomed back to Ipswich almost as a son of Ipswich. He was welcomed in a way that only celebrities and pop stars normally are—all the pomp and the ceremony for a person of his standing in the community. But for all the noise and the fanfare on that day, and the long and detailed speech that is customary at any place that Gough attended, what really stood out for me was his generosity—he was generous with his time with every single person that approached him; he always gave his autograph and there was always a seemingly endless line-up of well-wishers who wanted their photo taken with the great man. Even more fascinating was his ability to recall mayors or councillors or details of things that happened 30 years before—recall in detail little elements about individual people, their families, their histories and their stories. For this and probably many other reasons, people always felt this really deep, warm connection to Gough.
There is no doubt he has had a great impact on so many people in this place—regardless of their politics, regardless of their own ideology or their own view of the world, Gough had an impact. It often brings a smile to people's faces—when you mention his name it triggers a little memory, and always a good memory. Gough, you have left us a much better place, a better people and a better country for your service—service in the military, in the RAAF, which has been talked about so much; service to the country in terms of public service; and service to the Labor Party in reforming the party and giving it an opportunity to lead this country and participate at a greater level. You have certainly served us all very well. My condolences to the Whitlam family for their loss. May he rest in peace.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:09): I begin by associating myself with the contributions made by many of my colleagues on the passing of Gough Whitlam. I offer my condolences firstly to the Whitlam family—they have lost a father and grandfather—and of course the Australian Labor Party and indeed the broader community have lost a significant and indeed iconic figure. One cannot reflect on the life and times of Gough Whitlam without making reference to the other half of the Whitlam whole—his life's partner, Margaret Whitlam, who passed away a couple of years ago. This was Australia's power couple akin to the Roosevelts, Eleanor and Franklin Delano, and I thought that when I met the Whitlams for the first time as a 16-year-old schoolgirl during that dramatic period after 11 November 1975. The passage of time has only reaffirmed my belief that Gough and Margaret Whitlam were truly a marriage of true minds.
It is often said that everyone remembers where they were on the day that the Whitlam government was dismissed by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. I remember where I was. I was in class, year 11 at Princes Hill High School, and I remember the uproar in our entire school community; students and teachers alike were absolutely outraged and took to the school quadrangle, as opposed to the streets. This marked the beginning, I believe, of my own political activism. Like everyone else around me at the time I felt—such was the feeling at the time—that I had to do something. I very much wanted to be a part of the dramatic events that were unfolding. The public wrath was palpable as Australians faced what many consider to be the closest we are yet to come to a coup d'etat. So I joined the Migrant Workers Committee at the Victorian Trades Hall Council and I ended up working as a volunteer on the election campaign to re-elect the Whitlam government in the 1975 federal election. Of course, I could say that the rest is history.
When I became the candidate for the federal seat of Calwell in 2001, I wrote to Gough inviting him to launch my campaign. Quite to my surprise, and as a colleague said previously, he rang me and he actually greeted me in the Greek language. This voice on the other end of the phone said 'Tia sou ti kaneis', and I immediately recognised it as Gough Whitlam's voice. I was very surprised that he would greet me in the Greek language at the time—but not really surprised, as I will mention later.
I invited Gough because I had discovered that the last function he had officiated at as Prime Minister of Australia was the opening of the Broadmeadows Sporting Club, in my electorate. We thought at the time it was a great idea to invite him to make a return visit to Broadmeadows—unfortunately he was unable to do so because he could not travel at that time. But he was very gracious with his time and, as always, with advice. He had a propensity to give a lot of advice and to correct a lot of records. I know the people of Broadmeadows remain very chuffed that they are a small footnote in a very important historical event. He informed me that after Broadmeadows Sporting Club he went to the Melbourne Town Hall, and of course the next day he came to Canberra, where he was dismissed.
If Arthur Calwell laid the foundations for modern Australia, Gough Whitlam, as Australia's 21st Prime Minister, was the architect of the contemporary Australian identity. To this end I want to reflect on his very special relationship with migrant Australia, or the New Australians as he often referred to them. Gough Whitlam envisaged an Australia that was reconciled with its first people, our Indigenous Australians—and of course there is that memorable photograph of Gough with Vincent Lingiari. He gave hope for reconciliation and paved the way for native title. Gough Whitlam embraced the new Australians that came here, my family and I included, in a way that gave us a sense of ownership and belonging, a gesture that would become the driving principles of access and equity which underlined multiculturalism—a policy that the Whitlam government not only championed but also implemented during that period of great reform.
It is indeed a privilege for me to be given the opportunity to speak in this condolence motion as the member for Calwell. The sense of fate and history does not escape me at this moment, because the 16-year-old schoolgirl of 1975 would never have imagined that she would be here today in the House of Representatives. It is a very important moment, when you look back in time.
Universal health, free education, land rights, the Racial Discrimination Act, ending conscription, legal aid, no-fault divorce, pension reform, multiculturalism and a new national anthem are some of the most iconic policies that characterised the Whitlam government, but it is Gough's relationship with new Australians that I want to reflect on here today and in particular his relationship with the Australian Greek community. It was a very special relationship. Gough Whitlam was a philhellene in every sense of the word. Gough once said:
… there can be no doubt that the Greek language is important in Australia, and that Greek civilization is important to Australia.
Gough became very involved in the Greek Australian community. From advocating for the return of democracy to its original birthplace during the seven-year dictatorship of the 1960s and early 1970s to supporting Australian peacekeeping forces in Cyprus and advocating for the return of the Parthenon marbles he was indeed a true friend of Greece and the Australian Greek community.
He was patron of the Antipodes Festival in Melbourne for many years. He was an honorary member of the Greek Orthodox Community of Sydney and NSW. He was a recipient of the Hellenic republic's highest honour—the Order of the Phoenix—for services to Hellenism. As my constituent Kostandinos Tsourdalakis, the cantor of our local Greek orthodox church, said in the 18-stanza Homeric prose he wrote on the occasion of Gough's passing last week, Gough was 'the Greek community's second father'. I am absolutely certain that Gough would love Mr Tsourdalakis's 18-stanza Homeric epic tribute to him. I wish I could read it out in the chamber today, but I think I would be trying the patience of Hansard considerably.
The affection new Australians held for Gough is captured by what my late father always used to say to me. During the 1975 campaign at a rally in Melbourne, Gough walked by my father, stopped and shook his hand. My father always described this as the moment an Australian Prime Minister had embraced him as a fellow Australian. There is no denying that Australia is a better place today because of Gough Whitlam.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:17): I am saddened but proud to speak in honour of a man who has made such a significant contribution to the wellbeing of our nation: the Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam AC, QC—11 July 1916 to 21 October 2014. There is much to admire about Edward Gough Whitlam's life: his service with the RAAF as a flight lieutenant, his transformation of the political landscape in Australia, his wit and his great love affair with Margaret. Despite these many contributions, it is his reforms to the law that have left the greatest impression on me as a lawyer. Gough's legacy remains in many of the important laws that underpin civil society today.
None of us arrive in this House from a vacuum, not even Gough. We are all shaped by our early lives and the families that mould us. Gough's father, Harry Frederick Ernest Whitlam, was a very bright young man who topped his school; however, his family did not have the financial means to send him to university so he joined the Commonwealth Public Service and studied at night to obtain a law degree. Gough's dad went on to have a brilliant career as the Crown Solicitor and as a human rights lawyer at the United Nations. That struggle for a university education would shape Gough. Also Gough's father-in-law, Wilfred Dovey KC, was a successful barrister and a judge who presided over many divorce and matrimonial cases back in the bad old days of divorce.
Gough's most enduring partnership, and perhaps his greatest influence, was Margaret. I use the term 'partnership' deliberately because that is obviously what it was. Margaret was very much an equal part of that relationship. She was a modern woman for the times and had very progressive views. During her time in the Lodge she was a very strong vocal supporter of women's rights.
These three family stories would shape the Whitlam government's agenda. Gough was, of course, a barrister, admitted to the New South Wales bar in 1947. Coincidentally, one of his chamber mates was Sir John Kerr, but that is enough about him. Gough took silk in 1962. Gough's progressive legal reforms shaped the way we live in Australia today. Gough said when he spoke at Old Parliament House in 2002 that he tried to apply an overarching principle and unifying theme to all of his work which he said could be stated in two words: 'contemporary relevance'. While that theme can be identified in his legal reforms, it seems to me that there is a far simpler theme that also persists in his legal reforms: to improve the lives of every Australian—and Gough most certainly achieved that.
When the Racial Discrimination Act was introduced it had monumental benefits for Indigenous people. No longer could they be discriminated against in employment, working conditions, remuneration or housing—issues that had long been problematic for Indigenous communities. This groundbreaking legislation overrode Queensland legislation at the time which restricted the property rights of Aboriginal people and provided inequitable legal representation for them. As ridiculous as it sounds today in 2014, before the Migration Act was amended by the Whitlam government in 1973—so in my lifetime—Indigenous people had to apply for special permission before they could leave Australia.
Other significant pieces of Whitlam legislation include the first Commonwealth legislation to grant land rights to Indigenous people; legislation to abolish the death penalty for federal crimes; legislation for equal pay for women; the Health Insurance Commission Act and the Health Insurance Act that created Medicare; the Family Law Act, which changed the way people divorced and made leaving a bad relationship far less painful than previously and enshrined the principle of the 'best interests of the child' so that children's rights are prioritised in any decision concerning them; and the Seas and Submerged Lands Act in 1973, which gave the Commonwealth authority over the states in any issues relating to the seas surrounding Australia—a piece of legislation that basically created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park down the track and thwarted Joh Bjelke-Petersen's plan to have mining on the Great Barrier Reef.
Gough Whitlam's government ratified some of the most significant international human rights agreements including the 1953 Convention on the Political Rights of Women, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Not only did Gough enact some of the most groundbreaking legal reforms in Australia; he also established the Australian Law Reform Commission. There is no point in having legislation that provides justice if ordinary Australians have no access to it, so what did Gough Whitlam do? He created the Australian Legal Aid Office.
In 1985, on the 10th anniversary of the dismissal, Gough Whitlam delivered the John Curtin Memorial Lecture. He said during the speech:
A conservative government survives essentially by dampening expectations and subduing hopes. We, by contrast, exist to raise hopes and expectations—to lift the horizons of the people.
Hopes were raised and so were expectations during Gough Whitlam's term in office. We would never see Australia and our futures in the same way again that we did before he was elected. We as a nation were forever changed for the better, and I will devote myself to lifting those horizons for all, not just a few.
Gough enjoyed a long life. He also enjoyed many friendships, as we have heard in the contributions from both sides of the chamber. As the member for Moreton, I am well acquainted with his friendship with one of my esteemed predecessors Sir James Killen. I have actually heard quite a few stories from Lady Killen because I see her every year when she gives out the James Killen community service award in my electorate. Although James Killen and Gough Whitlam were on opposite sides of politics, their friendship continued until Sir James died in 2007. In fact, they telephoned each other most Sundays, and there are many stories about the notes they frequently passed back and forward during parliamentary sittings, often to the dismay of their colleagues.
In fact, Gough Whitlam gave the eulogy on behalf of the Killen family at Sir James Killen's funeral. Sir James describes in his book Inside Australian Politics an encounter in his parliamentary office when Gough was the leader and was particularly upset with a colleague. The colleague wanted to attend the funeral of a former Labor minister, but his name had not been called in the ballot to determine who would attend. Gough was frustrated at being put in this position and Sir James, who was Minister for Defence at the time and charged with organising the flights for the mourners to attend the funeral, was attempting to calm him down. Sir James Killen said to Gough, 'What do you want to happen when you die?' Gough took a deep breath and said, 'I just want you to get up and say, "Let the Senate be his pyre."' Gough understood history and timelessness. The previous member for Moreton is not here to farewell his great friend, but we who are who are left behind shall do our best to keep the Whitlam legacy alive. Edward Gough Whitlam: may he rage in peace.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (11:25): Today we pay tribute to Edward Gough Whitlam, QC, AC: patriot, veteran, barrister, Prime Minister, ambassador, Australian legend, husband to Margaret and father to Antony, Nick, Stephen and Catherine. We pass on our condolences to his family and all who knew and loved him.
Throughout the course of this discussion we have seen the best of the Australian parliament. We have seen the outflowing of genuine affection and admiration for a great Australian, and I believe in this discussion we have genuinely held up a mirror to the Australian nation. Gough himself was more than a reflection of Australia as he found it. He was a leader who gave political voice to Australia not as he found it, but as he thought it could be. As Gough himself explained in 1973, his government was elected on the basis of policies which were developed carefully, steadily and intelligently to meet the important demands of our community.
His was the politics of courage and conviction. Indeed it is hard to imagine Australia without the reforms that were driven through by the Whitlam government. In the area of equality, we turn our minds to the reforms to the education system: free access to tertiary education and needs-based funding for our school system. In the area of electoral reform: one vote, one value; lowering the age of voting so that the age of voting was the same as the age at which you could be conscripted to go and fight for the country—the age of 18. In the area of gender equality, we have heard many speakers talk about the importance of his family law reforms: no-fault divorce, introducing onto the PBS the contraceptive pill and reopening the equal pay case to ensure that that important principle could flow through to our industrial tribunals. In the area of land rights: ensuring that the First Australians could once again have full custodial ownership of their traditional lands. On race discrimination, one of his first acts was to ban race-based sporting contests, which was an incredibly controversial issue in the early 1970s, and we all remember the controversy around the Springbok tour. It went beyond that, he was indeed the father of modern multiculturalism.
As previous speakers have talked about, the concession of Australia to a raft of international treaties laid the platform for a broad sweep of reforms, legislative and otherwise, in areas as diverse as industrial relations, heritage and conservation; and sex and disability discrimination. Not all of this was achieved in his term, but for him it would not have been achieved.
We are currently gripped in a debate around paid maternity leave, but Australians first enjoyed the right to paid maternity leave through the reforms of Gough Whitlam and his industrial relations minister Clyde Cameron. It was Whitlam and Cameron who also introduced a great reform which ensured that when Australians today go on holidays they enjoy four weeks annual leave and not three weeks annual leave. It was the Whitlam government which extended annual leave entitlements and provided an annual leave loading to ensure that when working class families took leave they could afford to go on a holiday. Extending the long service leave provisions was another one of his important industrial reforms.
Often overlooked when we recount the contribution of the Whitlam government to modern Australia were his economic reforms. It was Whitlam who introduced the Trade Practices Act and started the process of reforming our tariff system and opened up our diplomatic and trade relations with China, which are so much a part of our modern trading relationship and our economic success.
An important lesson of the Whitlam government, a lesson that must be heeded by all of us who occupy a place in the 43rd Parliament is this: you cannot do in government that which you have specifically disavowed in opposition. Indeed, you must use those years in opposition well and this is something that the Whitlam government did. Gough Whitlam spent plenty of time in opposition. He was first elected at the age of 36 in the Werriwa by-election in 1952, and he often remarked that his brilliant career in local government was cut short by the Werriwa by-election. He did not see government for another 20 years—20 years in opposition, 20 years of doing the hard slog of reforming the party, reforming the policy so it was fit to govern in modern Australia and ensuring that he had a vision which was right the government when he eventually achieved government in 1972. It was time; that was true—but it was Gough that made that possible.
In August this year, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the first and only joint sitting of this parliament under the deadlock provisions of the Australian Constitution—the deadlock provisions designed to ensure that when the House of Representatives passes a bill which is blocked successively by the Senate, there is a means of resolving that. In the case of the August 1974 joint sitting of parliament, central to that sitting was the Medibank legislation. When that legislation was first introduced into parliament, Gough spoke on the bill in December 1973 and he had this to say:
We propose a universal health scheme, based on the needs and means of families. This proposal—the most rigorously investigated proposal ever put by any party on any subject at any election—has to be seen against the contrast of the existing scheme, unwieldy, unjust, enormously costly, inherently costly.
He said to those who opposed it and who forced the government to a double dissolution:
Let the warning be quite clear: if Liberals propose next week to prop up, patch over, the existing scheme, it will mean more in contributions and more in taxation for everybody. Let's have a clean sweep.
All those words remain true today.
When you ask what motivated Gough Whitlam to introduce the Medibank legislation, something which is now an article of faith on this side of the House, you need look no further than his own words. He had this to say:
I personally find quite unacceptable a system whereby the man who drives my Commonwealth car in Sydney pays twice as much for the same family cover as I have, not despite the fact that my income is 4 or 5 times higher than his, but precisely because of my higher income.
These values find an echo in the 43rd Parliament.
In America they call it the 'Kennedy moment'; in Australia it is the 'Whitlam moment'. Every Australian knows where they were on 11 November 1975. He inspired a generation of political activism, he is a reference point for all who follow, and today we pay tribute to a great Australian.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (11:33): How does one sufficiently and comprehensively pay tribute to the great E.G. Whitlam in five minutes? The reality is one does not. One could not possibly hope to. You would need at least 20 and then, of course, that would not be enough. But I say 20 because I think we need to talk about Gough through four lenses: first, Gough the Prime Minister; second, Gough the parliamentarian; third, Gough the party member—that is the Labor Party member and party leader; and, fourth, Gough the human being—and an honest, compassionate man he was, dedicated to it equity and social justice not only in this country but right around the world.
Gough was by any measure one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers. The history of the federation, I have no doubt, will treat him well. Just as well-known were the myths, particularly around Gough's economic management. It is very true to say that Gough came to office just as the long boom was coming to a close. There has been much talk about the December 72 OECD report, which pays testament to that proposition. He also faced two very significant oil shocks and came to office at a time when the EU was enlarging and all the consequences that had for the nation's economy. I should say he was a stickler for Treasury advice and followed Treasury advice almost always. In amongst all of that he also saw a need for economic reform and began to dismantle the then out dated and economically destructive tariff system, which was make making Australia so inefficient, and, in doing so, paved the way for further economic reform and further economic restructuring.
To save time, I am going to take the second and third together—Gough the parliamentarian and Gough the party member and party leader. This is Gough's biggest legacy. Gough used the forms of the parliament from opposition to drag that then coalition government to new reforms—matters that would have been resisted otherwise if it was not for the advocacy skills of Gough Whitlam. Gough always also brought the Labor Party into the modern era, making it electable again after more than two decades in the wilderness—and it was not easy at all. He took on entrenched factional interests, faced expulsion from the party at one stage for his efforts, but, with true Gough Whitlam determination and courage, he stood up to the factional masters and those who had created their fiefdoms within their party at the expense of the party and took the party forward.
Fourth of course is Gough the man. I am one of many in this place who can say that I was honoured and privilege to know Gough and to know Gough well. I did not know Gough well when he was Prime Minister; I was only 10 or 12 years of age. I do recall meeting him at a nursing home opening in my town of Bellingen when I was around 12 years of age, which excited me somewhat, but it was in his later years that I got to know Gough well.
What always stands out for me is that—despite his public persona, his exaggerated public persona—Gough was not interested at any time in talking about Gough or his legacies. The great man was far more interested in talking about the Labor Party and how it was going—the future of the country. And more particularly he was interested in talking about me; he was far more interested to know how I was going than he was interested in talking about where he had been.
He encouraged me to study more, for example—some advice I followed. Although I must admit that, having been persuaded by him to begin a law degree, I did not finish that law degree. I think I was at about the halfway point at the time. But his advice was appreciated and his ongoing interest in my progress through that university degree was also appreciated.
I would like to share one small anecdote. I very fondly recall being contacted when I was Defence Minister by my good friend and Gough's son, Nick, to inquire as to whether there were any Ventura bombers that were still airworthy in the country; the family was starting to think about Gough's farewell and they thought if a Ventura was still airworthy it might have made a nice touch as a fly-past at his farewell.
There was something unique about Gough and his art for both self-deprecation and self-praise. He could talk himself up in a way which most people could not get away with. Gough got away with it, because amongst all of his other fantastic attributes, he had a very sharp wit and a very good sense of humour. He will be missed by many. He had a very good innings; at 98, he had a full life, almost unchallenged by anyone else in Australia's political history. He will be missed by many. I will certainly miss him. What he did for his country he can be very proud of. Certainly, his family can be very proud of him, and I again extend my sympathies to his family.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (11:39): Where to start in paying tribute to Gough Whitlam? Given the stature of the man, particularly as an orator and a wit, it is impossible not to feel inadequate to the task. Many members on this side of the House will pay tribute to the pantheon of Gough's achievements, initiatives that changed lives and changed our nation. I want to narrow my focus and pay tribute in this House to the way that Gough changed the Labor Party. Over the preceding week we have seen the history wars play out, both in this chamber and in the broader community about the meaning of Gough's legacy to Australia. Given the nature of his times and his leadership, it would be disappointing if this was not the case.
But we should always remember that Gough was nothing if not a moderniser. The sine qua non of Gough's achievements, the achievement that made all of the rest possible, was the way he changed the Labor Party. Gough Whitlam changed the Labor Party from an inwards looking, sectarian, ideologically obsessed movement into an outwards looking party, focused on the practical measures needed to both secure government and to increase the standards of living of Australians in our cities, suburbs and regions. In this respect, many of Gough's greatest achievements were chalked up during his time as opposition leader.
On this side of the House, we should acknowledge that the rigid, resistant orthodoxies that Gough confronted, the ideological intransigence that he crashed through, was just as often located on this side of the House. Indeed, his description of his leadership style as 'crash or crash through' was made not in reference to Fraser's obstructionism, but to the 1960s Labor Party's resistance to the change that he sought to bring, an intransigence that saw one of my predecessors, Hec McIvor, spend his entire 17 year career in this place in opposition.
Gough was an extraordinary individual, the likes of which we will probably never again see in this place, but the reason that he was so transformative for Australia, was because the Labor Party had been so bad for so long. We had failed Australia for decades before Gough ushered in three years of glorious change. Gough gave the 1967 Victorian Labor Party conference the defining articulation of the Labor Party's reason for being. He reminded us of our mission: to change the country for the working man. He told us that we were not founded to be a protest group. He said: 'The men who formed the Labor Party in the 1890s knew all about power. They were not ashamed to seek it and they were not embarrassed when they won it.'
At this time—the late 1960s, early 1970s—the idea that Gough would be remembered today as a paragon of ideological purity would have been laughable. Gough was bigger than the received ideological orthodoxy of his time. He understood that, unlike the Tories, no Labor opposition has ever been elected off the back of the same ideological agendas as the preceding Labor government. Gough understood better than anyone that Labor must always be a party that is relevant to contemporary times, relevant to the lives and aspirations of contemporary Australians, not engaged in byzantine ideological navel gazing and internal sectarianism. That is the reason Labor won government in 1972, and that is the reason we are remembering his achievements today. For that reason, the thing that I will always remember above all about Gough Whitlam was that he was nothing if not a moderniser. You can say whatever else about him, but that much will remain true.
Because Gough meant so much to members of the Labor Party, I wanted to finish my contribution with some reflections from my branch members on the great man. In deference to the other members in this chamber I will limit myself to one story. Terry Cuddy, one of my branch members told me about a meeting he had with Gough in 1975:
Back in September 1975, I went to Canberra with a high school excursion from Melbourne. We were at ANU on the day, and Gough was set to arrive to deliver a speech. There had been protests about his government and there was a rowdy protest at the Uni by the Young Liberals. Scuffles were going on and there was a robust verbal tirade from the Tories. It was pissing down with rain, thunder and lightning. The word went around that Gough was unlikely to turn up. And then the car arrived, the clouds parted, the sun shone and the birds starting singing. Gough arrived. There were smiles all around, and cheers from everyone—including the Young Liberals.
And really this sums up Whitlam's broader impact on our nation. It was rainy in Australia, there was thunder and lightning, and then the clouds parted, the sun shone and the birds started singing. Gough arrived and there were smiles all around. Thanks Gough.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (11:43): I am proud to stand here in the House of Representatives to celebrate a great Australian life. I was also proud to mark Gough's passing with my colleagues last Tuesday as we walked down to pay tribute at Old Parliament House on the steps where Gough made such a famous declaration and where he did his work in the old House of Representatives just down the hill. I am also particularly honoured to be joined in the chamber today by two great branch members from the Rankin electorate, Jeanette and Kevin Condran, who are in the gallery today. They are branch members of longstanding. They are part of the mighty Logan North branch, one of the greatest branches of the Labor Party anywhere in the country if I may say so! But they also lived in Gough's electorate of Werriwa. They lived in Green Valley. When Gough was the member for Werriwa but before he was the Prime Minister they used to drink beer with him at the Mount Pritchard Workers Club in Gough's electorate. Jeanette was a steward for the ETU and Kevin for the AWU. They used to spend time with Gough when he was their MP and before he was our Prime Minister.
Gough Whitlam was a leader, of course, but he was more than that. We have had many leaders in Australia, and some of them have been great, but we have only ever had one Gough and we only ever will. I like to think of him as a sculptor: his leadership, an act of vision and creation—a sculptor who imagined a perfect outcome and who pushed and prodded and polished and scraped and sanded to make it a reality.
Like other sculptors, the big man's masterpieces were subject to the criticism of those with smaller minds and smaller motivations. Sculpting required him to get his hands dirty as well; he was not too good nor too pure for that. At times, his was an untidy creation. He built, not a statue, but a nation; Australia as we know it—more modern and more confident than the one it replaced; more assertive and yet at the same time more generous. It was not a statue that he sculpted, of course: not a monument but a movement—a mission—one that inches forward still today. It is a movement and a mission that finds new purpose: in constitutional recognition of our Indigenous brothers and sisters; in marriage equality; in an Australian republic; in equal pay for equal work; in universal health care; in affordable higher education; in needs based school funding; and whenever we need to maintain our rage and enthusiasm, and wherever one Australian is treated less fairly than another
There is hardly an aspect of the modern Australian nation that Whitlam did not play a role in imagining and creating. For everyone whose life he changed, for all of us called to politics and public service and for the change makers in so many other fields of endeavour, his mighty and distinctive voice will echo through the ages, just like the melodic and distinctive voice of Paul Kelly will. In his famous tribute, Kelly sings of Whitlam:
Eight years went by, eight long years of waiting
Till one day a tall stranger appeared in the land
And he came with lawyers and he came with great ceremony
And through Vincent's fingers poured a handful of sand
That is one of the truly great Australian songs—real goose bump material, and it is about Gough.
I was thinking of it on Saturday as I took part in the Walk Together event, which finished on Carmody Street in Woodridge in my electorate. You see, Kev Carmody was Paul Kelly's collaborator in the writing of that song, From little things big things grow. They wrote it together—two great Australian poets, one white, one black—and later they performed it together as well.
I stood there in the middle of that proud parade of multicultural Australia on Carmody Street, thinking of the nation Gough found and the one that he left: the nation I was born into the same year he retired from the House of Representatives. I did not properly meet him beyond a handshake or two at campaign launches and national Labor conferences. But he taught my generation and the generations that followed something very important: that you can love your country and still desperately want to change it. In fact, he taught us that changing your country is the ultimate act of patriotism when that change is well considered and well motivated.
He also taught us that politics can be entertaining but it should never be trivial. We have heard some really funny stories about Gough in this condolence motion. But most of all we have heard of his achievements: free of trivia, free of pettiness, free of day-to-day polls and political commentary. And in recognising Gough Whitlam's extraordinary and selfless life we recognise that he could have instead lived a life of anonymous and comfortable privilege. Nobody forced him to join the Air Force to serve, but he did. Nobody forced him to dedicate his life to others, but he did. Because when he surveyed the Australia of mid-century, when he grasped the 'Menzian torpor', as Keating described it, he knew what needed to be done. He sculpted a new nation. Every Australian is strengthened by that creation, that contribution, and by his life.
I can only imagine how proud his family are of him—we all are—as they lay the great man to rest in eternal peace.
Mr GRAY (Brand) (11:50): The death of Edward Gough Whitlam is a time to celebrate the aspirations that Gough brought to public life. Gough showed us that a political life can make a difference.
My first memory of Gough Whitlam is from television and radio in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I was in primary school in Whyalla, South Australia, living in state housing. My dad worked at the local steel works and my mum was a cleaner. We used to watch TV or listen to the radio just to hear Gough.
While the Gorton and McMahon governments were descending into chaos, Gough was calm, dominant and determined. He used humour to win arguments. He used scholarship to gain perspective. He learned from history and he taught great lessons. Gough's style, energy and agenda spoke to us and we listened.
Gough Whitlam's impact on Australian politics began with the renewal of his party. He gave confidence to the faithful that Labor could be more than a party of opposition and complaint. Gough listened, learned and built a framework for modern Australian politics. He broadened the appeal of Labor beyond the traditional union-working class base. And he prepared Labor for government, developing shadow ministers, policy agendas and a modern world view.
He had a legendary memory, I introduced my wife, Deborah Walsh, to him, he kissed Deb and asked how Rosalie was—Deb's mum—who Gough would have met some 20 years before. Gough was, indeed, a terrific politician.
Through 20 difficult years of division and opposition Whitlam built his program, piece by piece. A modern Australia was his program, his project and his passion. He used the parliament to effect great change and as Prime Minister he used government to implement that change. He introduced a system of universal health care, abolished university fees, recognised Aboriginal land rights, supported equal pay for women, embraced multiculturalism, cut tariffs and agricultural subsidies and he celebrated Australia's identity.
He was the first Australian prime minister to recognise the People's Republic of China. He met Chairman Mao and created the diplomatic trade ties that have underpinned our relationship with China today. Gough poured a handful of desert dirt into Vincent Lingiari's hand as a symbol of dignity, prior ownership and Aboriginal land rights. Gough understood the importance of images and the media. He rose to dominate the political landscape at a time when his presence was most needed. He reimagined the role of government in Australian society, and he did it all with incredible confidence.
His government was disrupted by the 1973 oil shock and instability in global commodity and currency markets around the world, and at home unemployment began to rise. His government was not his equal. My father-in-law, Peter Walsh, was a Labor senator elected in the 1974 double dissolution election. Peter said Gough's ministers let Gough down. They were not up to Gough's standards. This taught us all great lessons about governance, lessons that were learned by Hawke and Keating. Without Gough, there could not have been a Hawke or a Keating government. Australia is now more tolerant, fair and equal because of Gough Whitlam. Following the tumultuous sacking of the Whitlam government, Gough urged his supporters to maintain public order and protest at the ballot box. He was forever a democrat.
Gough's wife, Margaret, was his equal, his ballast and his partner. She would moderate, manage and support him. We loved Margaret. Peter Walsh told me once that Gough inspired great loyalty. He remembered walking with Gough through the corridors of Old Parliament House to the opposition party room that November day in 1975.
In the middle 1980s, Gough was not fashionable in Labor circles. His book The Whitlam Government explained and defended his government. Eventually, Gough won that battle too, not just to be history but to tell it. Gough built his government and was the strength of that government. As it fell, he fought for it and he defended it against his opponents; he wrote its history and made it great. It is an epic story.
In many ways, Gough was the kind of politician that we need to see more of: humorous, educated, enlightened, courageous, engaged, resilient and persistent. Gough was a leader for the ages, a leader who cared for the rights and dignity of Aboriginal Australians, a leader who understood Northern Australia, a leader who cared for the arts, a leader for ideas, a leader who made us proud to be Australian and a leader who, although he loved Australia, still wanted to see it changed. He was a leader who made us proud to be Labor.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:54): Gough Whitlam changed Australia for the better. There is no doubt that on any side of politics Gough Whitlam was one of the great leaders of our nation. He was a bold and courageous reformer in areas as diverse as health care, social policy, foreign policy, education and reconciliation with Indigenous Australia. Many of the excellent contributions on this condolence motion have covered these reforms. I want to speak about Whitlam's contributions to the law and to the arts.
Whitlam brought about great and sweeping reforms to the laws of our nation, establishing changes that have transformed public life in Australia and that are part of our lives today. These include the abolition of the death penalty, establishing the Law Reform Commission and the Institute of Criminology, and proposing the establishing of a general Federal Court. Working with his Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, Whitlam also created the first national scheme of legal aid, which forms one of the pillars of access to justice in our country.
In 1975, Whitlam brought in the Racial Discrimination Act, a pioneering piece of legislation that embodies modern Australia's opposition to racism and bigotry. Whitlam also recognised the ongoing injustice being suffered by Indigenous Australians, and part of his government's response was to establish the Woodward royal commission into Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. The reports of that royal commission paved the way for the Aboriginal land rights act. Whitlam also brought Australia's first legal action before the International Court of Justice, demanding that France cease its nuclear testing in the Pacific. He was successful in this, with the French government stopping atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific in 1974.
Somehow Whitlam also found the time to introduce national trade practices legislation and the Trade Practices Commission, while also helping to modernise family law, establishing no-fault divorce, authorising civil celebrants and, in 1975, enacting the Family Law Act. This list of major legal reforms is remarkable. It is remarkable for its breadth, it is remarkable for its boldness and it is remarkable for having been achieved in less than three years.
I also want to draw attention to Whitlam's contribution to the arts, because the arts and cultural policy were central to Whitlam's vision of Australia as a modern and confident nation, sure of its identity and its place in the world. He also saw, as with other areas of public policy, that the Australian government should have a central role in encouraging and promoting our arts and our culture. His 1972 policy speech, 'It's Time', proposed the establishment of a council to promote excellence in the arts, to expand access to the arts in the community, to help establish a distinctive Australian identity, and to promote Australian culture internationally. He also proposed a public lending right for authors and measures to increase Australian content in film, television and books.
Whitlam brought to the prime ministership a passionate belief in the importance of the arts. In The Whitlam Government, he wrote:
In any civilised community the arts and associated amenities must occupy a central place. Their enjoyment should not be seen as something remote from everyday life. Of all the objectives of my Government none had a higher priority than the encouragement of the arts, the preservation and enrichment of our cultural and intellectual heritage. Indeed I would argue that all the other objectives of a Labor Government - social reform, justice and equity in the provision of welfare services and educational opportunities - have as their goal the creation of a society in which the arts and the appreciation of spiritual and intellectual values can flourish. Our other objectives are all means to an end; the enjoyment of the arts is an end in itself.
In government, Whitlam established the Australian Film Commission and the Australia Council. He saw the Council as offering:
… the prospect of a broad policy for the national development of the arts within a streamlined administration providing independence from political pressures and safeguards against centralised and authoritarian tendencies.
This is a principle of arts administration that still holds good today. He began construction of the National Gallery and, in an audacious and hugely symbolic gesture, bought Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles as a statement of Australia's confidence of its place in world culture.
Whitlam wanted the arts and our cultural heritage to be open and accessible to all. He established inquiries into the role and funding of museums and national collections, public libraries, the performing arts, and expanded the role of the National Library and introduced compensation for authors for the free loan of their books in public libraries, the Public Lending Right. As with so many other areas of public policy, Whitlam changed the way we think about the role of government for the arts and established the framework of arts policy that still exists today. Above all, he gave us the confidence and the support to speak as Australians and to tell our stories to ourselves and to the world.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Australia-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (12:00): by leave—On 5 September of this year Prime Minister Abbott and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi witnessed the signing of an agreement to pave the way for the supply of Australian uranium to India for its civilian nuclear power needs. I have pleasure in tabling this agreement, the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.
India is the world's largest democracy, an emerging Asian superpower, an influential regional power and a strategic partner for Australia. This agreement signals a maturing of the Indian and Australian bilateral relationship, which was upgraded to a strategic partnership in 2009 and which has continued to deepen and strengthen in so many respects since then. It is also a sign of our mutual confidence and trust in the relationship. Changes to international guidelines on nuclear supply to India in 2008, agreed by the 48 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, have opened the door to cooperation with India in the field of civil nuclear energy.
The 2008 Nuclear Suppliers Group decision was based on a number of significant commitments from India; commitments such as separating its civil and military activities; accepting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards at its civil facilities; putting in place an IAEA additional protocol on safeguards with respect to civil nuclear facilities; continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing; and working with others towards conclusion of an international treaty to end the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and to prevent the spread of sensitive materials and technology.
In the years since 2008 India has met these commitments. India's additional protocol with the IAEA entered into force in July of this year. It has not undertaken any nuclear tests, and it is working with Australia and others to try to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament.
Since 2009 India has progressively placed its civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, and plans that by the end of 2014 it will have completed that process—marking a clear separation of civil nuclear facilities from military programs. Were it not for the promise of increased international cooperation, India may have had little reason to move closer to the nonproliferation mainstream in this way.
As with each of Australia's 23 other nuclear cooperation agreements, the terms of this agreement tabled today commit India to ensure that all Australian uranium, and nuclear material derived from it, is used only for peaceful purposes and will remain within India's civil nuclear facilities. The IAEA applies safeguards at those facilities, which will ensure that nuclear material supplied to India by Australia will remain in peaceful civilian use only. In addition, India will ensure the security of Australian nuclear material in accordance with relevant broader international conventions and standards—the same conventions and standards that apply in Australia's dealings with other bilateral nuclear partners including the United States, Japan, Canada, and the EU.
Australia has a strong record on nuclear security. In the new agreement, both India and Australia have reaffirmed their respective commitments to ensuring that the use of nuclear energy is safe, well regulated and environmentally sound. India is party to the international Convention on Nuclear Safety and other nuclear safety treaties, and has supported international efforts to enhance nuclear safety following the Fukushima incident, including by inviting the IAEA to review aspects of India's national nuclear safety arrangements. Australia expects India will follow international best practice to ensure safety in its nuclear industry.
The Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement will provide a framework for greater cooperation between our countries on a broad range of nuclear-related areas, such as nuclear safety, production of radioisotopes and regulatory and technological advances in the nuclear fuel cycle. A senior officials' level dialogue between Australia and India on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, covering a wide range of issues including nuclear doctrine, disarmament and nonproliferation and export controls, offers a valuable opportunity to better understand and influence India's policies in these areas.
Australia steadfastly supports nonproliferation and disarmament and our policy towards India is aligned with other major uranium suppliers in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The terms of the nuclear cooperation agreement also align with Australia's uranium export requirements and will ensure our supply of uranium to India is consistent with Australia's international nonproliferation objectives and obligations.
Exports of uranium to India will not commence until the agreement is brought into force and the administrative arrangement that will allow us to implement the agreement has been settled. The administrative arrangement will cover technical aspects, including the processes required to account for all Australian nuclear material in India. For Australia, nuclear cooperation with India provides an opportunity to increase exports and employment over the longer term. India is already an important trade partner with two-way trade worth around $16 billion.
Australia has a hard won reputation as a reliable, cost-effective supplier of energy and India is a large and growing market. It is estimated that by 2015 India will be the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide and its primary energy needs will double by 2030. Nuclear power is an important part of India's energy mix to help it reduce its carbon emissions and to provide it with the secure supply of power it needs to underpin its ongoing economic development. Australia is well placed to provide India with a significant proportion of its growing uranium needs.
Given that nuclear energy is a zero-emissions source of baseload power, I expect support for this treaty from across the political divide. The embrace of nuclear power will enable India to contribute to the reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
The completion of this agreement is one of many areas in which the government continues to strengthen our ties with India. Cooperation under the agreement, together with the development of a strong dialogue with India on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, will reinforce the nonproliferation commitments that India has made in recent years, help bring it further into the international nonproliferation mainstream and enable Australia and India to build an enduring bilateral relationship.
I present a copy of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, the national interest analysis on the agreement and a copy of my ministerial statement.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Brand to speak for 7½ minutes.
Leave granted.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Gray speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 7½ minutes
Question agreed to.
Mr GRAY (Brand) (12:08): I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for tabling this document. Today is a good day. This is a good agreement and it is the culmination of a decade of hard work that spans both sides of this parliament, a decade of hard work that spans many foreign ministers and prime ministers, a decade of hard work that has resulted in an agreement between Australia and India to not only allow the sale of Australian uranium to India but to do it through a better and stronger bilateral agreement than that which would otherwise have been available under the NNPT. Successive foreign ministers and prime ministers of both countries are to be greatly congratulated.
In just a few weeks, our parliament will be graced by a historic visit from India's Prime Minister, Mr Modi. He will speak to our parliament, and it is a good thing that he speaks to our parliament after we have, with good grace, completed this important piece of work. This important piece of work is not only helpful for Australia's trade relationship but extremely important for India's development. The great agenda which Prime Minister Modi has for the Indian people is an agenda for growth and wealth creation and an agenda to lift people from poverty and to give them better lives. Prime Minister Modi will achieve that by increasing electricity production in India. He will achieve that through a nuclear reactor build that will provide power for hundreds of millions of Indian families. He will do that to help Indian families to warm their homes in winter and to cook and chill their food. This nuclear reactor build will drive industry, drive jobs, create wealth and create better lives.
This is not simply a good agreement because it allows Australian uranium to be sold to India; it is actually an important part of an agenda which the government of India has to create better lives for all of its people. As such, this piece of work is not simply about a trade relationship; it is what we are all about. Australia is by any measure an energy superpower. We do not provide energy just to our neighbours in North Asia; we are one of the world's significant suppliers of uranium. But we are also more than that. We are partners in nuclear cooperation, in developing better industry and better standards in the countries with which we trade and with which we have partnerships. This cooperation agreement does just that.
In 2011 and 2012, when the former federal government began a long process of aligning its internal Labor Party processes to allow for the proper facilitation of this agreement, it took the great courage of former Prime Minister Gillard to bring the Labor Party platform to a point where it could happily, and in an inclusive way, embrace this agreement. Great diplomatic agreements, as significant as they are and as enduring as they should be, are built on pragmatic and practical local management politics.
Before agreeing to export uranium to India as a strategic partner for Australia, we needed to have commitments and responsible actions to support nuclear nonproliferation—and Australia obtained those assurances. We required that the agreement be consistent with international guidelines on nuclear supply and that it provided an acceptable basis for peaceful nuclear cooperation. In response to that the government of Australia was always prepared to negotiate the provision of Australian uranium.
Australia's existing stringent bilateral safeguards agreements with other countries specify that our uranium and the nuclear material derived from it must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes in civilian nuclear fuel cycles—and that is what this agreement does. Australian uranium and the nuclear material derived from it is also protected in accordance with strict internationally agreed standards for its physical security. These agreements ensure that countries to which Australia agrees to sell its uranium are committed to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and international nuclear security standards. Under those agreements countries receiving uranium must also report on their use of Australian nuclear material and seek Australian consent for any enrichment, reprocessing or third-party transfer.
This agreement allows for these critical elements to be in place. A bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement with India imposes high standards. It ensures that Australian uranium remains solely used for peaceful purposes. It ensures that Australian uranium will help burn the lights, support industry, cook meals, generate a better standard of living for generations yet to come in India. It ensures that our mines in South Australia, in the Northern Territory—hopefully soon in Western Australia—will be suppliers of safe uranium for safe and peaceful purposes, with a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuel burning, with a better industrial profile than other environmental fuels available in India, and with the capacity to provide baseload power to the world's most populous democracy.
We stand here today at the culmination of nearly a decade of effort that spans the combined wisdom and concentration of former Prime Minister Howard, Prime Minister Rudd, Prime Minister Gillard and, of course, today, Prime Minister Abbott. To have this agreement book-ended, if you will, in just a few days' time with the appearance in this chamber of India's Prime Minister, Mr Modi, is a good thing—a good thing for this agreement and a good thing for the way in which our nations have worked together to produce this agreement, which will not just endure but will strengthen our relationships and make industrial development in India safer, better and cleaner. I commend this agreement to the House.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (12:17): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Project AIR7000 Phase 2B—Maritime Patrol Aircraft Replacement Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to provide new facilities, upgraded infrastructure and airfield works to support the introduction of the new Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft. The AP-3C Orion has served the Australian Defence Force well but due to its age is difficult to continue to support and its systems are facing obsolescence. It will be replaced by the new P-8A Poseidon aircraft with the first aircraft scheduled to be delivered in late 2016. New facilities are required in order to support the new aircraft.
The facilities will be at the Main Operating Base, Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh; and forward operating bases RAAF bases Darwin, Pearce and Townsville. The project will also refurbish the existing torpedo maintenance facility and new explosive ordnance storage facilities at HMAS Stirling. Facilities located at the other bases will provide logistic support for aircraft deployments and explosive ordnance storage.
The proposed works will support Australia's advanced maritime intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and response capability. The estimated cost of the project is $707.9 million, excluding GST. This includes provision for management and design, construction, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in late 2015 and is planned to be completed on all sites by late 2020. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (12:19): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Project AIR9000 Phase 7—Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) Facilities Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to provide new and refurbished facilities at HMAS Albatross, Nowra, in New South Wales and at Jervis Bay Airfield in the Australian Capital Territory to support the introduction of the new Helicopter Aircrew Training System capability. The proposed works will include facilities for synthetic and live training, maintenance workshops and hangars, office and administration, training facilities, living-in accommodation and associated infrastructure services works. The project is valued at $157.1 million, excluding GST, which includes all development and delivery costs, including management and design fees, construction costs, information communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies, and an allowance for escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in mid-2015 and is planned to be completed on all sites by mid-2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Agriculture and Industry Committee
Report
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:21): Yesterday in this House on behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry I presented A clearer message for consumers: report on the inquiry into country of origin labelling for food. Today we have had a slight error pointed out to us, so I present a corrigendum to the printed version of the final report.
Economics Committee
Report
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:14): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2013 (third report), together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Ms O'DWYER: by leave—I am pleased to present the third report for the Economics Committee's review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2013. This report follows a hearing with the governor and other officials of the Reserve Bank on 20 August 2014 in Brisbane.
The RBA has recently forecast Australia's trading partner growth to be a little above its long-run average, assisted by strong export trade to China. It is encouraging also that the expectations have risen for improved growth in the advanced economies.
At the August hearing, the Reserve Bank governor estimated Australian growth at two to three per cent of GDP over the year ahead. He commented that our near-term growth may be slightly below recent trends but could increase above trend in the future.
The RBA continues to hold the official cash rate at 2½ per cent, which it has maintained since August 2013. This decision is due in part to a continuation of favourable financial conditions and also to adequate capital inflows to market economies. The governor commented that lowering cash rates was unlikely to encourage growth in the current environment but could be considered in the right circumstances.
There is currently very low volatility in financial prices. The governor has also stated previously that markets are not anticipating global interest rate rises or other adverse events in the period ahead.
The exchange rate continues to remain high by historical standards. The governor noted at the hearing that Australia has undergone a positive rerating by global capital markets over the past five to ten years. This has contributed significantly to the high Australian dollar.
The unemployment rate has increased slightly in recent months. Reversing this trend is likely to take some time despite improvements in labour market indicators. The labour market is responding to these conditions with slower growth in wages and there are indications of a lower unemployment rate into the future which is to be welcomed.
The committee sought the governor's views on the circumstances in which interventions to address rapid price increases in Australian housing, particularly in the major capitals, could be warranted. He noted that in addition to leverage and lending standards, macroprudential tools could be considered if the economic or financial risk of these price rises became sufficient.
The committee gauged the views of the RBA on credit issues facing small businesses. The governor commented that this warrants further discussion as it is an acknowledged problem for smaller enterprises with no obvious or magic-bullet solution. The governor further noted that small businesses employ the bulk of the Australian workforce and will continue to enhance employment and economic activity as long as the opportunities and incentives remain in place for risk-takers and entrepreneurs.
On behalf of the committee I would like to thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing before the committee on 20 August 2014. I would also like to thank the secretariat and committee members for their work on this report.
I commend the report to the House.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:25): I also wanted to echo the remarks of the chair, who extended thanks to the colleagues and to the secretariat as usual. I sometimes remark that questioning the RBA at these hearings is like quizzing the Sphinx: you don't really get much out of them and you're left to sustain yourself on a few grains of sand! But there were a few things that emerged out of that last hearing and also a pattern that is emerging across hearings.
I go to what has been observed at these hearings. Back in March the RBA noted two things. First, growth in wages is at its lowest level since records began within the RBA in 1997. Second, the governor observed at our March hearing that the gap between costs and price is widening because profit margins have gone up. Some other observations have made along the way about the weakness of consumption and high level of savings. Fast forward to this hearing, and we have had the governor provide a long list of reasons why now is the time for business to invest and not to be so narrowly intent on sustaining dividend flows and returning capital to shareholders. This call to invest was done because the RBA through bank liaisons observed an unwillingness of business to dedicate itself to investment until business detects sustained demand. This has prompted the RBA to observe an absence of what it called 'animal spirit' or confidence to add to the stock of physical assets. It is clear the RBA is concerned because, as they noted, the level of gross investment within some sectors right now is barely above depreciation rates for capital.
Let's draw those threads together: lowest level of wage growth, consumption barely growing and savings levels at solid highs. On the other hand there are profit margins lifting, investment hardly growing and dividends and returns to shareholders picking up pace. Some of this is not new; we can dig up stats comparing wages versus profit share of GDP and see that wages really have not been the winner in that contest for some time. But it is clear there are concerns that people's costs of living are not really being matched by growth in wages, and that is causing considerable discomfort in the broader community, which makes it the worst time to slice support for families or other groups through what we have seen in the budget.
It is hardly any wonder that consumer and business confidence is taking a hit and it is hardly surprising that business will not invest due to lack of sustained demand. Those linkages are not hard to draw. The test for government is to engender confidence in the broader community to ensure business can start to detect the type of demand it believes the RBA has detected will trigger investment decisions.
Another comment made by the RBA at its hearing, principally through Deputy Governor of the RBA Dr Philip Lowe, attracted quite a bit of interest, specifically where he said:
If we are going to sustain ourselves there, people need to be able to take risk … and we need to innovate to find new ways of doing things better. I think it is about somehow enlivening the entrepreneurial, risk-taking and innovation culture so that we can be the type of country that has high value-added, high wages and high productivity
This is not a new message from the RBA. It has been nudging business for some time on this front. In fact, earlier in the year its CIO, Sarv Girn, was highlighting the need for business to be prepared for and accommodate disruptive technology.
Both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have highlighted that a challenge for our economy is to harness innovation to drive future growth, and we have been particularly mindful of finding ways to—paraphrasing Dr Lowe—enliven entrepreneurialism. Technology start-ups within our nation best embody that attribute of enlivened entrepreneurialism, and we do need to promote a stronger, more conducive investment environment.
While the government's recent innovation statement finally addressed reform of the employee share ownerships program, a process commenced under the former government, it has walked with leaden feet in other areas that can help these start-ups. Notably, it has failed to meaningfully respond to calls for the reform of the regulatory environment around crowdsourced equity funding, which will provide access to valuable, much needed capital for start-ups. While numerous ministers have suggested they are big fans of this platform, we have hardly seen a response to the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee report proposing a new way ahead for this funding platform. It is a comprehensive, well-researched report probably taking a conservative approach to future regulation for CSEF. I also wonder whether having Treasury manage that response will slap a further layer of conservatism to the CSEF regulatory framework, but in due course you would hope to see a formal response from the government.
For now, I am very mindful that the sector is demanding from the government a formal statement on where it is at in developing the framework, because people are seeing colleagues leave Australia, heading to New Zealand because there is a more accommodating regulatory environment there. Again, if we want that enlivened entrepreneurialism that the RBA has called for, we need to put a framework in place to encourage it. It is now up to the government to get its act together to deliver that for them. I commend the report to the House.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:30): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Porter ): In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:30): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Treaties Committee
Report
WYATT ROY (Longman) (12:30): Is always a pleasure to follow the member for Higgins. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report 144, entitled Treaty tabled on 14 July 2014.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
WYATT ROY: by leave—Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 144, containing the committee's views on the agreement between Australia and Japan for an economic partnership.
The Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA) was tabled in parliament on Monday, 14 July 2014. Australia and Japan enjoy a strong, longstanding bilateral relationship based on common values: democracy, human rights and the rule of law. During his visit to Australia the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Shinzo Abe, spoke of the evolving nature of the 'special relationship' between our two countries, as it expanded to take in closer security bonds and broader trade ties.
That relationship has been reinforced by a steadily developing complementary bilateral economic relationship. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian resources have supported Japan's prosperity and Japan's manufactured goods have contributed to Australia's modern living standards. Today, Japan is our second-largest trading partner with two-way trade, in 2013, standing at $70.8 billion.
JAEPA will further enhance this important economic relationship. It is the first agreement that Japan has signed with a major agriculture-exporting country. It is seen as the most liberalising trade agreement that Japan has ever concluded. This agreement places Australia at the front of the pack. Tariffs will be reduced in a range of areas. Modelling predicts that beef exports will benefit by around $5.5 billion over 20 years and deliver an increase of up to seven per cent in the annual gross value of Australian beef production.
There will be duty-free quotas for Australian cheese, immediate duty-free access for the growing trade in milk protein concentrates and new opportunities for ice cream and frozen yoghurt. Importantly, Australia will gain a first mover advantage. Australian exporters will have the opportunity to beat their competitors into the Japanese market and establish a presence with consumers before other countries have that chance.
As with all negotiated free trade agreements, JAEPA did not deliver on all the outcomes that we would have liked. However, as one witness pointed out to the committee, the agreement represents a 'seismic shift' in Japan's traditional thinking on trade. As another witness told the committee, JAEPA will refocus attention in both Japan and Australia on the relationship between the two countries. It will open up opportunities for further trade liberalisation and the flow-on effects will go far beyond tariff reductions.
The committee found that increasing the non-screening investment level to $1,078 million is expected to significantly increase Japanese investment in Australia. In 2013 it stood at $131 billion. The revised provisions will make it simpler for Japanese investors to do business in Australia, making it an attractive option in an increasingly competitive market.
Minerals and energy resources make up the bulk of Australia's export trade with Japan, worth over $24 billion and accounting for over 80 per cent of total merchandise exports in 2013. Australia is facing significant competition in this area from global competitors, but the economic agreement will offer Japan reassurance concerning energy and resource security from Australia, providing suppliers with a boost. Overall, we are satisfied that JAEPA has the potential to provide Australian business and industry with a range of profitable opportunities and to be a net benefit to the Australian economy.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank fellow members of the committee for their cooperation. You, Mr Deputy Speaker Whiteley, are of course a member of that committee and I thank you, as well as the deputy chair, who is in the chamber here today, and all members of the committee for their cooperation on this, and particularly the committee secretariat for their work in putting this report together. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (12:35): by leave—The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is recommending the ratification of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. This is consistent with the weight of evidence and submissions to the committee, which stressed the advantages of this agreement for Australian agriculture, and the opposition supports that recommendation.
Having said that, I am not going to let this opportunity pass without expressing my concern that the trade agreements we are entering into reflect a willingness to sacrifice some parts of the Australian economy—conspicuously manufacturing—in order to advantage others, conspicuously agriculture. I have a number of concerns about this strategy. First, it is a recipe for unemployment in Australia's manufacturing centres.
I have just received the latest Department of Employment small area labour market figures for my area. They show that for the City of Moreland unemployment has increased since the change of government from 6.8 per cent in September 2013 to eight per cent in June this year. Unemployment in Coburg has risen from 8.5 per cent to 10 per cent, and unemployment in Brunswick and Fawkner has also climbed about 1½ per cent since the change of government, to over nine per cent.
But it is to the immediate north of my electorate where the real catastrophe is unfolding. In Broadmeadows unemployment has risen since the change of government from 21.9 per cent to 26.4 per cent. That is more than one in four. Unemployment in Campbellfield and Coolaroo has risen from 18.8 per cent to 22.9 per cent. Unemployment in Meadow Heights has risen from 18.6 per cent to also be 22.9 per cent. These are terrible figures. They are a recipe for social disadvantage on a massive scale with the certainty of crime, drugs and mental health problems to follow.
The second problem, as Tom Skladzien from the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union says, is that these bilateral trade agreements will lead to the continued narrowing of our economic base, making secure employment harder and making us all the more vulnerable to international shocks and price changes. It is my absolute conviction that if Australia continues to go down the path of narrowing our economic base there will come a time when we will regret it. The mining and energy resources boom will not last forever. With apologies to Winston Churchill, never before in our history have we put so many eggs in so few baskets. The third problem is that, in practice, we often do not get the gains for agriculture that could justify the losses for manufacturing due to behind-the-border barriers.
I also want to make some comments about the way in which trade agreements have moved beyond tariffs and quotas and into every area where governments seek to regulate in the national interest, such as foreign ownership and migration. Chapter 12 sets out the conditions for the temporary entry of skilled persons. It is unlikely to prove problematic. But I cannot say the same thing about the proposed bilateral trade agreement with China. Michael O'Connor from the CFMEU warns that any agreement with China must not restrict the ability of Australia to regulate movement of workers, including through labour market testing, as well as numerical quotas. He says if the Korean labour market testing exemption is replicated in the China FTA then the impact on the labour market would be disastrous.
The other area of concern is the way in which trade agreements are being used to advance global corporate power at the expense of democratic decision making by elected governments. I am particularly concerned at the prospect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, including a provision on investor state dispute settlement. It would bust the door wide open for US companies to sue government decisions they did not like. Since the NAFTA was signed, Canada in particular has been the victim of regular attacks by US corporations. Egypt was sued by a French company after the Arab Spring for raising the minimum wage! It goes to show how pernicious and wicked these provisions are.
What we do know about the TPP, from documents leaked by WikiLeaks, is very troubling. A few days ago WikiLeaks released the negotiating text for the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Last week I was able to discuss copyright, intellectual property, patenting and pharmaceutical issues in the TPP with Trish Hepworth, the Executive Officer of the Australian Digital Alliance, Dr Burcu Kilic, Legal Counsel of the Washington-based Global Access to Medicines Program, and Sanya Reid Smith, Legal Adviser to the Geneva-based Third World Network. I share their concern that the intellectual property chapter of the TPP as it stands will impact adversely on innovation policy, freedom of expression and public health.
One of the key problems is that a lot of treaty negotiating goes on in secret and the public does not know what is actually being considered. By the time a treaty comes to the parliament, the Australian government, and other governments, have already signed it, and it is extremely difficult to do much about it then. I urge that there be more transparency in the negotiating of the China bilateral trade deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
BILLS
Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that the bill is one of many changes the government is proposing that will increase the cost of healthcare."
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (12:41): I am pleased to continue my remarks on this important piece of legislation and this important area of public policy. What I want to do in my remarks today is to bust a few myths in relation to health policy and talk about the important changes encompassed in the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill. I will also talk about the financial situation that the government confronts, not only in health policy but in policy more generally because of the extreme waste of the previous government. Broadly, the government inherited, a fiscal mess—high levels of debt growing very rapidly. It is incumbent upon the government to address that debt and deficit situation, which we are doing, in a sensible and purposeful fashion right across the board in government spending. Indeed, we are returning the budget to near balance within four years and, importantly, investing in areas that require public investment, such as health, in a substantial way. So we want to get the budget back on track, back to a near surplus situation, while at the same time investing in health and other areas.
Let us go to some of the numbers to demonstrate the gravity of the fiscal situation we confront. When Labor came into office there was $50 billion in the bank, no debt at all and no interest payments—because you do not pay interest when you do not have any debt. Over the six sorry years of Labor administration we saw a consistent overspend—deficits of $27 billion, $55 billion, $48 billion, $43 billion and $19 billion, culminating in $50 billion in 2013-14, based on the previous budget. They are very consistent high levels of debt. We will recall that one of the excuses given for this financial mismanagement was that revenue had collapsed—there was this thing called the GFC, which of course was a very convenient excuse for the previous government. It was pretty much trotted out in virtually all situations but it was certainly trotted out as a reason why running these huge deficits on a continuing basis was unavoidable.
The problem with that excuse is that government revenue under Labor actually rose very strongly. In 2008-09, the first full year of the previous government, government receipts were $289 billion; in 2013-14, the last year they were in government, they were $361 billion; and in FY13 they were $348 billion. So over that six-year period government revenue rose by 25 per cent and in fact averaged an increase of 4.5 per cent every year—the compound annual growth rate, as it is called. So government revenue did not go down at all, with the exception of 2009-10 where it did pause momentarily; it went up very substantially. It went up in 2010-11 by six per cent, in 2011-12 by 10 per cent and in 2012-13 by another six per cent. These were very substantial increases.
So there really is no excuse for not being able to make the expenditure match the revenue, but that is of course what happened. As a consequence we have a very big debt that we must address. This government, therefore, has to take a different approach. We cannot sleepwalk into the future, pretend everything is okay and go on running up deficits of tens of billions of dollars every year. We will not do that. So what we have laid out in a methodical and detailed fashion is a plan that gets the budget back on track. The plan means that by 2017-18 there will be a deficit of just $3 billion, so next to nothing in the context of a $460 billion organisation. We have done that by making sensible changes to government expenditure right across the board. Obviously there have been changes in areas such as foreign aid, where we have quarantined some of the larger increases that were planned.
Obviously the principal focus of the discussion today is health. As I said, the government has provided for a situation which gets the budget back under control and gets it back broadly to a surplus while at the same time the government has provided for significant increased investment in health. It is absolutely not the case that government expenditure in health is declining; in fact, it is increasing quite substantially. So the health budget was $64 billion in 2013-14 and will go up to $79 billion in 2017-18. That works out to be an average increase in health expenditure over the next four years of about five per cent. That is a very important point. Health investment is not going down; it is going up and going up at a very solid rate.
There are a number of different areas in which the government invests in health care but the three biggest are Medicare and dental services—they are sometimes treated separately but for the purposes of this it is probably easier to treat them together—assistance to the states for hospitals and the PBS, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which provides subsidised drugs to Australians. Let us have a look at what this government is doing in terms of investing in these areas. We should bear in mind that this is in the context of getting the budget back under control. We know that government spending is moderating because we know we are not going to be running massive deficits. We will actually be getting the budget under control but, whilst we are doing that, we will continue to invest very solidly in important health services.
Let us take a look at Medicare services and dental. In 2013-14 total expenditure was just over $19 billion and in 2017-18 the forecast total expenditure is just over $23 billion, so that is growth of about 21 per cent, or annualised close to five per cent. Let me be very clear. Expenditure by this government on Medicare and related dental services is forecast over the next four years to increase by more than 20 per cent. That is not going down by 20 per cent; it is going up by 20 per cent. That is a very important point to note.
Let us look at assistance to the states for hospitals. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have heard stories of supposed cuts to spending by the Commonwealth on hospitals. That is absolutely false. There is $13.8 billion in FY14 and that is forecast to rise to $18.9 billion in FY18. That is an increase of 37 per cent, or about eight per cent on an annualised basis. So again it is absolutely flat out false to suggest that Commonwealth spending on hospitals is declining. It is not declining; it is increasing substantially. This government is spending significantly more on public hospitals than the previous government ever did. That is an important point: this government is spending considerably more on assistance to public hospitals than the previous government ever did. It is going up very substantially. In fact, by 37 per cent over four years.
Mr Tudge: What? Thirty-seven?
Mr COLEMAN: The member for Aston is commenting on that very substantial increase. This government is spending 37 per cent more than the Labor Party ever spent on assistance to public hospitals. That does not seem to be consistent with the narrative of those opposite, but it has the tremendous virtue of being true. There is a 37 per cent increase in investment in public hospitals.
Let us look at the investment in the PBS. There are sensible changes to the PBS but nonetheless government expenditure on the PBS will be increasing by 10 per cent over the next four years, an average growth rate of about 2.5 per cent. We see incremental money coming in for the medical research fund—going up to $4 billion by 2017-18—and a total annual increase in health expenditure of just over five per cent per year. That is not five per cent going down; that is five per cent going up. But importantly, whilst there is an increase it is an increase which is being managed in the context of a sensible budget, under which we say goodbye to the years of rampant uncontrolled spending and we say, 'How do we as a government sensibly plan to get back on track for a surplus whilst at the same time invest as required in important areas such as health?' It is very important that that narrative is understood. We see investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health increasing over the next four years. We see investment in the subsidies to private health insurance going up in the next four years.
Ms Hall: No joke!
Mr COLEMAN: These figures—and I am quoting directly from the budget, so I don't know if the member for Shortland has a different interpretation on numbers which are factual—are a very significant increase in health expenditure. The changes in this bill are a part of that sensible approach to health expenditure. The freezing of the indexation in relation to the private health insurance rebate and related matters will assist in addressing some of those broader budget challenges whilst at the same time being part of an overall approach to the health area of government policy, where health expenditure continues to increase—going up, not down—on an annual basis every year. That is a very important point to note.
What we cannot and will never do as a government is go into that intellectually dishonest and lazy place of putting out press releases, saying there are going to be surpluses and not doing the hard work to actually make them happen. That is not what this government are about. We are about sensible and methodical planning and a part of that is sensible planning which enables continuing investment in health services.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:54): I strongly encourage members of the government to agree to the amendment. The contribution from the member for Banks was a disgrace: an absolute disgrace. It shows just how statistics can be manipulated. No wonder people distrust the Abbott government as much as they do. The member for Banks is a stark contrast to the previous member for Banks, who was such an honest and straight-shooting member of parliament. I would encourage him to go and talk to the health minister in New South Wales and to talk to the Premier in New South Wales, and see whether or not they believe that this government—the Abbott government—is actually ripping money out of the health budget. In actual fact it is over $1 billion a year that it is ripping out of the budget.
Listening to the member for Banks talk about returning the budget to surplus and investing in health, then in between the lines I got the feel of a member who is arguing in favour of a GST and a GST being placed on health along the lines of all the other things that this government has done. They promised before the election that there would be no new taxes—and I will talk a little bit about the GP tax in a moment—and now there is the possibility of a GST. You get the GP tax plus on top of that you get your GST. Really that is an absolute disgrace. No cuts to health? Well, I will be dealing with that in great detail as I go through this speech because this is a government that is cutting essential services. This is a government that is making cuts to health and making cuts to education. It is a government that has absolutely no commitment whatsoever to universal health care, which underpins our health system here in Australia.
It is a government of broken promises and a government that does not really understand health. The Prime Minister did not understand health when he was actually the health minister. When he was the health minister bulk-billing rates in the Shortland electorate were 60 per cent. Following the time since we had the Gillard and the Rudd governments in power, bulk-billing rates were not 70 per cent, not 80 per cent, but 82 per cent. So on one hand we had in the Howard government, when the current Prime Minister was health minister, a man that undermined the universality of our health system.
I think it is really important to make comparisons to health systems in other countries. In Australia, we spend about nine per cent of GDP on health, which is much less than the UK and much less than the US, which is the model that I am sure the Prime Minister would like to see introduced in Australia. I am thinking about the legislation that has been introduced by the health minister. Last week we debated dental legislation. The dental legislation was not legislation to ensure that all Australians had access to dental health; rather it was legislation to waive the debt that dentists incurred when they did not abide by the guidelines of the chronic dental health program. This government and the previous Howard government have an appalling record on health.
To get to the bill that we are talking about today, the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014: it pauses the income threshold which determines the tiers for Medicare levy surcharges and the Australian government rebate on private health insurance. Talking of private health insurance, that reminds me that this government, when in opposition, said they were going to remove the means testing from private health insurance. We have not seen that legislation in the parliament yet and I suspect we will not, which will be another broken promise. But I think it was a promise that was very sensible for the government to walk away from.
When we looked at the independent analysis before the last election and when the means testing was placed on the health insurance rebate, the detailed analysis predicted that in the first year 175,000 people would withdraw from private health hospital cover and a further 583 people would downgrade their private health cover. Over five years they predicted 1.6 million Australians would drop cover and 4.3 million would downgrade their cover. Now let us look at the facts: in fact, private health insurance is at its highest level ever and continues to increase despite the means testing. Just for the record, before the election the Health Minister asserted that this level of private health insurance would decrease. It was 46 2.2 per cent; now it is 47.2 per cent of Australians who have hospital cover—hardly a decrease.
Everyone knows that those on the other side of this House, those in government will manipulate every figure and will cut services to those people that need them. They have no compunction whatsoever about cuts and putting new taxes on those people that cannot afford them. The effects of this budget that still has not really passed through the parliament is that the budget savings of over $1 billion a year will be made off the backs of the most vulnerable Australians. And people who miss out on safety nets will now miss out on care. So if a person cannot afford to pay for their health care, what they will do will be go without.
This is a government that has wielded unfair cuts on so many Australians in this budget. It just shows its lack of understanding of the struggle that people have each and every day to pay their bills, to be able to afford their health care, to be able to buy their medicines and to be able to access the quality universal health care that has become the rule not the exception in Australia. I really believe that many of those on the other side cannot remember what it was like before there was Medicare, which morphed into Medibank, which morphed into Medicare. They cannot remember how people were constantly hauled before the courts simply because they could not pay their hospital bills or how people did not get the treatment that they needed.
The broken promises and the unfair agenda, the attack on people through this budget is phenomenal. We on this side of the House really strongly support health and medical research. We demonstrated this support when we were in government through commitments of more than $3.5 billion in health and medical research funding, including $700 million to upgrade the health and medical research facilities across the country. In actual fact, the Hunter Medical Research Institute was a beneficiary of that investment in health. It is a fine institution and the research that is being undertaken there is second to none. I would like to put on the record my congratulations to the Hunter Medical Research Institute. I know that they will continue to undertake cutting-edge research.
But what this government has done is give us an excuse the reason it is hitting Australians with a GP tax that will go into medical research. Those in the department did not even know anything about it until three weeks before and is sending medical researchers that should be undertaking research and working in their institutions to Canberra to talk to members of parliament to try and convince them that there is a valid reason to support the change. When questioned, they say, 'We are still working on the higher level aspects of it and we cannot give you any details whatsoever.' So there are absolutely no details about it. There has been no consultation. They did not consult with the Chief Scientist until afterwards then tried to blackmail the health and medical research sector into coming down to Canberra to support a very flawed proposal.
The savings are being made in an environment where the government is really making significant cuts to the health system despite what previous member for Banks said on the other side of the parliament. He is really holding the people of Australia in contempt by making those very flawed statements and he is also showing just the difference between him and the previous member for Banks, who was in there always fighting for the constituents that he represented in this parliament. Rather than fighting for his constituents, fighting for Australians the current member for Banks is making excuses.
The taxes on GP visits are also taxes on pathology and diagnostic imaging. We heard in this parliament over the last week just what sort of an impost those increases, those taxes will have on people. Those opposite have increased the cost of medicine and they have made changes to the pharmaceutical benefits safety net. All these cuts, all these changes are hurting people when they are sick, when they are vulnerable and when they need to look to the government to ensure that they are going to have access to universal health care. But unfortunately the Abbott government does not have that commitment to universal health care.
It is cutting $368 million from the National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health. One of the first actions of this government was to get rid of the Preventative Health Authority, a body that was undertaking some cutting-edge work in the area of preventative health. The minister and the Abbott government as a whole do not understand that the biggest savings in health can be made in prevention. If people can change their behaviours, if they can undertake activities that will lead to better health outcomes, then our health spending will decrease. But, unfortunately, this government does not see it like that. That was funding that the states relied on for preventative health. That $368 million helped tackle obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse, and now it is gone.
Cutting $229 million from the dental Flexible Grants Program. Once again, that is an attack on dental health; once again, it will to lead to poorer dental health outcomes. Dental health cannot be looked at in isolation because dental health impacts on a person's overall health. Those on the other side of this House do not get that. Every area you look at in relation to dental health care this government is walking away from it. They have made changes based on lies about the sustainability of the health system—a system that is much more sustainable than the UK system, or the US system. This government would like us to replicate the US system, but no-one agrees with the government on these issues.
Professor Owler, the President of the AMA, said that these figures in relation to healthcare spending are not out of control and that there is absolutely no reason to introduce a GP tax. This government stands condemned for its attack on the health system. (Time expired)
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:09): It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Shortland in this important debate. You could not find a more passionate advocate for the interests of health consumers in this country. It is an area of long-standing interest for the member for Shortland—indeed, before she came to parliament she was an allied health professional herself.
The bill before the House is an important one. It deals with private health insurance, the government's subsidies to the private health insurance industry, and how they can be managed in a sustainable way over the long term. It gives parliament the opportunity to focus on how we fund our health system and the role that private health insurance has in that funding arrangement.
Private health insurance is important. It costs the Commonwealth budget in terms of the rebate approximately $5.8 billion a year. That's right: $5.8 billion in 2014-15, which is a little bit less than 10 per cent of the Commonwealth's total health expenditure. It is right and proper that Commonwealth government and this parliament regularly focus on the performance of private health insurance and how much we are paying for this subsidy.
In terms of how private health insurance funds the contribution to total health expenditure in this country, it plays a very important role. The Commonwealth does the heavy lifting directly; nearly 41½ per cent of total health expenditure in this country is paid for by the Commonwealth; followed by states and territories at close to 27 per cent. It may surprise many on the other side of the House who are stern advocates for a price signal when it comes to access to primary healthcare services to learn that individuals already foot close to 18 per cent of total health expenditure in this country. Private health insurance is about eight per cent of the total expenditure on health insurance. So it is an important part—by no means the most important part—of health expenditure. At nearly $6 billion a year, it is something the parliament ought to focus on.
When this bill came before the House, it was met by a collective arching of the eyebrows from those on this side of the House, from each and every Labor member of parliament. That is because the subject matter of the bill is interesting. It was perhaps once seen as controversial by those on the other side of the House. It freezes the threshold for private health insurance rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge. The bill has the effect of reducing the amount of health insurance rebate that will be paid compared to if indexing were to occur as usual—that is, it freezes the rate at which the private health insurance rebate cuts out. It also—and this is not known by everyone—means that some individuals who would not pay the Medicare levy surcharge will pay that surcharge compared to if the surcharge was left alone.
Labor does support the legislation and we will support responsible measures, well-targeted measures, which are aimed at keeping health spending at sustainable levels, and I will go through some of the measures that Labor took in government. When Labor was in government, we introduced measures that ensured that private health insurance incentives were means-tested and made fairer. That was just one of the measures that we put in place.
At the time, those who introduced this bill before the House today opposed it most vehemently. When in opposition they opposed similar measures that we brought before the House. I have to say that, of the many vanities that we accuse the current government of, a dogged adherence to principles is not one of them; when you turn your thoughts to many of the things that were said in this place in 2012 in relation to Labor's fairer private health insurance legislation, you are left rolling around the floor laughing because there is such a gap between what was said then and what is being said by members opposite now in support of similar legislation.
The member for Flinders had this to say:
Significant numbers of consumers will withdraw from their private hospital cover—
1.6 million consumers over five years, he estimated—
or downgrade to lower levels of private health cover (4.3 million consumers over five years) following the proposed policy change.
So there you have it: the member for Flinders predicting a massive exodus as a result of the introduction of means testing for the private health insurance rebate. We know what happened, and that is the exact opposite. Private health insurance coverage rates continue to increase. In fact, they were at record levels when we left office.
But the member for Flinders, never one to be slowed down by facts or principle, had this to say:
That is the threat to the ability of low-income earners and middle-income earners to maintain their private health coverage.
He called Labor's reforms a 'retrograde step' in terms of public health policy.
He was not alone. I am very much looking forward to the contribution of the member for Leichhardt in this debate because when he comes here he will have to retract the things that he said in 2012 when he spoke on Labor's bill, which introduced the private health insurance rebate threshold. He had this to say:
I raise serious concerns about the grave impact these changes will have on our public health system, …
He called it 'blatant cost-shifting':
… blatant cost-shifting measure, shifting costs from the Commonwealth to the states' …
I welcome the comments that were made by the member for Leichhardt in respect of his concern about cost shifting. He did not have the same things to say about cost shifting when the GP tax legislation was before the House. In fact, we did not see him in there backing in the Liberal-National Party government's comments about the government's budget cuts through the tearing up of the health and hospital agreements, where the Liberal and National Party premiers said that there would be immediate impacts on front-line services.: from 1 July this year there will be a reduction of funding for 1,200 hospital beds across Australia. Where was the member for Leichhardt? Backing in his own LNP colleagues in Queensland, in New South Wales and right around the country when the serious criticisms were made about the government's policies.
There is more embarrassment for those on the other side. The then member for Barker had this to say—and I am always very concerned about the impact of any health measure on regional Australia:
Regional health relies on private health insurance. Visiting specialists to regional areas rely on both public and private patients. If the number of private patients drops off, which is inevitable,–
according to the member for Barker—
the visiting specialists will not visit anymore. Just on this fact, what does the government expect will happen if private health insurance is made more expensive? Of course people will drop out of private health. This means insurance will go up for those remaining in the system, weakening the health system not strengthening it.
You have to wonder, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, whether the new member for Barker agrees with what the old member for Barker had to say on this measure.
I expect the member for Cowper to make a powerful contribution as well. He always does when he comes into this place. In 2012 in relation to Labor's legislation, he said:
If you were to lose your private health insurance, you may well lose your private hospital. If you lose your private hospital, you may well lose your specialists. If you lose your specialists, you lose the local provision of services and that is a bad outcome for all people in regional Australia.
I can just imagine the member for Cowper's contribution in the party room caucus: was he channelling the member for Cowper in 2012 or had he a conversion—a Damascene conversion—in view of the obvious facts? So while we welcome the legislation we are deeply cynical of those opposite; as I said at the outset, of the many vanities that we can accuse those opposite of, a dogged and adherence to principal and consistency is not one of them.
The reason that we are willing to support the government in the passage of this legislation is because we are willing to be consistent when it comes to this area of health policy. The private health insurance rebate legislation in 2012 achieved savings of around $3 billion. And despite the fear mongering of those opposite, we did not see a massive exodus from private health insurance in this country. In fact, those Australians who had private health insurance coverage continued to rise.
We need to have a look at the broader context for this legislation, because I have heard many speakers on the debate. I heard the member for Banks earlier, saying that the sole reason that this legislation is necessary and the reason why the Prime Minister had to abandon an article of faith—his promise to remove the rebates on private health insurance—the reason that he had to breach that firm promise to the Australia people, was because health spending was in a crisis and it had to be brought under control.
Unfortunately, the facts do not agree with the member for Banks or anybody else who mounts this spurious argument. If we have a look at what has happened to health spending we are told that 10 years ago the PBS spending was half of what it is today. And we are told that 10 years ago Medicare—the MBS—was 50 per cent of what it is today as well. But the facts are somewhat different. Ten years ago PBS was 3.2 per cent of government spending—that is right, 3.2 per cent of government spending. And if you expected a runaway break-out in costs for PBS—an important part of our overall health spending—you would expect as a proportion of government outlays for that to be three, four, five or six times what it is today. Unfortunately, that is not the case for those who put that spurious argument. In fact, it is less: 3.2 per cent of government outlays 10 years ago; just 2.3 per cent today—in large part because of tough measures that Labor put in place, including the accelerated disclosure regime, which was not always popular but necessary to rein in costs. Ten years ago, Medicare cost 4.8 per cent of government spending. Again, if you expected a galloping, out of control, unsustainable increase in health spending, you would expect it to be three, four or five times what it is today in terms of total government outlays. It is not. It has actually gone down, slightly—I do not make a big point of that—4.8 per cent of government outlays 10 years ago; 4.6 per cent today.
These spurious arguments that are put up by those opposite about the need to introduce a two-tier health system, where we effectively remove bulk-billing, where we put in place massive increases in the costs of medicine through changes to the PBS safety net, where we massively reduce the support that the Commonwealth is giving to the public hospital system and the state-run health and hospital system in this country—around $55 billion worth of cuts—are all built on a fabrication, and it is the Australian people who are going to pay for it.
You must have some sympathy for the Australian people, who are facing massive increases in the cost of their health care on top of one of the largest increases in private health insurance premiums that has been seen in decades—approved by this government, one of the largest increases in private health insurance premiums that we have ever seen. Far from being the champions and far from those who are moved by the DNA, the articles of faith and whatever else floods through their veins, what we have seen is inconsistency and broken promises. But we, on this side of the House, are not going to take an unprincipled approach to it. In government we supported similar provisions. In face of the opposition of those, we will support a similar measure here today. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (13:25): I appreciate the opportunity to sum up the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill No. 1 2014. In doing so, I would like to thank all of the members for their contribution to this debate.
The purpose of the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill No. 1 2014 is to implement a budget measure that pauses the income tiers for the Australian government rebate on private health insurance and the Medicare levy surcharge at the 2014-15 rates for three years. These amendments are being made to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. It is important to note that these changes will not affect individuals with an income that remains $90,000 or below, or couples and families with an income that remains $180,000 or below. It is estimated that the changes will only impact four per cent of private health insurance policies.
These initiatives, along with many others over previous weeks and more to be presented, formed part of a most substantial budget in May this year. They were required because the coalition have inherited an enormous debt. These measures are just a small part of the government's strategy to clean up the mess left behind by the former Labor government. If we do not tackle these issues, if we do nothing and if we have no policy change at all in the years ahead, we would see what is now a $1 billion interest bill a month—$12 billion a year—grow in a short period of time to some $3 billion a month. That is $36 billion a year. Seventy per cent of all of our public debt is owed to foreign interests. In other words, we would be paying $36 billion a year back overseas and, as a consequence, we must clean up this mess. This bill is all about that.
In summary, this bill will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to pause the income threshold for the Australian government rebate on private health insurance and the Medicare levy surcharge at the 2014-15 rates for three years, and I put the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (13:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Higher Education
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:29): Over 60 per cent of metro students say they are keen to go to university, compared with only 32 per cent from regional and remote communities. There is already a divide between city and country when it comes to students wanting to access university. The fact we are now facing $100,000 university degrees is only going to exacerbate the problem.
Regional students moving to the city already face increased costs—the costs of setting up a new home and of going to university. Regional students also face barriers when it comes to their own university. The facts are simple: if you increase university fees and deregulate the sector, less students will go. Cost will be a barrier. The pressure that will put on our regional universities cannot be underestimated. We have already seen it happen in the TAFE sector in my state of Victoria. When funding was cut from the TAFE sector and TAFEs were allowed to increase fees, we saw drops in student numbers. We then saw courses and campuses close. The exact same thing will happen in our regions and at our regional universities.
This government has to reverse its plans to increase university fees. Students will not go to university. Regional students will be disproportionately affected if this government proceeds and introduces $100,000 degrees.
Higgins Electorate: Relay for Life
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:31): Relay for Life was started in 1985 by US surgeon, Dr Gordy Klatt, who spent 24 hours circling a running track in Tacoma, Washington, raising over US$27,000 for cancer research—proving that just one person can make a difference. Since then, the event has become the largest fundraising event for cancer in the world, celebrated by more than four million people in over 20 countries.
In Australia, Relay for Life began in 1999 in Murrumbeena, in my electorate of Higgins, when my local community raced over $75,000 for the Cancer Council—a fantastic achievement. In 2014, Murrumbeena Relay for Life turned 16. It is the longest continuously-running Victorian relay. In addition, the Stonnington Relay for Life, held in Malvern, started last year and turned two this year.
From this local action, relays are now held in every Australian state and territory, with more than 134,000 participants raising over $24 million each year. Every dollar raised goes towards funding the Cancer Council's vital research, prevention and support programs. But apart from this incredible fundraising achievement, very importantly Relay for Life brings our community together to focus on our family members and friends who have been affected by cancer—to celebrate their courage, to remember those we have loved and lost and to celebrate those who have survived.
Relay for Life gives us hope. It acknowledges that cancer does not need to be a death sentence. Clinical knowledge about cancer is growing, treatments are improving and there is more support for people and their families. Together, this year's Relays for Life in my electorate raised over $120,000. I congratulate all of those involved.
Higher Education
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:32): I rise to report to the House the opposition I am finding among the local community of Lalor to this government's planned, cruel changes to higher education. The changes will see 20 per cent cuts to higher education, increased fees for students of up to $100,000 and increased interest rates on that debt. It will be a 'debt sentence' that may lock people out of buying a home for years, as we see in America.
Recently I met with a young single mother in my electorate. She is studying full-time and raising two boys. She is confused by what she sees as this government's relentless, compounding attack on her future and her children's futures. As she said, she is trying to get off the welfare cycle by earning a qualification—a degree in social work. Her intentions were clear—she was to complete her degree, find employment and make a further contribution, beyond parenting, to our society. She wants the dignity of work and to raise her children free of government support. But she is confronted again and again with unforeseen obstacles: the cutting of the JET program; the tax on family payments; the axing of the schoolkids bonus; and these proposed changes to the higher education sector. She was prepared for reasonable costs and debt, but these extreme changes have her contemplating a very different future.
To be clear, this is not a return to the Commonwealth scholarships which keep being mentioned. These scholarships will not be funded by the Commonwealth. My question to the Prime Minister is simple: why is some debt bad, but student debt good?
Bushfires
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:34): This week is Bushfire Action Week, when we remind all South Australians to prepare for the fire danger season by knowing the risks, preparing their properties and knowing how to stay informed. I appeal to the thousands of my constituents who live in areas of bushfire danger to do something rather than nothing and to recognise it is not that hard to be bushfire ready.
Local residents will soon be receiving my bushfire action plan checklist in their mailbox and I encourage them to put it on the fridge as a reminder both that they need a comprehensive bushfire plan and of specific local issues the Sturt CFS brigade has flagged. I would also like to urge locals to support the efforts of Sturt CFS to raise funds for a second water tanker. One tanker is not adequate for their needs and their primary goal is to protect local residents from the danger of bushfires.
The community has so far dug deep and raised $180,000 for a second tanker, with $70,000 to go. For the residents of Davenport and Fisher, election day will be collection day—an opportunity for the community to do what they do every election day and that is give generously to the CFS. I know the state Labor government's recent massive increase in the emergency services levy has upset a lot of local residents. There has been strong community backlash and people have said to me they think the increased levy should pay for the tanker.
The simple fact is the CFS is not receiving the extra money from the levy increase. The only way our local area is going to get this vehicle is if we fund it ourselves. (Time expired)
Higher Education
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:35): I am pleased to join my colleagues, the member for Bendigo and the member for Lalor, in condemning the Abbott government's unfair changes to universities and in voicing the concerns of so many in the Scullin electorate about what this means for our community and, indeed, our society. Let me be clear: Labor will not support a system of higher fees, larger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their higher education depends on their capacity to pay.
This goes to the heart of the society we want for ourselves and our children. I am proud that Australia today is a place where access to university is open to all and determined by merit. I am angry this is presently under threat by the actions of this government. Labor's reforms from Whitlam, to Keating, to Gillard and Rudd, realised this vision of access and equity and made clear that what is good for equity is also good for the economy. We need to win the high-skill jobs of the future. We can do this by having the best educated workers now and into the future.
Only Labor understands the transformative capacity of education. Only Labor will protect the legacy of equity and access to higher education for all. Only Labor is listening to the concerns of the people of the Scullin electorate on this most vital issue of our future prospects.
Mallee Electorate
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:37): One of the great things about this place is that it is the people's house. Last night I put a post on my Facebook page asking, 'What is it you want me to raise in the federal parliament?' The people of Mallee have vision and passion—I received 126 posts and the page was viewed by over 10,000 people. They said that we should be buying more Australian products, that we need to value-add and that we should not undervalue regional tourism. They said we need to invest in regional infrastructure, particularly water and telecommunications infrastructure. They also said we need to educate people about where their food comes from and that we need to reduce the burden of red tape on small businesses and farmers, as well as reducing the costs they face—and that is what we are working hard to do.
We have an ice problem in my electorate. We need to address that, resource it and educate. We need to make child care work for regional country towns—and that is a challenge for us. We need to ensure that health services are adequate for people who live in the bush. These were very strong themes and they come from very passionate communities. I believe that the people I represent are engaged. They are interested in what goes on in this chamber—and what we do here is for them. There were over 10,000 views and over 126 posts on Facebook from the people I represent. What they wanted to say was that this parliament is their parliament—and they want to make sure that regional Australia gets its fair share.
Higher Education
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:38): There are many ways this government has failed the people of Australia, but one is the most indefensible and short-sighted—the concerted attack on access to higher education. If the changes proposed by this government are put in place, there will be a stark choice for Australians across this nation. That stark choice will be: 'Can I afford to go to university or not?' That is unacceptable—the government's policy is short-sighted. It fails individuals, it fails our economy and it fails our nation.
For young people facing a cost, potentially, of $100,000 to complete a university education, there will be a clear and hard choice to make: 'Can I get the higher education I need or will I have to sacrifice that because I cannot afford a mortgage, a family and a full life?' That is unacceptable—we have fought against this situation for decades. But that choice will now be the reality that people will face under this government's proposed changes to higher education. You should get to university based on your ability, based on your passion for your chosen field of study, based on your determination to contribute to the nation, not on—never on—what you can or cannot afford to pay. It is unacceptable. Labor will fight it and the community will join with us in that fight.
Domestic Violence
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (13:40): I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an issue that sadly still affects many people in Australia. That issue is domestic violence against women. There are various forms of domestic violence, but I want to talk specifically about violence against women. The figures show that one in three women from the age of 15 suffer some sort of physical violence and that one in five experience sexual violence. These shocking statistics mean that everyone here in the chamber and everyone here in the gallery will know somebody affected by domestic violence.
Let me make it clear: it is never okay to hit a woman. It is never okay to commit domestic violence against a woman. I say to those men who are involved in it: 'Real men don't hit women. If you want to hit somebody, take up the sport of boxing. Take on someone your own size—because it is totally unacceptable.' We need to get rid of this out of our community. I say to the community of Petrie and the people listening to me today: 'Let's teach our children'. As a father, I teach my three young sons that when they grow up it is not ever okay to hit a woman. I talk about moderation with alcohol, about not drinking too much. We also need to teach our girls that relationships where violence occurs are not okay. If we see neighbours or hear neighbours in that situation, we should call the police immediately.
Higher Education
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:41): Today the member for Cunningham and I stand in parliament and challenge the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, to come to Wollongong and explain his egregious changes to the higher education system which are going to deny thousands of students from the Illawarra region their chance for a better life. The University of Wollongong has a unique role in the region. It started its life as an offshoot of the University of New South Wales and as a teachers college. But it really got a kick-start when the Whitlam government opened up higher education to students with backgrounds like mine and the member for Cunningham's to ensure that they could get the great opportunities available through higher education.
Today the University of Wollongong is a full-service university training nurses, doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers and accountants. Many of them are the first in their family to get a degree. Many of them are getting a second chance in education. This is all at risk because of this government's 20 per cent cut to the University of Wollongong's funding, the massive increase in university fees and the increase in interest rates on those university debts that those opposite are voting for. My question to the Minister for Education is this: Why is free education good enough for you but not good enough for the students of Wollongong? (Time expired)
Domestic Violence
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (13:43): I thank my friend the member for Petrie for raising an important issue. Recently I attended a forum hosted by the Central Coast Domestic Violence Committee. This committee consists of community service providers who deal with the daily aspects of domestic and family violence. Statistics show that every week a woman in Australia is killed by a current or former partner. This statistic does not include children also killed in domestic and family violence situations. This has to stop. Violent behaviour towards women and children is totally unacceptable. New South Wales Police Force statistics indicate that the Central Coast is in the top two police commands for domestic and family violence incidents.
The flow-on effects of victim trauma create a community impacted by chronic stress, behavioural issues, fear and insecurity. Domestic and family violence is not a new issue, but it is one that can be brought to higher attention by the people elected to represent their community. Coordinating approaches between state and federal government agencies is one way of tackling this issue. Demonstrating leadership on domestic and family violence, its causes and consequences is something I feel strongly about. I look forward to progressing this issue further with the Central Coast Domestic Violence Committee and with state and federal governments. I commend the outstanding Central Coast support services who deal with this issue on a daily basis. Their tireless devotion, compassion and dedication accentuate the strong sense of community that is prevalent in my electorate of Dobell.
Higher Education
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (13:45): A couple of weeks ago I attended the University of Technology, Sydney graduation ceremony. I went there to see a young Vietnamese girl graduate with first class honours in law and a high distinction in business studies. She is the daughter of refugees, both mother and father. I have seen how hard Tanya has worked throughout her career, but what is important is that this young woman is going to go on and make it great difference in our country. Her father is a bus driver. He worked three jobs to get her through school and support her at university. We will be the beneficiaries of that into the future.
We now have a government who wants to shackle students with higher debt, restrict entry into universities and allow universities the freedom to charge higher fees. It is going to make it very much more difficult for people like Tanya, coming for working class suburb, to be able to go to a first-class university and compete with others. We have got to get serious. This is not just about the people at university; this is also about investing in our country. We want the brightest and smartest brains there; we do not want just people coming from rich and privileged backgrounds attending our universities. This has got to be a balanced discussion and, particularly from those of us who benefited from the free education emanating from the Whitlam legacy, I think it is very poor of those opposite to turn their backs on higher education.
Fiscal Policy
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:46): There has obviously been a strategy being worked by the opposition, where every speaker suddenly has this passion about higher education. But the debt levels that they talk about are debt levels on a very few number of people. What about those children that are being born right now today and into the future who will be saddled with the debt that was imposed by that side of parliament? What about those people? This country used to run in the black. This country used to be run responsibly. We had surpluses, we had no net debt. Future generations have been betrayed by that side of parliament due to their largesse, due to their borrowing and throwing money out the door. The Labor Party side has never been responsible. Someone has to step up and make the right decisions now. I do not want children in my area having to pay back the debt generated by the Labor Party and not even have any of the benefits of what was given out—those $900 cheques that were also very good for Harvey Norman and did not go anywhere near those schools they were meant to be in aid of. What about those people? Children are going to be living with the legacy—the terrible traditions and history of the Labor Party—for years to come. Someone has got to clean it up and we as the government are getting on with that job.
Higher Education
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:48): I do not believe I would be standing in this chamber today making this speech about higher education had it not been for the changes that Gough Whitlam introduced in the seventies to allow access for people like me—people from disadvantaged backgrounds—access to education. As a result of the changes Gough Whitlam introduced, he allowed me and my sisters to escape a cycle of disadvantage—three generations of poverty, three generations of single mums, three generations of women going out to clean in multiple jobs just to keep a roof over their kids heads, just to keep food on the table. Those women were denied education but—thank you to Gough Whitlam—I actually had the opportunity to get to university, as did my sisters, which has opened up a whole world of choice, a whole world options for me and my sisters. We escaped that cycle of disadvantage as a result of access to higher education.
The changes that are being proposed by the Minister for Education are a bad deal for all Australians. I cannot underscore how concerned residents in the electorate of Canberra are about these proposed changes. I have had families coming up to me asking how they are going to be able to afford $100,000 degrees for the kids. I have spoken many times about these families. I am very, very concerned about the next generation of Australians. This legislation is an absolute disgrace. It will deny access for those disadvantaged Australians. (Time expired)
Deakin Electorate: Our Lady of Perpetual Help Primary School
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:49): I rise today to pay tribute to the hard-working parents, friends and parishioners of the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Primary School and Parish in Ringwood, who last weekend held their annual school fete, where over $47,000 was raised. Our Lady's is a vibrant community, with over 300 primary school students from across the Deakin electorate. I was pleased to be able to join with the school community for part of the day at the 'Chip Stall', where I assisted with preparing and serving hot chips throughout the afternoon.
I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks to the principal, Angela Lacey, for her tireless work and dedication to the Our Lady school community as well as the parish council and all the members of the fete's organisational committee for making this annual event such a success again this year. In particular, I want to acknowledge Nicole Lewino, Melanie Rowe, Rachel Livingstone, Midge Phillips, Rowena Broderick, Marnie Reichert, Hamish Reid, Pascale and Karine Lebon, Bob Laidlaw and Cathy Forbes, who helped make the day such a success. I know from experience that much work goes into organising events of this nature and on behalf of the Deakin electorate more broadly I wish to congratulate all of them once again for their efforts and everything that they do to make their school, parish and broader community a better place.
Australian Rural Leadership Foundation
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:51): It gives me great pleasure today to welcome into this Australian Parliament House six very special people: four women leaders from the Torres Strait Islands and two women who are their trainers. Welcome to Ella, Lizzie, Iris and especially to Catherine; and also to their leaders, Michelle and Philippa.
These women are doing a leadership course sponsored by the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation and they are here in Canberra today not only to learn about leadership but to make a presentation this afternoon to Senator Nigel Scullion, the Parliamentary Secretary for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. They tell me that the presentation that they are going to make—and I hope I do justice to the pronunciation—Punji Kupai Kod, represents the umbilical cord and how it brings us together as women, as leaders and as a country.
They are here today and as part of this leadership course to gain the confidence and skills to bring their communities with them into a new age of leadership because they have some very specific tasks to do. The Torres Strait Regional Authority only has three women on it; it needs 10. The Torres Strait Island Regional Council has no women on it and the Torres Shire Council has no women on it. So these women are here in parliament today to bring gender balance to the leadership team of the Torres Strait Islands.
As I say congratulations to you wonderful women in the gallery, please know that this House is with you and we hope it will not be too long before you come and take your rightful places sitting down here with us. Welcome.
Cancer
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:53): I rise to acknowledge the efforts over the weekend of the organising committee and participants in the Murraylands Relay for Life held at the Sturt Reserve Murray Bridge that I had the privilege of opening. This year's event saw 29 teams register, an increase from 22 last year, and $72,000 raised, an outstanding achievement and an increase of over $20,000 on last year's efforts. The event is a credit to the members of the organising committee, and I wish to pay particular tribute to Eileen Newbury, Ashley Duncan, Heather Buddle, Keith Simmons, Rose Simmons, Sharon Pearson, Jamie Lee Jones and Tanya Sircone.
This fundraising effort supports the exceptional work of the Cancer Council in South Australia, an organisation that received 182 calls to their helpline from the local Murray Mallee community alone and supported 1,537 people from the Murray Mallee with accommodation in their Adelaide based lodges for a total of 3,970 nights over the last 12 months.
I also pay tribute to the Costa Group and the management and staff of their Adelaide Mushrooms facility. Of the 260 people employed at that facility, 128 participated in the Relay for Life event this year, raising over $7,000. That was despite the fact that it was a heavy picking day, with many people volunteering after 12 hours of work. This participation continues the fine tradition of support for this event by Adelaide Mushrooms that began under the stewardship of the facility's former owners, the Schirripa family.
I commend the efforts of all participants and, in particular, the management and staff of Costa Adelaide for their efforts on their day. (Time expired)
Higher Education
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:54): We have heard a lot of spin and slogans from the government about their broken promise on university fee deregulation. We have heard the Minister for Education claim that 'students will always be the winners' from $100,000 degrees and increased debt costs! The education minister can spin as much he likes, but it is the stories from people in our community that will cut through with the Australian public, stories like that of Tizita, from my electorate.
Tizita is a talented first-generation Ethiopian-Australian student who lives in Footscray in my electorate. She studied hard through her undergraduate degree and has now received a Bachelor of Social Sciences from La Trobe University, winning many prizes along the way. But now, with these changes to university degrees, she is concerned about whether undertaking further study will be possible for her. She has told me:
University cuts will definitely make higher education inaccessible from me and others in similar positions.
The debate in this place about these higher education changes are already having an impact on the way that Tizita plans her future.
The Minister for Education has had almost every position imaginable on the future of higher education. Before the election, he committed to maintaining existing university funding arrangements. After the election, he maintained that he had promised before the election not to increase university fees. In the federal budget, he massively cut university funding and introduced plans to massively hike student fees. Then he claimed that this was okay because the Liberal Party did not actually have a higher education policy before the last election! The education minister needs to gather up the pieces of his shattered credibility and do one last policy backflip. He needs to introduce the policy that the Australian public want and abandon these unfair changes to our university sector.
Conaghan, Mrs Lynise
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:56): I wish to pay tribute to a mother from an isolated cattle property in Central Queensland who has been named in the nation's top 100 women of influence for 2014. Lynise Conaghan of Barmount Station, near Clarke Creek, about 215 kilometres north-west of Rockhampton, was announced as a winner in The Australian Financial Review and Westpac 100 Women of Influence Awards.
Mrs Conaghan was recognised for her work to advance children's education and digital services for remote families in the bush. Like many country women, Lynise is a pillar of her community, as she plays a key role in influencing better outcomes for remote Clarke Creek. Mrs Conaghan led a campaign for better access to digital coverage in the Clarke Creek area, a place that I have labelled worse than Africa when it comes to mobile phone services. Earlier this year I took the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, to Clarke Creek to learn more about the problem.
Lynise Conaghan has also been the driving force behind improvements to education to all rural children in Queensland in the past decade. Westpac CEO Gail Kelly said:
The breadth and calibre of our 100 Women of Influence for 2014 was remarkable.
Thank you.
Higher Education
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:57): Bella, a 17-year-old Perth girl, contacted me recently to describe the impact that the massive increases in university fees and funding cuts have already had on her. Bella is an energetic, entrepreneurial—
Mr Pyne: They haven't even started yet.
Ms MacTIERNAN: Just listen. Bella is an energetic, entrepreneurial young woman who has set up a part-time business as a dog groomer to support herself while studying. Bella says that, while it might sound like a cliche, she has wanted to be a vet from the time that she was six. She was starting an on-track alternative pathway at Murdoch University but she has now suspended her studies since she learnt that her vet science degree, with the interest payments, would cost her an estimated $175,000. This liability terrified her—
Government members interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: but you obviously would not understand it. You would not understand that a young girl from a modest background would be terrified by a debt of $175,000.
Mr Pyne: Stop scaring Bella!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House!
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MacTIERNAN: So Bella has now suspended her studies and she is begging us to block this legislation in the Senate. She wants her dream to be a vet to stay alive, and I have pledged to Bella that we will fight this every inch of the way.
Mackenzie, Mrs Dawn
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:58): Dawn Mackenzie was 70 when she died last Monday, 20 October 2014. She was a warm and generous person, well respected and an icon of the bush. Born on a property near Baralaba, she spent her teenage years in Rockhampton. She was involved with the Red Cross and the Cattlemen's Union, and with the Queensland Country Women's Association as a member of the Dingo branch for 50 years and as president for several years. She managed five cattle properties with her husband, Peter; and Dawn and Peter's children, Greg, Cherie and Lisa, all followed in their footsteps on the land and are still there.
Dawn was farewelled at a service at Rockhampton's St Joseph's Cathedral on Monday, while another service was held in Dingo on the same day. I extend my sympathies to her husband, Peter; to her children, Greg, Cherie and Lisa; and to their families and friends. Rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 2 pm, and in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Fuel Prices
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's gutless decision today to ambush motorists with a new $2.2 billion petrol tax with no mandate from the Australian people, with no mandate from the parliament. How much will the Prime Minister's petrol tax ambush cost the Australian people?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): This government has a very clear mandate to fix the budget and the measure that the Leader of the Opposition refers to—
Mr Champion: Where was this in Real Solutions?
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will take a warning early! You are on my radar.
Mr ABBOTT: was a budget measure. We have a clear mandate to fix the budget, and the measure that the Leader of the Opposition refers to is a budget measure. It is not a new tax; it is the indexation of an old one.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is far too much noise! The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: We have been trying for months to get this measure through one way and, because members opposite are unwilling to constructively engage with this government on most subjects, we are now getting it through another way.
The Leader of the Opposition asks how much it will cost. It will cost the average family 40c a week.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield has been warned! One more utterance and he will leave!
Mr ABBOTT: Is that something I am relaxed about? No, it is not, because I appreciate that the families of Australia are doing it tough. That is why this government abolished the carbon tax.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will desist. He has asked his question.
Mr ABBOTT: Members opposite are so concerned about the families of Australia that they want to hit them with a carbon tax again—shame on them.
G20 Meeting
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:02): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on developments associated with the G20?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. The G20, to be held in Brisbane on 15 and 16 November, will be the largest ever gathering of international leaders here in Australia. It is a chance to showcase our country and to promote jobs and growth with the leaders—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: of the world's largest and most representative economies. These leaders represent two-thirds of the world's population and some 85 per cent of the world's gross domestic product.
Jobs and growth will be the theme of Australia's G20—jobs and growth. But as well as jobs and growth, freer trade; more infrastructure investment, particularly private sector infrastructure investment; stronger regulation of financial institutions, particularly non-banks; and—
Mr Perrett: Climate change?
Mr ABBOTT: fairer international tax rules are the themes that Australia will promote—
Mr Perrett: Climate change?
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is pushing his luck as well.
Mr ABBOTT: as this year G20 president. I should acknowledge the work that former Treasurer Peter Costello did to originally convene the G20, and I should also acknowledge the work that former Prime Minister Rudd did to bring the G20 together in its current form.
As well as the G20, Australia will soon host official visits by the leaders of five very important partners: Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain, our oldest ally and our second largest investor; President Xi of China, our biggest trading partner by far; Prime Minister Modi of India, the world's emerging democratic superpower; Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Europe's strongest economy; and President Hollande of France, where some 46,000 Australians fell during the Great War.
I am sure members opposite will be interested to know that the British, Chinese and Indian leaders will address this parliament on the Friday before and the Monday and Tuesday following the G20. I am sure that I speak for all members of this parliament and all Australians when I say that we do look forward to hosting the visits of these leaders and to strengthening some of our most important international ties.
Fuel Prices
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for—I have forgotten it!
Opposition members: Oxley!
The SPEAKER: Oxley! You will have to do something to be more memorable.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (14:05): I apologise; I am a new member! Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's decision to ambush motorists with a $2.2 billion petrol tax with no mandate from the Australian people and with no approval by the parliament. How much will the Prime Minister's petrol tax directly cost Australia's two million small businesses?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): We have an absolutely clear mandate to address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. We have an absolutely clear mandate to tackle the $25,000 of debt per man, woman and child that members opposite saddled Australians with. We have a clear mandate to do that. The measure that the member who asked the question refers to was a budget measure. As I said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, it will cost the average family some 40c a week.
I regret it very much, but there is no easy way to address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. We at least have had the honesty and the decency to tell the Australian people how we propose to tackle Labor's debt and deficit disaster. Now it is only right and fair that members opposite should explain how they will address—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: the problem that they caused.
Economy
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (14:06): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of addressing the debt and deficit burden facing Australia? How will cutting debt and reducing the deficit help create job opportunities?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:07): I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question, which recognises that we have to ensure that the Australian economy is as strong as possible to deal with potential headwinds in the future, to deal with some of the challenges of the future.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: Ultimately, if we fix the budget we can help to deliver a safe and secure Australia. That only comes about through hard work. It comes about through a determination to deliver what is necessary to ensure that Australia can afford its future. From our perspective, it is important that we make a contribution now to pay along the way for some of the benefits we are going to get. In the case of fuel excise increases, we are asking Australians to pay 40c a week extra to help deliver the biggest infrastructure program in Australia's history—the biggest road building program in Australia's history. In Victoria alone, the EastWest tunnel project is going to deliver 6,000 jobs—we are asking the families of Victoria to contribute 40c a week to help create 6,000 jobs in construction work for roads that are going to deliver a more productive future. Once upon a time the Labor Party believed in this. We solemnly hope that sooner or later the Labor Party will come to understand that Australia has been at its most prosperous, Australia has been at its very best, when there has been bipartisan agreement to deliver the economic reforms necessary to strengthen our economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley! There is far too much noise.
Mr HOCKEY: We are now in our 24th consecutive year of economic growth, and the reforms of previous governments—in particular the Hawke government, that had a real Labor leader and a Labor Treasurer that was consistent and predictable, and the Howard government under John Howard and Peter Costello—have helped to deliver economic prosperity through economic reform.
Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Werriwa will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: We share that obligation, we share that burden, of delivering reform and we call on the Labor Party for once—just once—to show a bit of principle. I will give an example of the Labor Party's principles. Today the shadow Treasurer claimed that the reason they followed the path they did on alcopops was that there was bipartisan agreement at the time. Well, there was not. The problem is that they have no sense of history and if you do not understand history, you will never understand the future.
Private Health Insurance
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:10): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's comments this morning that the coalition previously 'let pass through the parliament Labor's changes to make the private health insurance rebate fairer.' Given the Hansard accurately records that the Liberal and National parties voted against this measure in the House and the Senate, is the government so dysfunctional and chaotic that it has forgotten its own voting record?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon obviously thinks he has asked a clever question. Let us listen to the answer—and we will have silence while we do. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will leave the chamber under 94(a).
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:11): Once again the Labor Party has not done its homework. In the last parliament changes to private health insurance were a difficult issue for us. I well recall a conversation with the now Prime Minister about the matter. It was an issue that caused us great concern because we have always been the best friends of private health insurance. I remember the now Leader of the Opposition coming to me, begging me in that corner over there, to help Labor get through an initiative to take 60,000 single women off parental pensions and put them onto Newstart. So, please, spare us the hypocrisy—
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question went to the Liberal and National parties opposing private health insurance rebate means testing—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Treasurer is answering the question.
Mr HOCKEY: So we had strike No. 1, with the now Leader of the Opposition begging me over there in the corner to help him take 60,000 single parents off parental pensions and put them onto Newstart.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave the chamber under 94(a).
Mr HOCKEY: Strike No. 2 was that this morning the member for McMahon said the reason they introduced a tariff proposal in relation to alcopops was that there was agreement that it would pass at the time of the announcement. Complete codswallop! I was the shadow minister for health. I remember standing at the dispatch box over there holding two bottles of alcohol—it was the only time I held two bottles of alcohol at the dispatch box—simply to make the point that the Labor Party was parading a change to alcopops taxation as a health initiative when in fact it was a tax initiative. I say to the Labor Party that if they want to look at principle, look at where we stand compared with where they stand. Nothing illustrates it better than the hypocrisy of the member for Lilley outside this morning. I savour those moments in the morning when he goes out there. He went out there and said, 'Hang on, we railed against corporate excess and corporate rorting of tax,' and then he refers to the announcement in his budget last year of a crackdown on the 20 largest companies for $1 billion on R&D, and then he comes in here and votes against it. So the Labor Party are the ones that are complete hypocrites on taxation policy. That is because the Labor Party does not believe in anything.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left and right.
Paid Parental Leave
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. If we want women to fully participate in the workforce we need to allow them to do so. Paid Parental Leave only deals with the immediate afterbirth needs. Child care has the wider responsibility of freeing women to be all they can be. Palmer United senators will not allow Paid Parental Leave to pass the Senate. Will the government give the resources allocated for Paid Parental Leave to child care and set women free? Why is it that the government seeks to introduce 1950s Liberal Party policy? Is it groundhog day? (Time expired)
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:15): I have heard my Paid Parental Leave scheme called many things but never 1950s Liberal Party policy. I think that is the last thing the Liberal Party would have been proposing in the 1950s. I am pleased that the member for Fairfax has at least acknowledged that a fair dinkum Paid Parental Leave scheme is important if women are to get a fair go. It is absolutely vital that the modern woman in particular is able to combine work and family, and a fair dinkum Paid Parental Leave scheme would do exactly that.
I also acknowledge that the member for Fairfax did raise child care. Child care is an equally important issue. We commissioned a Productivity Commission review so we can try to ensure that going forward our childcare system is affordable, accessible and tailored to the 24/7 needs of the modern Australian family. I think the member will find that we are more than capable of both putting into place a fair dinkum Paid Parental Leave scheme and dealing with the childcare needs of Australian families. I think we are capable of doing both of these things. The member was good enough to ask the question. I hope he will be good enough to carefully consider the coalition's policies.
Carbon Pricing
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of the savings that have been passed on to families and businesses in the Deakin electorate and elsewhere since the government scrapped the world's biggest carbon tax?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:17): I thank the member for Deakin for the question. The government has received the latest ACCC carbon tax repeal monitoring report. This report will be publicly released tomorrow. It confirms what we learnt from the CPI figures last week. The repeal of the carbon tax is delivering real savings to Australian households and small businesses. Isn't that great news? I thought that is something that those opposite would welcome. The ACCC's work to ensure that the savings are credible and have been calculated on a sound basis and are communicated to consumers is progressing well and those savings are being passed through.
In the retail electricity and gas area, the annual average cost savings are proven to be quite significant. These significant savings are being passed through. In the member for Deakin's home state, our great state of Victoria, households are now saving up to 12.4 per cent on their electricity bills. For small business consumers the savings in many cases are even more significant than the important savings that households are receiving. In gas the commission is also reporting savings of up to eight per cent. These are substantial savings that are being replicated right across the country and right across the economy.
The savings are not limited solely to energy providers. We are seeing evidence of cheaper council rates and cheaper local government services. In the member's own electorate, I am advised that the cities of Whitehorse and Maroondah have already identified significant cost savings and that is putting downward pressure on their rates. In the Glen Eira City Council area they have removed the carbon tax impost from their waste management charges. That is $37 a year in savings. The Kingston council originally flagged a 4.25 per cent rate increase. That has come off to 4.06 per cent. The Wyndham council and the Wodonga council are passing through savings on bin charges and in their waste management costs.
I want to thank the commission for doing its work and using the tools this parliament has provided it. It is doing the work of the tough carbon cop that continues to be an important element of making sure these savings are passed through. Let us not forget that Labor wants to bring back the hurt, the harm and the price pain of the carbon tax. We said we would scrap Labor's carbon tax and we have. We said we would ensure the savings would be passed through and we are. This is part of our economic action strategy to restore hope, reward and opportunity and to build a stronger economy for a safer future. It is being done and those savings are real and are materialising in households and businesses right across the country.
Fuel Prices
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's decision today to ambush Australian motorists with a new $2.2 billion petrol tax with no mandate from the Australian people and no mandate from the parliament. What will be the total cost of the Prime Minister's petrol tax ambush for Victorian motorists?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:21): It is not a new tax; it is indexation of an old tax, a tax that was first introduced by the Hawke government, which was a genuine reforming government, a government that was capable of engaging in mature debate and a government that was capable of looking at the long-term national interest and not just playing short-term politics with everything. It was introduced indexed by the Hawke government—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: Yes, as the Leader of the Opposition interjects, it was frozen by the Howard government in very different circumstances to those that apply today—in circumstances where the Howard government consistently delivered surpluses at one per cent of GDP. There were successive surpluses at almost one per cent of GDP by the Howard government. Of course, under members opposite we got deficits of about three per cent of GDP.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To be directly relevant the Prime Minister needs to explain the impact on Victorian motorists.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: So the cost on the average family is 40c a week or $20 a year. Of course, the average Australian household is $550 a year better off because of this government's abolition of the carbon tax. The average Victorian family is going to benefit massively from the $3 billion that this government is committing to the East West Link under contracts that members opposite want to tear up. They hate the East West Link. They hate the sanctity of contract and they are going to damage the motoring public of Victoria by failing to proceed with something which is vital for the long-term future of Melbourne, Victoria and Australia. This was a budget measure; a reasonable budget measure that was originally introduced by the Hawke government in the days when Labor had real leadership and was really committed to the national interest, and I am very happy to see it coming back.
Higher Education
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:23): My question to the Minister for Education: would the minister inform the House how the government's higher education reforms will improve the quality of Australian universities and spread opportunity to more young Australians?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:23): I thank the member for Bowman for his question. I know that he supports the government's higher education reform because of the opportunity that will be created for at least 80,000 more young Australians to go to university between now and 2018, and 80,000 every year from that year onwards because of our higher education reforms.
I also thank him because it gives me the opportunity to amplify the support that the government has received today and over many weeks from the university sector for a reform that will have very far-reaching implications for the quality of universities and for the capacity of our universities to compete, particularly with their Asian competitors, and to give more young Australians the opportunity to go on and get a higher education qualification.
Today, writing in The Australian the vice-chancellors of La Trobe University and Melbourne University, John Dewar and Glyn Davis, gave very strong support for the government's higher education reforms. They actually wrote:
This is a crucial week for Australia. At stake is whether a viable higher education system can endure. Though much rhetoric focuses on the Whitlam promise of free higher education, the present system was established by the Hawke government from 1989. It abandoned a brief experiment with free places as inequitable.
They go on to say:
Leaving the present settings in place is bad policy with worrying implications.
The sector needs the sort of fundamental funding reform being proposed to the Senate this week.
There is very strong support in the university sector and from all those with knowledge about education for the reforms the government are proposing because we must get more revenue into the university system. The taxpayers cannot be squeezed anymore. These reforms will give students a fifty-fifty share with the taxpayer of the cost of their education. Right now students are paying 40 per cent and the taxpayers are paying 60 per cent. These reforms will deliver a fifty-fifty split between taxpayer and student, but also they will expand the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to the non-university higher education providers. They will expand the demand-driven system to the sub bachelor degrees, giving 80,000 more Australians the opportunity to get a higher education qualification. It will establish the largest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history.
We saw yesterday the University of Sydney announce that they would go from 700 to 9,000 Commonwealth scholarships if these reforms are passed, and that is just the beginning. Working with the Senate crossbenchers and with the Palmer United Party we will be able to achieve free education for tens of thousands of young Australians to go to university for the first time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER ( 14:26 ): I wish to advise the House that we have with us in the chamber and in the Speaker's gallery the Speaker of Malawi, the Hon. Richard Msowoya. We also have a visit from the Speaker from Norfolk Island, the Hon. David Buffett, and we have the former member for Corangamite Mr Darren Cheeseman. We make everybody most welcome
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Fuel Prices
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's decision to ambush Australian motorists with a new $2.2 billion petrol tax, with no mandate from the Australian people and no approval by parliament. If the parliament does not pass this measure, the tax collected will need to be refunded. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that every cent of the petrol tax Australian motorists pay over the next 12 months will be returned to motorists and not to oil companies?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:27): We have a clear mandate to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster and that is why we brought down the budget that we did to address Labor's debt and deficit disaster—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: The measure referred to by the shadow Treasurer was a budget measure. It is going to raise from the average family 40c a week. It is simply putting back in place a measure that the former Hawke government put in place back in the 1980s, and I have got to say that every single cent raised by this measure will be spent on the better roads that Australia so desperately needs. I have concluded the answer.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has finished his answer.
Mr Bowen: You don't know, do you?
The SPEAKER: I might add, Member for McMahon, that your question was very close to being ruled out of order as it was hypothetical.
Iraq and Syria
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:29): My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the government is preventing young people from being radicalised and travelling overseas to fight in the conflict in Iraq?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:29): The fight against ISIL, or Daesh, must include challenging its ideology and rejecting its medieval view of the world, with its agenda of regional and global conquest. It is an ideology that aspires to place all of humanity under its yoke of brutal savage oppression so it must be renounced at every turn. The government is committed to working with our communities to combat radicalisation through our new $13.5 million package of initiatives to counter violent extremism. This includes youth diversion activities, mental health care, mentoring, employment and educational pathway support, and counselling. I commend senior Muslim leaders for condemning ISIL and for urging young Muslims to resist being exploited by this terrorist group.
A globalised threat requires a globalised response. Australia has agreements with 17 countries for information and intelligence sharing on terrorist ideology and on countering terrorist narratives. This month we are funding a visit to Pakistan by an Australian female Islamic scholar to give a series of lectures focused on the important role of women in countering extremist narratives. We are also supporting the United Nations global counter-terrorism strategy, which underpins international efforts to address the causes of extremism and terrorism and to strengthen law enforcement while promoting global cooperation in counter-terrorism.
Community outreach is critical to preventing young Australians from travelling overseas to take part in the conflict in Syria and Iraq. In addition to cancelling 73 passports on national security grounds, legislation is currently before the parliament to ensure that extremists who engage in terrorism and who try to come back to this country can be arrested, prosecuted and jailed for any terrorist activities.
The risks posed by radicalisation demand a more flexible and timely response. The new foreign fighters legislation will give me the authority to more quickly suspend Australian passports. This means we can respond to calls for help, for example, from worried parents and community leaders who fear that their children have been radicalised and are about to depart Australia, possibly forever.
It would also help us to prevent Australian extremists from travelling to the conflict zones and returning to Australia or indeed from going to other countries as trained and hardened terrorist with the skills to conduct far more devastating attacks on our communities, our institutions and our infrastructure. The government is committed to combating terrorism in all its forms and to keeping our people say.
Budget
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's unfair budget already means a single income family with children will be around $6,000 worse off every year. As if that is not enough, the Prime Minister's changes to the GST will mean another hit of around $3,900 every year. Why is the Prime Minister so determined to hurt Australian families?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:32): What changes are these?
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga has asked a question and will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: I think I know what the member who asked the question is referring to. I think she is referring to modelling done by the former government of a GST. The only government in recent times which has modelled an increase in the GST is the government of which the member for Jagajaga was a member.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will stop interjecting or will leave, one or the other.
Mr ABBOTT: I suggest that rather than shout across the chamber, the member for Jagajaga should do us all a favour and table the modelling that the former government did on a 12.5 per cent GST. I say to the member opposite, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you asked me the question, table the modelling on which it was based.
Let me make it absolutely crystal clear no-one in this parliament at this time is proposing a change to the GST. What I am proposing is that we have a mature and rational debate about fixing our federation. That is what I am proposing. I am proposing that just for once everyone in this parliament put the long-term national interest ahead of the short-term politicking.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is warned.
Mr ABBOTT: That is what I am proposing. Members opposite should know that what is supported by this side of the chamber are lower, simpler, fairer taxes. As for the GST, there can and will be no change unless all the states want it because it is a tax that belongs to them—or at least that is what I thought until I discovered, watching the news last night, that members opposite, when they were in government, commissioned modelling on a rise in the GST to 12.5 per cent.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right.
Mr ABBOTT: Fair enough. Sometimes governments do commission modelling. You own the modelling; you gave it to the media last night. Do the right thing and give it to the parliament now.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will desist.
Asylum Seekers
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister explain to the House how the government is successfully ending the people-smuggling trade. Are there any alternatives? What is the government's response?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:35): I thank the member for Bass for his question. I have no doubt about his interest because he would have been concerned today to read in TheExaminer about the chorus of Labor senators from Tasmania and their tirade on turn-backs. But it would seem they were not alone in their tirade on turn-backs.
In answer to the member's question, the first thing you have to do if you are going to be serious about stopping the people-smuggling trade is you have to have some passing semblance of a grip on reality. So I was surprised to see today that after the Sherlock Holmes of Australian public policy, the member for Corio, pronounced to the nation on the weekend that he realised that turn-backs actually work. Today the Leader of the Opposition was asked the question: So you do not think boat turn-backs have had any impact on stopping deaths at sea? Answer from Shorten: No, we do not. He said the argument has not been made nor has the evidence been made about turn-backs. I am going to help the Leader of the Opposition. After the introduction of the regional resettlement arrangement and the five months that passed after that, there were 75 boats that turned up. For five months after the introduction of turn-backs, do you know how many boats there were? None. Absolutely none. Do you know how many boats turned up in the five months after that? One.
The Leader of the Opposition likes to talk a lot about 'Team Idiot'. On border protection, he is the captain of Team Idiot. You also need to have a unified team, from your Prime Minister to every single member of the government, when it comes to having resolve on border protection. Those opposite know that, and the member for McMahon will remember it well. He will remember the day that Prime Minister Gillard marooned him on Nauru in the cabinet. He will remember that.
And now we have this Leader of the Opposition taking the member for Corio, the shadow minister for immigration, and making him walk the plank on turn-backs. That is what he did to him yesterday. Leaders and shadow ministers on the Labor side can never stay together when it comes to border protection. I will give you a tip, though: on this side of the House we are as close as you can get on border protection. That is why we have been effective.
It also requires some leadership, and the Leader of the Opposition has shown—in his back-down on turn-backs, on his absolute turn-around on turn-backs—in denouncing his shadow minister, that he cannot even stand up to the member for Sydney, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That is who is running border protection policy now: the Greens and the member for Sydney. We have 'Bill Shorten Young' over here running border protection policy. What we need is someone who has leadership in this area. That is what this government has demonstrated. I ask one thing: can you keep the shadow minister for immigration for me? He is doing a great job for the government.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, given the Prime Minister's failure to rule out a GST on food, just how much will a lamb roast cost with the introduction of a GST?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: there is no proposal before anyone in this parliament to increase the GST; therefore, that is a hypothesis on a hypothesis and should not be allowed as a question in this place.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter on the point of order?
Mr FITZGIBBON: What question can we ask in this place, if we cannot ask a responsible minister about the impact of a policy proposal on the price of food for Australian families—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a serious note: there is no proposal. How can the Minister for Agriculture comment on a matter which, therefore, is not within his portfolio responsibilities?
The SPEAKER: Both members will resume their seat. I am tempted to rule the question out on the basis that it is silly. But on the basis that—
Mr FITZGIBBON: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Mr FITZGIBBON: This is a very serious business, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: You could have fooled me. I said the member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Agriculture.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:40): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to add the retort that the only people who have done modelling on expanding the GST is the Labor Party. The Labor Party has done the modelling, so the Labor Party would obviously know the answer to that question. Is this as good as agricultural policy is going to get from the Labor Party? Is this all that we can expect from the Labor Party on agricultural policy? I am afraid it is, because they went to the election and they had—and I quote from The Land: 'No ag policy for ALP'. None. They did not bother going to the election with an ag policy. Obviously, that is what they think of agriculture. I think it was best outlined by the headline in The Land, which you can see here: 'Labor's epic fail'.
The SPEAKER: We do not use props.
Mr JOYCE: It is the Cecil B DeMille of failure. But they have got better, because I have now found their agricultural policy. Here it is—one page. I am happy to announce to the House that two of the policies are ours. In fact, they said: 'For more information on the white paper on developing Northern Australia, click here. For more information on the agricultural competitiveness white paper'—that is the one we did—'click here.' So, if you want an agricultural policy, click here.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The minister has concluded his answer. Do you have another question?
Mr Fitzgibbon: He cannot possibly be finished.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
National Security
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister explain to the House how the government is supporting the work of the Australian Federal Police at our international airports to keep Australians safe?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (14:42): I thank the member for Canning for that question. He knows that the government remains committed to making sure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources that they need to do their job of keeping us safe and secure. All members will be aware of the increased police presence at Parliament House, and we are taking the same approach to our international airports.
Airports are critical national infrastructure. They are our gateways to the world and a vital part of Australia's continued economic growth. The Australian Federal Police are at the front line of protecting our national security and our airports. They would be our first response if an act of terrorism were to occur. It is vitally important that they have world-class facilities to support them in their role.
I would like to laud the Howard government for, 10 years ago, having the foresight to invest $130 million in new policing facilities for the AFP at our international airports. Since then, at our international airports the Australian Federal Police facilities have been significantly upgraded. I recently had the privilege of opening the new operations centre at Perth International Airport.
Facilities of this type support the AFP airport operations officers who are the uniformed security presence at airports. They support the canine teams, the air security officers—sometimes colloquially referred to as 'air marshals', who provide an armed response in-flight if required—and the joint operations intelligence groups that collect, analyse and disseminate intelligence relating to criminal activities and threats to security. These teams consist of representatives from the police, Customs and Border Protection and state law enforcement bodies. The Department of Infrastructure, the Australian Crime Commission, quarantine, the Department of Immigration and ASIO also provide officers for these teams as necessary.
As with all measures the government is taking to police the terror threat this requires a coordinated response from our national security partners. At international airports and around the country, AFP officers are sworn-in as special constables. This means that they have the ability to police both federal and state law, and to combat any threat that might arise.
With the national terrorism threat raised from medium to high, it is vital that the AFP has the resources and the tools that it needs to do its job. That is why we have invested $64 million as part of the $630 million counter-terrorism package that the government is pushing through at the moment. Australians do not need to feel alarmed at the increased police presence at our airports or at other significant national infrastructure. But when they see it, they should feel reassured that this government is doing everything we can to ensure their safety.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Minister for Education said:
Tony Abbott has said it, I've said it, Joe Hockey has said it, Julie Bishop has said it, there will be no change to the GST.
Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement by the now Minister for Education?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:46): Of course I do. I absolutely stand by all of the pre-election statements that were made by me and that were made by my shadow ministers. There is no proposal—
Mr Dreyfus: So, you are ruling it out?
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist, or leave! The choice is his.
Mr ABBOTT: There is a proposal by me that we have a mature, national debate about reforming the federation. That is my proposal. What I believe the Australian public are yearning for is an opportunity to consider the long-term national interest and to stop playing short-term politics. I think that the Australian public are looking to this chamber for some leadership. I think the Australian public are looking to both sides of this chamber for some consideration of the long term; for some consideration of the fact that we can do better. And we must do better if our nation is to be all that it can and should be in the years and decades to come.
There is only one government—only one national government in recent times—that has actually contemplated an increase in the GST, and that is the members opposite. They actually got it modelled! I happen to know that they were peddling around the press gallery last night what purported to be Treasury modelling of scenario 3, which was a 12½ per cent GST. So I say: if members opposite are honest and if members opposite want to be fair dinkum with the Australian people then table in this parliament the modelling that they got done in government. Table in this parliament the modelling that they had done in government for a 12½ per cent GST.
And that was not the only bit of modelling they got done; that was just scenario 3. Let's have scenario 1. Let's have scenario 2. Let's have scenarios 4, 5 and 6 as well! Members opposite cannot peddle this unsubstantiated scare if they are not prepared to be honest themselves. They are not prepared to be honest themselves and the only government in recent times that has considered an increase in the GST—
Mr Dreyfus: Nobody believes you!
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a)!
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: to the point that it actually got modelling done are the members opposite.
So I want a mature and rational debate over the long-term future of this country. I invite members opposite to join. The best way of joining Team Australia and doing the right thing by all of us would be to start by tabling that modelling.
Broadband
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the National Broadband Network in my home state of Victoria and on steps the government is taking to ensure that the network is rolled out sooner, at less cost to the taxpayer and consumers?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question. The progress of the NBN in Victoria under those opposite was not just anaemic it was virtually comatose. Indeed, as of September last year there were more sightings of Labor leader, Daniel Andrews, than there were of the NBN!
But all that has changed. The NBN is now on track in Victoria. Since the election we have trebled the number of premises passed with fibre in Victoria and we have quadrupled the number of premises that are actually connected. So that is what has happened in one year versus the anaemic performance of the Labor Party over six years.
But of most importance in rural and regional Victoria, including the honourable member's seat, is the rollout of the fixed wireless network. Many people in urban Australia have reasonably good—some very good—broadband and the NBN will improve that markedly. But in regional and rural Australia there are far too many people with no broadband at all—no broadband at all!—and the fixed wireless solution is absolutely transformative. And there the progress has been considerable.
In the honourable members own seat of McMillan we now have fixed wireless services active in areas covering 2,700 premises, with construction underway in areas covering an additional 2,000 premises. And across the state, including in the seats of many of my colleagues here, there is construction going on in areas that cover 19,000 premises.
Honourable members will understand that the focus of the government is to complete the National Broadband Network sooner, cheaper and more affordably.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
Mr TURNBULL: And one of the big changes that we are making, obviously, is not to proceed with an all fibre-to-the-premises rollout in the fixed-line areas, but instead to use a mix of technologies, including fibre-to-the-node and including upgrading HFC networks to ensure that everyone gets very fast broadband but at much less cost.
I would just draw honourable members' attention to a very interesting piece in CommsDay today which showed that even though Japan has the largest percentage of fibre of any comparable big country in the world, Australians on their current connections are downloading substantially more data. The reality is that just because you have got high line speed, it does not mean you are going to use the internet more. It is a very complex equation and it is important to judge this intelligently.
Higher Education
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's plans to Americanise our universities. Given that the Prime Minister is already saddling Australian students with a debt sentence, will the Prime Minister at least rule out applying the GST to university fees or does the conversation that he has asked Australia to have—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons!
Mr SHORTEN: Can I start again, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER: No. We have already got half the question on the matter of public importance.
Mr SHORTEN: Will the Prime Minister rule out applying the GST to university fees—
Government members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right! The member for Deakin.
Mr SHORTEN: Madam Speaker, if I can continue. The noise was just ridiculous.
Honourable members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne: We're on the skids, Bill.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will desist. The Leader of the Opposition, to complain about the noise of the House when the noise coming from behind him is a cacophony is somewhat being precious. I could not hear the question, except I could hear what is to be the matter of public importance. However, he may repeat the question.
Mr Nikolic: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Rankin, while you were speaking, interjected in a way that I think he should withdraw. He reflected on the chair.
The SPEAKER: In that case, he will withdraw.
Dr Chalmers: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr SHORTEN: My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's plans to Americanise our universities. Given that the Prime Minister is already saddling Australian students with a debt sentence, will he rule out applying the GST to university fees or does the conversation he has asked Australia to have include applying the GST to university fees?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:55): The Leader of the Opposition is claiming, first, that I want to Americanise higher education and, second, that I want to introduce a GST. As we know, the only political party which has recently modelled an increase in the GST is the Labor Party. We know that. And the only political party which has lionised American higher education is the Labor Party, not just the Labor Party but the Leader of the Opposition himself and not in the time of Bob Hawke but just this year. I am truly amazed that the Leader of the Opposition should ask this question. He must be suffering from short-term memory loss, because in July of this year, addressing the New York Academy of Sciences, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'In supporting start-ups, nurturing creativity and rewarding ingenuity, America shows us the way.' America shows us the way. So not only has he been caught out—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: misleading the parliament when it comes to a GST, but now he is caught out misleading the parliament when it comes to who wants to Americanise our institutions. The problem is that this Leader of the Opposition does not know where he stands or what he believes in.
Vocational Education and Training
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:56): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. How will the government ensure effective skills and trade training for students in Australia? Why is a consistent approach to training important?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:57): It is a pleasure to take a question from the outstanding member for Wannon, a fine rural representative for western Victoria. The coalition believe that choosing a career in the trades is a smart choice. We are working to prepare our kids for real jobs in the real economy. We have got plans to skill our students for jobs for the future. It was interesting that the member asked about consistency. It was a bit of a trip down memory lane when I saw at the weekend that Mr Andrews, the Victorian Labor leader, announced a policy for tech schools saying, 'The old model will be reformed.' Apart from the fact that we know that Labor does not have new ideas, the old model that Victoria Labor speaks of was actually dismantled under the Cain and Kirner governments. In fact, a tech school in the member's own electorate in Portland was dismantled in 1991. It was Victorian Labor that got rid of tech schools and, in fact, it was a Victorian Labor minister who said they do not add anything; they provide no advantage. It was federal Labor who abandoned our Australian technical colleges, a dedicated school for skills and training—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor may not interject, she is not in her seat.
Ms LEY: It was federal Labor that established the debacle that was the trade training centres—$2.5 billion. There was going to be 2,650 of these. There was going to be one in every school. But it was never about the students; it was only ever about the buildings. With Labor, it is never about the job—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith will desist!
Ms LEY: it is only about the process. We know that Labor cannot be trusted when it comes to skills, trades and training. They will always say one thing and do another, because deep in their DNA is the belief that the trades and training are the B team and university is the A team—a failure to recognise that 60 per cent of students do not, nor should they, go to university. We are working with the Victorian government to deliver—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will desist.
Ms LEY: an innovative P-Tech style model, which develops high-tech, high-skilled training for the jobs of the future, not an old Labor model—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a).
The member for Rankin then left the chamber.
Ms LEY: from the past. New jobs, new skills, science technology, engineering and maths.
With a coalition government in Canberra and a coalition government in Spring Street, people can be confident that we are looking after the most important pathway of all: the pathway from school to a job.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised Australians no increases to taxes. Now millions of Australians are being slugged with a GP tax, a petrol tax and now a higher GST. Why didn't the Prime Minister tell the truth about his new taxes? Why should Australians have to pay for the Prime Minister's lies?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:00): The whole premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question is false. The whole premise of the question is false. Fuel excise indexation is not a new tax. It is precisely the tax that the Hawke government put in place in the 1980s. A modest co-payment for Medicare is a fee for service, and it is precisely the measure that the former Hawke government put in place back in the early 1990s.
Ms King: Raising revenue off the backs of sick people.
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat is warned!
Mr ABBOTT: This is an opposition which is simply incapable of facing the reality that they have inflicted on this nation. The opposition inflicted a debt and deficit disaster on this nation. They are in denial; they have been in denial since the election. We were elected to fix their mess, and fix it we will. Fix it we will. That is what the people elected us to do, and that is precisely what we are doing. This is our duty and we will not fail to discharge it.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Education, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister explain why it is important to restore respect for the rule of law on building and construction sites in Australia and what threats exist to the government's plan for reform?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:02): I thank the member for Macarthur for that question, because he, like all members on this side of the House, believe that respecting the rule of law on building and construction sites is a vital part of economic productivity in this country and a vital part of reducing costs to consumers. Under the Howard government, the Australian Building and Construction Commission—the period that that was operating, meant a $7.5 billion saving for consumers.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo is warned!
Mr PYNE: And productivity in building and construction improved by 16.8 per cent over that period, because of the ABCC. When the Leader of the Opposition became the minister for employment, he turned all that on its head. He abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, he established Fair Work Building and Construction, which was reduced in terms of its power and was cut by 30 per cent in terms of its funding, and the rogue CFMEU got back its place at the cabinet table that it had lost under the Howard government.
It is important to know who the CFMEU is, because I think many members of the public do not quite realise the kind of rogue union that we are talking about. This is a union that received a $1.5 million record fine for criminal contempt of court this year, in 2014, for its blockade of the Myer Emporium site. This is a union that has been found guilty of contempt of court 28 times since the year 2000, with links to gangland bosses like Mick Gatto; through its secretary, John Setka; and with links to the Comancheros and the Rebels bikie gangs. Labor's response to this information about the CFMEU, which is quite public, has been to welcome it back in to the Victorian Labor Party—the same division that the Leader of the Opposition comes from. In fact, it has been welcomed back not just into the Victorian Labor Party but welcomed back into the socialist left faction of Daniel Andrews, the leader of the opposition in Victoria.
The CFMEU is part of the same faction as the socialist left leader of the opposition in Victoria, Daniel Andrews.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: 'Hear, hear', they are saying. They love it. They have accepted $10 million of donations from the CFMEU since the year 2000, including $2 million for the Victorian division. And the Leader of the Opposition refuses to criticise the CFMEU. The problem is: he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the Leader of the Opposition needs to reject donations from the CFMEU. He needs to call for the expulsion of the CFMEU from the Victorian division. Until he does, he will be the weak Leader of the Opposition that we all know him to be.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Whoever made that comment will withdraw.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: in what way is the name 'Kathy Jackson' unparliamentary?
The SPEAKER: Because it was reflecting on another member. I said: whoever made the comment will withdraw the comment. The member for McEwen—
Mr Mitchell: Could we have a withdrawal from the Leader of the Opposition? He is claiming that we have been taking money from the CFMEU. That is an imputation as well.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right. I think that is called a 'home goal'.
Higher Education
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to NATSEM modelling which shows that under the Prime Minister's plan to saddle Australians with a debt sentence, a Victorian nursing student would pay $40,000 more, and it would take them nine years longer to pay off their debt. Why is the Prime Minister forcing Australians to choose between owning their own home and going to university?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:06): We have speculation from the opposition versus the fact, which is that members opposite saddled every single Australian man, woman and child with a debt of $25,000. That is what was going: $25,000 per man, woman and child. That was the debt trap that members opposite left our nation. That was the intergenerational theft that members opposite were guilty of saddling our children and grandchildren with to pay for their vote buying schemes. That is exactly what members opposite did. Now they are in denial.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: The Leader of the Opposition, who cannot keep quiet—sitting across the ministerial table, he just cannot keep quiet—is in denial. The more he babbles the more obvious it is that he is simply in denial about the debt and deficit disaster that he was in up to his neck, having executed two prime ministers—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: in the previous government. I have been asked about university fees. No-one will need to pay a dollar up-front. No-one will need to repay a dollar until his or her income is over $50,000.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will desist or leave. The choice is his.
Mr ABBOTT: Every single dollar will be covered by HECS or FEE-HELP, which stays, and fully 50 per cent of the cost of every student's education will be covered by the taxpayer. What we are doing is perfectly reasonable. It is a perfectly reasonable development of the policies that were put in place by a great Labor leader, Bob Hawke. Let me read from Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer:
Australian universities should be free to set student fees—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: Boring? This is your own shadow Assistant Treasurer.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: No, this is our friend the shadow Assistant Treasurer:
Australian universities should be free to set student fees according to the market value of their degrees. Universities will have a strong incentive to compete on price and quality. Much-needed additional funding will be available to universities that capitalise on their strengths and develop compelling educational offerings. The result will be a better funded, more dynamic and competitive education sector.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right!
Mr ABBOTT: Be ready to be bored, because you will have thrown back in your face day-in day-out this common sense from the shadow Assistant Treasurer.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (15:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of any recent government modelling on changes to the GST?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:09): I really do thank the honourable member for that question. It does come as a surprise! Last night, there I was quietly eating my dinner when I saw on TV that the journalists from Canberra were referring to Treasury modelling on increases to the GST. I thought, 'Treasury modelling on increases to the GST?' So I rang Treasury and asked, 'Did we ask you to model changes to the GST?' They said, 'No, Treasurer, we didn't.' But I kept hearing about this Treasury modelling on the GST. I looked everywhere. I looked under the table. I looked in the drawers. I went to the gym. I thought it might be hiding in the physio's. It was not there. I went everywhere. Lo and behold! I found it in the press gallery: 'Oh, Treasury modelling on increases to the GST.' I thought, 'This must be a comprehensive document.' It is one page long! It is a dramatic page, in fact: one page with half of it blacked out. Up the top it says, 'Scenario 3: Increase GST to 12½ per cent.' I thought, 'Hang on! What happened to scenario 1? What happened to scenario 2, scenario 4, 5, 6, 7?' I asked the Treasury, 'Where did this come from?' They said, 'We did it for the previous Labor government.'
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right!
Mr HOCKEY: I said to the Treasury, 'Give me a copy.' I thought it was a legitimate question; I am the Treasurer. I said, 'Give me a copy of that Treasury modelling commissioned by the previous Labor government for increasing the GST.' They said, 'Treasurer, we can't. Under convention we cannot release that information.' I said, 'How am I going to get it?' They said, 'You can ask the Labor Party to release all the modelling they did on increasing the GST.'
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right.
Mr HOCKEY: I say to the Labor Party: release the modelling. We know the Labor Party's form. The carbon tax: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' then they introduced a carbon tax.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: You may not speak. Go back to your seat.
Mr HOCKEY: Now we know that the GST the Labor Party are so concerned about they modelled on not one but numerous occasions. They modelled increases in the GST. I table a letter to the shadow Treasurer to come forth to the Australian people and release all the modelling the Labor Party commissioned to increase the GST.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: You have the call.
Mr FITZGIBBON: During question time today the Minister for Agriculture claimed that I as the responsible minister at the time failed to take an agriculture policy to the last election. The best way within the standing orders, and to be very quick, that I can rule this out as being true is just to refer to the National Farmers' Federation 2013 Election Policy Scorecard, which assessed the policies of the major political parties: Liberal National Party 7½; Labor 8.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Goods and Services Tax
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:14): Madam Speaker, I would like to add to an answer from today.
The SPEAKER: The minister is seeking the call for—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence! The Leader of the Opposition will desist. The Minister for Agriculture is seeking the call for what purpose?
Mr JOYCE: I would like to add to an answer I gave today. Today I stated that the Labor Party currently has an agriculture policy, but it is actually from Hawker Britton. It probably still does not have a policy. On the National Farmers' Federation, I did not realise that the NFF is writing agriculture policy for the Labor Policy.
The SPEAKER: The member is out of order. This is not adding to an answer.
Mr Joyce: It is not a policy; it is a comment.
The SPEAKER: This is not adding to an answer.
Private Health Insurance
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:14): Madam Speaker, I wish to add to an answer.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer may proceed.
Mr HOCKEY: In question time the member for McMahon asked me—
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Regarding what?
Mr Bowen: Regarding whether this is appropriate or not, given that we have moved on from question time. The time in which ministers have an opportunity to add to an answer—
The SPEAKER: He can add to add to an answer at any time.
Mr Bowen: is prior to personal explanations and prior to moving onto other business. We have moved onto other business.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr HOCKEY: I wish to add to an answer that was asked of me by the member for McMahon. He asked me about private health insurance and my comments this morning on ABC AM when I said:
For example, the Labor Party's changes to private health insurance. We let that pass through the Parliament because we knew the budget had to be fixed.
He challenged that. With respect to the announcement in the 2012-13 MYEFO, which was about the private health insurance rebate amount being increased by the lesser of CPI or the commercial premium increase, which was a $700 million saving, we in fact let pass the House. In fact, here is a speech from Tania Plibersek, saying:
I thank the members of the opposition and, indeed, the members of the crossbenches who will be supporting the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013.
That is fact No. 1. Fact No. 2: today on ABC 24 Capital Hill, the member for McMahon said:
Well, with alcopops there was a broad indication of support that this would eventually pass the parliament.
I refer him to the budget in reply speech of the leader of the Liberal Party in 2008 when he said:
This is nothing more than a tax binge falsely presented to Australians as something it is not, and that is why we are angry about it and that is why we will oppose it.
You have got to get your facts right, sweetheart!
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will withdraw that last comment.
Mr HOCKEY: I did not mean to reflect on the chair, Madam Speaker. I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: And the Treasurer will take it on notice that he will not abuse the right to add to an answer in the future.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Agriculture
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:17): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr FITZGIBBON: I do, Madam Speaker—about three minutes ago by the Minister for Agriculture.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr FITZGIBBON: The Minister for Agriculture claimed rather strangely that in my earlier intervention I somehow suggested that the NFF wrote the Labor Party's policy. No; what I said was that the NFF rated the Labor Party's very good and comprehensive agriculture policy. To help him, I seek leave to table the NFF scorecard, which shows Labor ahead of the coalition on agriculture policy.
The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Questions in Writing
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (15:18): In accordance with standing order 105(b) I ask that you write to the Minister for Social Services seeking reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing. The relevant questions appear as Nos 254, 255, 256, 277, 280, 281, 289 and 290 on the Notice Paper. In accordance with standing order 105(b) I ask that you write to the Minister for Communications seeking reasons for delay in answering our question in writing. The relevant question appears as No. 284 on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Potential Matter of Privilege
The SPEAKER (15:18): Yesterday, the Manager of Opposition Business raised with me, as a potential matter of privilege, whether the Hansard record of an answer provided by the Minister for Agriculture, last week on 20 October, had been changed in a way that amounted to 'misconduct'. The Manager of Opposition Business asked whether such changes might relate to 'deliberately misleading the House, conspiracy to deceive, falsifying documents or disobedience to the rule or orders of the House'. For this to be considered it is necessary for there to be evidence of a prime facie case that the alleged misconduct is conduct which, and I quote section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, 'amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member or the member's duties as a member'.
I note that the Minister for Agriculture attended in the House shortly after the matter was raised with me, and explained to the House the circumstances around the changes made to the Hansard record of his answer in the House, including that he had counselled his staff about their actions and requested the Hansard record to be corrected. Given the minister's explanation I have not reviewed the tapes. In light of the minister's explanation, it does not appear that a prime facie case as intimated above has been made out and I consider that the matter is now closed.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:20): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MOTIONS
Address by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:20): by leave—I move:
(1) the House invite the Right Honourable David Cameron MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to attend and address the House on Friday, 14 November 2014, at 11.10am;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Friday, 14 November 2014:
(a) the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, after which the sitting of the House automatically shall be adjourned; and
(b) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members' seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker.
Question agreed to.
Address by the President of the People's Republic of China
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:21): by leave—I move:
(1) the House invite His Excellency Mr Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China, to attend and address the House on Monday, 17 November 2014, at 3.35pm;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Monday, 17 November 2014:
(a) the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the President of the People's Republic of China, after which the sitting of the House automatically shall be adjourned; and
(b) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members' seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the President of the People's Republic of China; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker.
Question agreed to.
Address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:21): by leave—I move:
(1) the House invite the Honourable Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of the Republic of India, to attend and address the House on Tuesday, 18 November 2014, at 10.15am;
(2) unless otherwise ordered, at the sitting of the House on Tuesday, 18 November 2014:
(a) the proceedings shall be welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, after which the sitting of the House automatically shall be adjourned; and
(b) the provisions of standing order 257(c) shall apply to the area of Members' seats as well as the galleries;
(3) a message be sent to the Senate inviting Senators to attend the House as guests for the welcoming remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and address by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement be made only by an action by the Speaker.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Higher Education
The SPEAKER (15:22): 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:
The Prime Minister Americanising our universities and condemning Australian students to a debt sentence.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:22): For two days now, the Prime Minister has travelled around from federation lectures to the parliament pontificating about how we should all think for the long term. This Prime Minister, the most narrow, negative politician in Australian history, is now trying to lecture Australians about planning for the future. Who does this person think he is—that a leopard cannot change his spots after 20 years of relentless negativity? When their unfair budget is failing desperately, the Prime Minister seeks to run up an emergency beacon saying, 'Hang on, we want to have a sensible, mature discussion about the generations ahead.' Well, Tony Abbott, here is our advice about your sensible discussion: demonstrate your bona fides in higher education. Nothing can be more important to the future of this country than higher education and the opportunities that our young have to better themselves and to contribute to this nation.
This Prime Minister has the temerity and the cheek, and he almost convinced me that he is so out of touch except that I just do not believe him. He knows that his plan for Australia is to radically recast it and to create two Australia's. He has a chance to demonstrate—don't shake head over there, Sunshine! You know I'm right.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is always keen to have people referred to by their proper titles and will in fact observe that.
Mr SHORTEN: Okay, thanks. The Prime Minister needs to come out of his hiding place. We know he never goes out to mix with real people any more. He does safe picture opportunities at medical research facilities or he talks to Liberal Party faithfuls at fundraisers—oh, that is right, he did go to the Peter McCallum after the fundraiser. The real test here today is that education is one challenge the parliament should not fail. No parliament, no government and no Tasmanian backbenchers should ever look back and say, 'We failed the test of making the education system better. I do not know how a single Tasmanian Liberal can be backing these higher education changes. Opportunity in education is a pact between generations.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: The member for Bass is interjecting but he is not in his seat, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Bass will not interject if he is not in his seat.
Mr SHORTEN: The Tasmanian Liberals need to stand up along with the Labor Party and understand that the solemn responsibility of every government is to pass on an education system better than the one they inherited. Now the government has abrogated this responsibility and has failed this test. Labor believes if you work hard, you get good marks, that if you can do well, you deserve to go to university. Destiny should not be predetermined by your parents' wealth or the postcode for where you live. We should be opening doors to children from the bush, to children from poor families, to first generation migrants. We should be helping mature age Australians, dislocated by economic change, to get new skills and retrain for the jobs of the future. We should be supporting the opportunity of women to get access to higher education.
Labor believes that a university system that gives every Australian the chance to fulfil their potential, to strive, to seek and to reach for higher ground, is a fair system. That is the system we built from the great Gough Whitlam onwards. It is the system that is under attack from the backward looking government, from this Prime Minister of negativity and narrowness, to the partition pretender, the education minister. Look at the schemes they want to introduce, at the changes they are creating.
A nursing degree in Victoria—that is state, by the way, members of the government. We do not expect to see the Prime Minister visit before the state election, although we hope he does. Mind you, we do not expect to see him and Premier Denis Napthine does not want to see him. A nursing degree in Victoria under the government's rules is now $23,000 over eight years. Under the Abbott empire, the Minister for Education and Prime Minister model, it will cost $63,000 over 17 years. What a marvellous contribution to education this education minister is making—$40,000 more and nine years longer to pay off!
Talk about a teaching degree in Victoria: $31,000 over nine years, under the so-called Minister for Education and the Prime Minister it will cost $81,000 over 14 years—that is, courtesy of the government, $50,000 more and five years longer to pay off.
Mr Nikolic: Did you model that, Bill? Who did you modelling?
Mr SHORTEN: Calm down, Member for Bass. I know you are upset about how I pinged you before. The other problem we have about education is the unfairness for women who take time off to start and to raise a family. They know these costs are impossible for mature age students. The students of Australia and their families, they know this government is fundamentally changing access to universities. They understand Australians. They understand exactly what this government is doing. For months and months, this education minister has been asking the divisive dog-whistling question: why should the 60 per cent of taxpayers who do not attend university contribute to the 40 per cent who do? Why should those who have not been to university contribute to the fees of those who do? The answer is simple, Minister for Education. Not all Australians are like you. They do not believe that education is just a private privilege; they believe it is a public benefit.
Australian university graduates also pay for their education not just through HECS but through their economic and social contribution. They pay to their countries and they pay to their communities. Now we see that the changes the government are making are indeed creating anxiety. The numbers at open days and the numbers of potential enrolments are down. Why should the future doctors and nurses who will keep us healthy, the teachers who will educate our children, the architects, engineers and city planners who will shape our infrastructure, the scientists who will make discoveries that will determine our future health and opportunity all be slugged with doubling and tripling of their university fees?
Australians are smart enough and generous enough to reject Liberal ideology. They understand that greater access to higher education is in fact an advantage to all of us. I have never met a parent or a grandparent who had not gone to university who begrudged the chance for their child or their grandchild to go to university. I have never met a parent or a grandparent who complains about the taxes they pay because their loved ones are getting a better start in life than they had. Anyway, we are in this debate now and higher education is absolutely one of the issues for the next election. The next election will be a referendum on the best ideas and the real vision for a prosperous and fair Australia—absolutely.
Nothing is more important to the future prosperity of our nation than education. We believe in affordable education which is accessible to all Australians. That is why we will fight to stop Tony Abbott's plan for $100,000 degrees and more. We will never support a two-tier, Americanised higher education system which divides between different levels in our society and entrenches disadvantage. This Minister for Education loves to talk about 80,000 scholarships. But he never talks about the 700,000 domestic students currently enrolled. He is proposing to provide 80,000 scholarships, but students in the remaining difference between 700,000 and 80,000 are going to pay more fees. This is not a bargain. This is a tricky, slippery Minister for Education who loves to talk about one aspect of his package but never tells the full picture.
Let's look at what the government want to do in higher education. We have seen the Minister the Education propose doubling the rate of HECS repayments. Imagine if what we did in Australia on home interest rates before an election was say, 'No problem,' and after an election, upon forming a government, we said, 'We want to double the rate of payment.' That is what this government, this education minister and Tony Abbott have done. They are changing the interest rate for HECS payments for nearly one million Australians.
This government love to talk about debt and deficit. They never talk about the debt and deficit they are putting onto ordinary Australians and their families. Labor will never consign Australians to generations of debt on higher education. Labor will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends upon their capacity to pay. I love hearing the government members crow in disagreement and feigned outrage. Because what they know and we know and the Australian people know is that this government cannot be trusted on higher education. However loudly they complain about what we say, it does not change the truth of what we are saying.
Make no mistake: for higher education, the game is on. We will talk to every student. We will talk to every family member of every student. We will talk to the parents of secondary students. We will talk to everyone who is interested in higher education. There will be a choice at the next election. There will be a choice between this government issuing students a debt sentence by deregulating universities to the point where students simply cannot afford to go to university—shame, government, shame— (Time expired)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:32): I am very pleased to respond on this matter of public importance. I thought that the fact that it was moved by the Leader of the Opposition meant that it would be a serious debate about a very serious issue: the future of Australian universities. But instead, unfortunately, I feel I have been drowning in a sea of cliches. In such circumstances, often the response is to match cliche for cliche, but on this side of the House we take government policy very seriously.
When the public elected us a year ago, they wanted to elect adults to run a serious country in a calm and methodical way—and that is exactly what we are proposing to do. In higher education, we have put on the table and passed through this House the most substantial reform to higher education since the Dawkins period, a reform that will free and deregulate universities in a way that will allow them to focus and concentrate on their areas of excellence so they can have more of them and have them be even better, so they can keep up with their Asian competitors and stay in front of them and so they can defend and grow our $15 billion international education market. Our third largest export industry, after iron ore and coal, is education, followed by gold. We take this seriously.
At the same time, we want to give Australian young people the opportunity to get a higher education qualification because, if they do, they will be able to earn 75 per cent, on average, more over their lifetimes than people without a higher education qualification. They will actually have a longer life expectancy, better health outcomes and the lowest unemployment rate of anybody in the community. We want to spread that opportunity to more Australians. We want to follow in the footsteps of Sir Robert Menzies, the real father of education in Australia.
Do not take my word for that. It was not me who first said that Sir Robert Menzies was the father of higher education in Australia. It was, in fact, Gough Whitlam, who we have been hearing a lot about in the last week since his death, in a speech to the Harvard Club of Australia in June 1973, the first year of his prime ministership. Mr Whitlam said: 'No Australian has done more to serve the cause of university education in this country than Sir Robert Menzies. Under the responsibilities accepted by his government, more young Australians were given access to universities and more money was spent to equip universities.' This was followed by Lindsay Tanner in his book of much more recent times. He wrote: 'Sir Robert Menzies began the transformation of higher education in Australia, and he helped to change attitudes to education. Thousands of Australians of my generation benefited from Gough Whitlam's university reforms, but the changes in public attitudes that helped to make them possible came from the Menzies era.' So what we on this side of the House are doing is continuing the relationship that the coalition has had with valuing and expanding higher education for decades.
In the Whitlam period of three years, so-called free education was introduced, where all taxpayers paid for the privileged few to go to university. By 1988 the Hawke and Keating government reintroduced fees, through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, because they recognised the inequitable nature of what the Whitlam government had done. Maybe it was with good intentions, but the demographic breakdown of universities in 1988 was no different to what it had been in 1974 when so-called free education was introduced. All that had happened was that the poorest Australians had transferred wealth to the richest Australians. The same people went to university in 1988 who had gone to university in 1974. That has only changed—not because of the Whitlam period, not because of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme—because of programs implemented by the Howard government and then by the Rudd and Gillard governments to expand, in a very direct way, the access to universities of low-socio-economic students. In this reform we want to expand that; we want to continue that work. One thing that Julia Gillard did not do too badly was education reform. She was a very bad prime minister, but she did actually put in place a number of measures to expand education to low SES Australians, which we supported then and we want to expand now.
In this reform that will go before the Senate tomorrow we want to expand the demand driven system to sub-bachelor courses. These are the pathways that low-SES and mature age students typically use to get back into undergraduate degrees to improve their education. Let's put some facts on the table rather than the hyperbole of the Leader of the Opposition. The facts are that the Kemp Norton report that I initiated after our election said that students from a low-SES background who have done pathways programs had two per cent dropout rate; when they did not do a pathways program and went straight to an undergraduate degree they had a 24 per cent dropout rate. What this government wants to do is expand opportunity to those low-SES students. I would have thought that the Labor Party would have supported that. I would have thought that Labor would have supported expanding opportunity to more low-SES students, but they are not going to do that because they just want to play politics. With Labor it is all about politics—it is never about policy.
Through our plan to expand the Commonwealth Grant Scheme to the non-university higher education providers, through our plan to have the largest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history and through our plan to expand the demand driven system that I have already described, we believe that by 2018 80,000 more young Australians from low-SES backgrounds will get the opportunity to go to university and get that higher education qualification I had. Labor is running a scaremongering campaign—it is as simple as that—and they are prepared even to talk about the so-called Americanisation of Australian universities. Never mind the fact that America does not have the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, which is the envy of the world and the most generous loan scheme in the world. Before you have to pay any money back to the taxpayer that you have borrowed up-front, you have to be earning over $50,000 a year and even then you can only be charged two per cent of your income at the best interest rates you will ever receive on any loan in your life.
Labor is scaring students in most disgraceful way and I would have expected better from the member for Kingston. In a speech on 1 October this year, Mike Gallagher from the Group of Eight said:
Students … deserve to be rid of the scaremongering. One example of just how cruel and dangerous are the misrepresentations—at recent University Open Days, many students were under the impression, on the basis of statements made by some senior politicians—
including the member the Kingston—
…that tuition fees would have to be paid up-front because HECS HELP was being dismantled.
… … …
Interestingly, once the prospective students were advised that HELP was staying and there would be no reintroduction of up-front fees many of their concerns were allayed …
In other words, Mr Deputy Speaker, when students knew that the Higher Education Contribution Scheme was remaining unchanged and when it was stated that they could borrow every single dollar up-front from the Australian taxpayer, their concerns were immediately allayed. That does not suit the Labor Party because they do not want students to be comfortable about our reforms.
I can tell you that it was reported to me that, when students were convinced that the HECS scheme was staying, their concerns were much less than they were before. I have been all over Australia visiting university campuses and I find I am very much welcome at them. In fact, the students at the La Trobe campus at Mildura had to bus in protesters from Melbourne because they could not find anybody in Mildura against my reforms—they could not find any and so they had to get a busload from Melbourne of NUS activists to come to Mildura. I refused to speak to them. I said, 'Go back; stop spreading your misinformation among students.'
Labor created this mess and the adults in the room are going to fix it. We are going to work with this Senate to bring reform to higher education that delivers more opportunity for students and higher quality for universities. At the next election in two years' time, this will be one of the great achievements of the coalition government—that we made the decisions that Labor refuse to make for six years.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:42): I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance. While the Minister for Education tells us about the reports he has been getting I am assuming from his staff who are talking to university students, it has been the Labor members and senators listening to the Australian people. You can imagine members and senators hearing a lot of anger and dismay from the community, because, of course, they were never told about this plan before the election. They were never told that fees would be unlimited under this government; that university fees could go as high as the universities wanted with the Americanisation of our university system. The debt sentence that students will be lumped with, if this legislation goes ahead, is not just a debt that is big at the beginning but one that grows and grows and it does not stop growing—because this legislation has real interest rates attached to student debt.
We hear that there has been absolutely no modelling of this legislation. This is an ideological frolic from those of opposite because no modelling was done and there was no mention before the election. We can only look to overseas where we have seen in the UK only two universities out of 123 go to the top threshold of university fees. Of course we hear about America—America where students are facing $1.2 trillion worth of student debt. Student debt there, now, is greater than credit card debt. This is the type of system that is being put up by those opposite.
We always hear from the Minister for Education that his reforms are universally accepted by the university sector. We know they are not supported by students, or parents, or grandparents; but they are also not universally supported by the university sector. In the Senate estimates evidence that was given, the Chief Executive of Universities Australia, Belinda Robinson, stated:
We are not backing the package as it is currently presented, far from it. Of course we do not support a reduction of 20 per cent to the revenue of Australian universities. That translates to an almost $2 billion cut to the revenue of universities. Of course we don't support that.
That was very recent. There is no support from Universities Australia for the package, despite what the Minister for Education would have you believe. We have the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Professor Stephen Parker, who said:
I … think it is unethical for a generation of leaders who by and large benefited from free higher education to burden the generations behind them in this way.
Then we have the Victoria University Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Dawkins who said:
… unless there are some changes to the plan as outlined in the budget, these risks to look too high.
As we can see, we have a plan in front of the parliament that will really affect the livelihoods of many. It is, quite frankly, appalling of this government to come in here and say this will help students get access. We all know that is not true. No how much huffing and puffing there is from the Minister for Education, it will not mean greater access.
He likes to hang his hat on the Commonwealth scholarship scheme. He invoked Menzies in his speech. Indeed, Menzies did have Commonwealth scholarships; they were paid for by the government. But this government is not paying for—not putting one cent into—Commonwealth scholarships. What they are doing is increasing fees for students and then providing scholarships from that money. What we know is that for every $5 increase in fees above the cost of delivering that degree, $1 will be hived off to go to these scholarships. What that means is the higher the number of scholarships, the higher the fees of everyone else at that university; that means less access for the majority.
The Minister for Education likes to think of himself as Robin Hood. What he is actually doing is making the sector less accessible for the hundreds of thousands of young people who aspire to go to university. They will not make the choice to go to university because of the price point. This is an appalling set of circumstances and I condemn it. I call on the Senate to reject this bill. (Time expired)
Mr PORTER (Pearce) (15:47): There was a recent article jointly authored by the Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. In it, they said:
It is no small achievement when an often divided and fractious sector unites around a major change.
Having lectured and, indeed, been involved in administration at a number of Australian universities, I must say that is an understatement of Goliath-like proportions. It is like herding cats wearing tweed jackets, trying to get universities to agree on anything. But with the notable exception of the University of Canberra, which is sticking out like a sore thumb on this one, there is almost unanimous agreement among the university sector that these reforms should be supported. In the same article it is stated that:
At stake is whether a viable higher education system can endure.
Though much rhetoric focuses on the Whitlam promise of free higher education, the present system was established by the Hawke government from 1989; it abandoned a brief experiment with free places as inequitable. What has been amazing about listening to successive runs of this debate is there is a 1974 argument, with respect to higher education reform, and then there is a 2014 argument. The 1974 policy argument dominated the higher education space for close to three decades—probably 25 years. The 1974 question is this: could Australia increase the percentage of low-income students in tertiary education by making tertiary degrees free for all tertiary students? That was the social policy argument that dominated this space for decades. But the argument was also conducted for decades in an environment where the Australian tertiary sector existed in a global market that was relatively stable—comparatively, amazingly stable.
For decades we were asking ourselves whether universal low fees, or no fees, would achieve greater participation for the sons and daughters of low-income earners. That was a logical question to ask for several decades. It was logical because we were involved, firstly, in a ceteris paribus environment internationally; things were not changing around us. But it was logical, also, because we really did not have the answer. There are two observations to make about that debate. The first is that the central question of that debate has now been unequivocally and empirically answered by every single major factual review of the sector. Does introducing deferred fees for students decrease the percentage of low-income students? No, it does not. Once introduced, does expanding the share of their fees that students are required to fund decrease the percentage of low-income students? No, it does not. Are fees the primary, or even a substantial, determinant of the percentage of low-income students? No, they are not.
In 1996 payments went up, largely under the members opposite, nearly eightfold to $900 million. Higher education participation went up from 400,000 to 525,000. Lower fees, or no fees, do not address the real or actual determinants of participation which are social conditions, parental expectations and secondary school preparation. The social policy question has been answered. No member opposite has offered anything that resembles empirical evidence to suggest otherwise. It is a dead question. The way in which you increase participation is by increasing scale.
More fundamental to that point is that the circumstances which have prevailed for decades while we answered this question have now changed irrevocably, fundamentally and with quite astonishing speed. There are two basic changes. Firstly, the number and quality of Asian universities has increased at absolutely astonishing speed and the number of students that now move from nation to nation to pursue tertiary education has similarly risen in astonishing numbers. Basically, what we are facing is that tertiary education has become a globally traded commodity. What happens if you do nothing in that environment? We had the lesson of that under the members opposite: from the 2009-10 peak, when there was no reform—and, I admit, some bungling along the way under the members opposite—there was a loss of billions of dollars in export income from the tertiary sector. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of international student enrolments fell by 130,000 students. That is not an indicator that the Australian tertiary education sector is in good health; that is an indicator of an education sector in great need of reform. To see the consensus for the grave necessity of reform, you need go no further than the universities themselves. The Australian Catholic University said:
Rejecting the package wholesale is not a vote for university equity. It is a vote against reality.
Universities Australia said:
It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.
The Regional Universities Network said:
… the only way the sector can maintain quality and remain internationally competitive is through the deregulation of student fees.
The 1974 argument is over.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:52): Today we have heard people from the government benches try to justify this incredibly terrible attack on higher education in this country. They should be ashamed. What they are doing is making it harder for working- and middle-class kids to get a higher education—and they know it. They should think twice about this terrible, regressive policy. They should think twice, because they know as well as anyone else in this chamber just how terrible this policy is. They have had the backlash from the working people of this country, from people on low and fixed incomes.
People are not standing for these attacks on higher education. People are not going to stand for funding cuts of up to 37 per cent for undergraduate courses. They are not going to stand for it. They are not going to stand for the wholesale deregulation of university fees that is going to lead to $100,000 degrees—a lifelong debt. They are not going to stand for higher fees, nor are they going to stand for real interest rates on higher education fees. They are not going to cop fees for higher research degrees either. Most of all, they are not going to somehow start thinking those fees are a good idea just because the Minister for Education threatens to cut research—as he has so shamefully done.
These changes are atrocious. We are talking about changes that are going to see cuts to higher education funding. Where will those cuts be recouped from? They will have to be recouped from the deregulated fees. We have already seen some of the research and some of the modelling showing what the costs of these courses are going to be in the event that fees are wholly deregulated. Universities Australia tells us that, to make up for the cut to funding, the cost of engineering and science degrees will have to increase by 58 per cent, nursing degrees by 24 per cent, education degrees by 20 per cent, agriculture degrees by 43 per cent and environmental studies by 110 per cent. These are terrible figures because they speak to the gross inequity that this government is perpetrating on the Australian people. They are saying that people should not go on to higher education unless they are prepared to take on a lifetime of debt. It is the Americanisation of our university system—the sort of system where you see people paying off debt their entire life just for the privilege of getting a higher education.
On our side of this chamber we believe that higher education is a right not a privilege. We believe that education is a fundamental right. We know that the government understands that Australians think that too. Why else would Tony Abbott, when he was making every promise under the sun in a desperate attempt to get elected last year, have said that there would be no cuts to education? Because he knew that the Australian people wanted there to be no cuts to education. He understood the backlash that would come if people knew his real plans for the higher education sector. Now people do know and they are not going to stand for it.
These sorts of funding cuts of up to 37 per cent for undergraduate degrees are going to mean that universities will have to recoup those moneys from students and their families. Why would anyone think that a lifetime of debt might not be a consideration when a young person is deciding whether or not to go to university—the choice of whether to go in the first place? That is not to mention mature age students. What are mature age students expected to do with hundred-thousand-dollar degrees? How are they meant to reskill?
I have spoken in this House before about a mature age student who has written to me worried about the effect of a real interest rate on the HECS fees that she has already been incurring—and she is not the only one. A lot of students have spoken to me about their concern about what such an interest rate would mean—and not just students. From a workforce planning perspective those industries where jobs are lower paid than those at the top end of town—for example, corporate lawyers—are worried about whether people are going to be prepared to come and work in those lower paid jobs when they have such a big debt with such a high interest rate.
People who work in a not-for-profit organisation, for example, or a smaller firm or a lower paid occupation already pay a penalty in the form of lower wages. But they are going to have to pay an additional penalty. Not only are they going to be slugged with a massive debt, but because it will take longer to pay off that debt, they will pay more because of the effect of the real interest rate. That is why people who are running those small not-for-profits are very worried about the effect that these changes are going to have on their ability to attract good quality staff.
It is not just a question of what might happen to those people who are worried about workforce planning. This is a policy area that has led to a massive backlash across this nation from people concerned about the way that this government intends to change the shape of this nation.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (15:52): So much to say, so little time. I will begin by calling this what it is: one hell of a scare campaign. I would love to say I am not a punter, but I am—and I would be prepared to lay odds that the Labor Party have focus-grouped the words 'Americanisation', 'debt sentence' and 'hundred-thousand-dollar degrees'. It would be nice to come into this place and have a mature debate about an important structural reform that this country needs. But that is not what we are getting. In the lead-up to question time, during 90-second statements, the member for Perth came in and talked about a constituent who was already, as a result of the 'changes', modifying the way she was going about her tertiary degree. These are changes that would come into effect, if we legislate them, in 2016!
Because this is a scare campaign, the debate is being reframed by the Labor Party. It is no longer about increasing competition in the tertiary sector. It is not about telling the Australian people that they will not need to pay for their degrees up-front and that they will only be asked to repay the cost of their degree once they are earning over $50,000. It is not a debate about the fact that currently 60 per cent of the Australian population subsidise the 40 per cent to get a tertiary degree to the tune of 60 per cent and that this legislation will recalibrate that to a split of fifty-fifty; but rather, disingenuously, it is a debate about, effectively, free education—a debate that was put to bed in the seventies.
I thought I might just reflect on a once proud leader of the Labor Party, Paul Keating:
There is no such thing, of course, as "free" education. Someone has to pay. In systems with no charges, those somebody's are all taxpayers.
But do not take it from a former leader of the Labor Party; let's take it from a member of the current Labor Party who sits just down there—I suspect he is just outside being subjected to another re-education program—Dr Andrew Leigh:
Australian universities should be free to set student fees according to the market for their degrees. A deregulated or market based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer, because the fees students pay will more closely approximate the value they receive through future earnings.
That is sensible and it is probably the reason why he is being re-educated as we speak!
In the time I have a remaining I want to highlight the benefits to regional students.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PASIN: You know what? I am going to give you an example of sub-bachelor degrees. If those opposite new where Mt Gambier was, I could tell that recently a collaboration between the University of South Australia and the world-renowned Australian jazz musician James Morrison was formed to established the James Morrison Academy of Music. That is a collaboration between James Morrison and the University of South Australia. When it begins it will provide sub-bachelor degrees to 70 students. They are diplomas and associate degrees. These tertiary opportunities would not be funded under the existing HELP legislation. Under the current legislation that those opposite support who want to get a Diploma in Music or an Associate Degree in Music from Mt Gambier's jazz centre of excellence, the James Morrison Academy, would have to—wait for it—stump the money up-front. Do you know what they get if those in the other place accept our very sensible reforms? Would they get is an opportunity to undertake that study and become world renowned jazz musicians, and they get it via a mechanism wherein they do not have to pay any money up front—not a cent. Under those opposite they would have to pay up-front every single cent. Under our proposals they are eligible for the Higher Education Loan Program.
I would love the member for Kingston to come to Mt Gambier with me next year and we will talk to those students and we will tell them—the member for Kingston will be honest with them, I am sure, and she will say, 'I wanted you to pay up-front, but that bloke over there, the member for Barker, he was happy for you to— (Time expired)
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (16:03): It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Barker, who was a great loss to Mt Gambier City Council, I must say! I was glad to hear him quoting Keating, because being lectured by the member for Barker is 'like being flogged by a wet lettuce'.
Let's go back to torts on MPIs, because when we go back and talk about the Liberals' higher education policy, we like to go to their source material. We cannot trust what they say; we have to see what they put in writing. Plenty of speakers in these debates have gone to Real solutions, their election policy shield. But I am not going to touch on this today. I am going to go back to the two thought pieces that guided the brains trust of the coalition, and that is Battlelines and Hockey: Not Your Average Joe.
When I turned Battlelines, which is the Prime Minister's manifesto—his bible—can people guess how many mentions of higher education there are in the book.
Mr Laurie Ferguson: Two.
Mr CONROY: Sadly, the member for Werriwa is very optimistic. There are zero mentions of universities. But that actually stands in good stead compared to Hockey: Not Your Average Joe, which, for the Treasurer has been the publication that his damaged his career the second most. Unfortunately, the budget has been the publication that has damaged his career the most. But when you go to Hockey: Not Your Average Joe and I look at his first mention of university and I read from it—this is in chapter 3:
The first of his siblings to make it to university, Joe walked into his class on day one drunk. 'I walked into my first lecture and fell asleep.'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CONROY: Exactly! Sadly, the Liberals' policy on higher education shows all the seriousness and commitment that the member for North Sydney demonstrated on his first day at university. That is a great tragedy, because this is an incredibly serious debate. Education is vital for our economy and vital for our society. What those on the other side are doing is closing the door on a generation of working class students. In the seat of Charlton four out of five graduates are in nursing and education. What these changes do, according to Universities Australian—a group those on the other side are very keen to quote all the time—is that a female nursing graduate could have a debt at the end of the course of $100,000. She would generated a debt of $100,000 for a nursing degree and she will pay it off over the course of 27 years. How is that fair—to have a 100,000 grand debt over the course of 27 years; or engineering—we need more engineers in this country and we need more female engineers? But according to Universities Australia, they could face a total debt to be paid off of $200,000. What a disgrace.
Let us look at the equity aspects, because those on the other side like to talk about the sub-bachelor degree level. One of the great avenues for education in higher education is for mature age students participating in part-time studies. I am proud that the university in my area, the University of Newcastle, has got a great tradition in this. I often hear the member for Newcastle talking about this all the time, because it is a great contribution. Fifty per cent of University of Newcastle are not school leavers and they will face the greatest disadvantage because they are turned off the most by high debt, high interest rates that mean in their limited time left in the workforce they will be paying off this debt.
I was asked earlier for evidence. You do not have to go further than the United Kingdom, where before their changes to university fees they had part-time undergraduate enrolments of 230,000 people. Within two years it fell to 139,000, an almost 100,000 drop in part-time undergraduate students. That is what we face in this country. This is what we face with their Americanisation of the system—a system where you will see registered nurses paying 100 grand and taking 27 years to pay off a degree, where you will see female engineers facing a $200,000 debt. This is the great vision they have for this country—a myopic, short-term vision that will penalise working-class people who want to be the first in their family to get to university. They will stand condemned by history for their focus on petty penny-pinching rather than investing in this nation's greatest asset: our next generation.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (16:08): We see from the attitude of the member for Charlton in his speech why they call him 'the nasty Conroy'! The member for Barker was unfairly compared to a wet lettuce; I have to say a head of lettuce is normally fresh and crisp, but the previous speaker was certainly nothing of the two. It showed that he did not even have a head there with what he said about university fee deregulation in the United Kingdom. As the facts show, lower socioeconomic students have actually taken up more university education in that country since fee deregulation.
I speak from personal experience here because I come from a low-socioeconomic background. I was the first in my family to attend university. I did not come from a background with a silver spoon; both parents were on welfare at the time. I went to university through a bank loan to fund the accommodation and set-up costs that I needed. I did not worry about the fees, because I knew we had a system—a system we are still going to have in place—where I could put that on the future. I could put those university fees into a debt system that would be the best ever because I did not have to repay that until I started earning over $50,000, and then it was quite affordable.
That is the experience for many other regional students, I have to say. The biggest challenges for them and their families are the accommodation and set-up costs, not the fees which do not have to be up front and can be paid at a later time when you can afford to pay them. The accommodation, food and electricity—the establishment costs—are the biggest detractors for regional students in particular in going off to university.
We in the regions wonder where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from on this. The member for Barker put it quite rightly that these reforms actually ensure that sub-bachelor degrees are not just going to be the up-front fee degrees. They will be able to be put on the HELP system. These reforms will make it better for those students who are impacted by the tyranny of distance and have to pay all those up-front fees. A university could decide now—and this is something that CQ University, my alma mater, might be deciding upon—to package up a degree which incorporates the costs of accommodation and set-up in their residential college, so you could have students who can move from afar and put the whole cost of the degree, including the living costs, onto the FEE-HELP, which they can pay later on in life when they can afford to do it. That is a better outcome for lower socioeconomic students and a better outcome for regional students.
We have heard about $100,000 degrees, and isn't that ridiculous? The University of Western Australia, one of the world's top 100 universities, has announced that they will charge $16,000 a year for an undergraduate degree under the fee deregulation. A three-year degree will cost less than $50,000; and, if it did cost as much as $50,000, they will not pay a cent until they earn $50,000 or over. When they earn $50,000 or over, they will repay about $20 a week, less than $3 a day, to earn more than 75 per cent of non-university graduates. That is a great investment.
So regional students are supported by these measures, and so they should be. The abolition of the unfair 20 per cent loan fee on VET FEE-HELP loans will benefit another 80,000 students. The abolition of the unfair 25 per cent loan fee on FEE-HELP will benefit more than 50,000 students. The Commonwealth scholarship scheme will be the largest in Australia's history, helping students who, like me, are from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, helping them with their living costs and other supports. That is where the disincentive is, as I said.
I want to talk very briefly about CQ University very briefly. The vice-chancellor there is very keen for these reforms. He said:
There are two types of universities: those that see change, wring their hands and say 'Oh woe is me'. And then there are others that lick their lips. We are a lip-licking university.
These reforms will allow unis like CQU to offer those packages I talked about. That is what regional students need. They do not need the Labor Party blocking this. They should be working with us to develop a sustainable funding model for university education instead of harping on. This opposition leader's MPI is like his name: short in substance, short in truth!
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:13): It has been such a significant week for us Labor people as we have celebrated the life and leadership of Gough Whitlam. Gough Whitlam was an enormous visionary, and we have heard over the last week such important statements of that on both sides of the House—of this big man, this big thinker who brought big ideas into this parliament. Gough Whitlam spent a decades-long career in this parliament fighting for a fair go, for the right of all Australian children to have the best quality health care and, most importantly, to have access to education.
Since that time, education and access to education has become an article of faith for Labor. Labor leader after Labor leader after Labor leader has fought for the right of every Australian child to have the opportunity to get the best education. We saw under the Hawke and Keating governments year 12 retention rates go from about 45 per cent of all young people in this country to 77 per cent—one of the great unsung achievements of that government. And every leader since then has joined this fight. We do today in this same tradition.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
I have spoken a little bit about Gough Whitlam, and we know it was a very different Australia that he was the leader of.
Mr Ewen Jones: Where's the injustice?
Ms O'NEIL: If you don't mind, I will have a few moments to have my own words on this.
Australia was a very different place under the time of Whitlam. My mother tells me that people put on a hat and gloves before they went into town. God Save the Queen was our national anthem. But one of the features of that time was that families and parents around Australia had to make very cruel choices about which of their children would go on and access higher education that all of those young people deserved. In my mother's family, they had to make that difficult decision. Three daughters and one son: who do you think got the chance to go on and access higher education? So I say today, in this tradition, that we are opposed to the Americanisation of our system. We are opposed to $100,000 degrees. We are opposed to a system where the young people of this country have their access to higher education determined by the size of their parents' wallets rather than the intellect and motivation of those young people.
I want to talk about some of the issues that we see with this system. When we hear those on the other side of the House argue about this system, they are unfortunately very clouded by their vision of Australia—the chums that they went along to private schools with or that they went to university with; the people who many of them represent in their electorates—but I want to tell them a little bit about what happens in my electorate. I want to talk about the suburb of Springvale—one of the suburbs I am very proud to represent. Do you know what the median income is in Springvale per household? It is $49,000. That means half of the people who live in the electorate of Springvale live in a household where $49,000 is less than their entire family income. I think it is important that we put this into context: when we talk about $140,000 or $100,000 for degrees—that we will see, that we know we will see because Universities Australia have told us this—we are talking about more than double the entire annual household income for one of these families. When I talk to these families about how this will affect their decision to educate their children, they tell me that they would be incredibly uncomfortable with taking on anything like that level of debt, and I think if your household income was $49,000 a year you probably would not feel too excited about taking out a $100,000 loan either.
I really want to spend some time addressing the argument that has been made that because there will be scholarships provided that somehow this will resolve the equity argument. Firstly, I want to point out how profoundly unfair that is. Why should we take a handful of the brightest young people from lower socioeconomic families and decide that they are allowed to go to university while a much broader range of students from more wealthy families will get the opportunity to go to university. In Australia that is simply not how we do things. Secondly, I want to point out that when we look at trying to deal with the equity problem by looking at the experience of scholarships overseas, we see that it just simply does not work. We know that those on the other side are so in love with the American-style system—
An honourable member interjecting —
Ms O'NEIL: I will take a lead from there. When we look at a university like Harvard, they have enormous problems getting equity in their undergraduate population. So what do they do? They say to every American family, 'If your family earns less than $40,000 you can come to Harvard 100 per cent for free'—they will pay your fees, they will pay your board, they will pay for your food, they will pay for everything. Of their 1,650 freshman students that came in last year, do you know how many came in under that program? Fifteen. The reason for that is because this is about setting expectations. We want the message to go out to every young person in this country that you are entitled to a fair go, and like every Labor Party caucus before us, we will fight to the end on this issue.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (16:18): The people opposite, they have no shame. I would not think the universities of this great country are normally on the side of the blue team, I would not think so, but right now every university in this country, bar one, is supporting this legislation, with some amendments. That is a fact.
What universities want is to see an end to the uncertainty of funding, and let me give you an example of what happened. When this lot over here, the Labor Party, took the reins of power in 2007, they undertook to make these great promises to the higher education sector to win great popularity and support. And what happened in that six years? That lot over there, the so-called supporters today of higher education, cut $6.6 billion out of higher education funding. They wanted to fund Gonski; where did they find the first $1.2 billion? Higher education. Let us have a look here. Removal of the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount—I would have thought that would have been a huge help to lower socioeconomic people in this country—for a saving of $276 million, or what they would call a cut. Would you believe it? A cut from the Labor Party! Converting students' start-up scholarships—again, these are for people who need that little bit of help. They converted them into what? Student loans—$1.182 billion; $6.6 billion of cuts from that lot over there. They are hypocrites to the nth degree because those people over there claim that they are the friends of higher education. They are not. The universities of Australia are crying out for certainty. They want to get rid of the uncertainty and the ongoing argy-bargy of funding because they want to get on with educating our young people.
Let us get this right; it is very simple: higher education is the third biggest exporter in this country—$15 billion. Have a guess how much it was when this lot over here, the Labor Party, took power in 2007. It was $19 billion. We have already lost $4 billion because they took their eyes off the ball. All I can say is that the future of higher education under Labor in this country is totally unsustainable. We are already falling behind other competitive areas in the world, behind Asia. We are going to continue to see, if we do not make reforms, fewer and fewer people coming to this country to study. Do you know what that means over there, Labor? It means that the cross-subsidies that are going into the education of our children today will be lost and education fees will go through the roof—but that is under your vision, not ours.
The competition from Asia now is intense. We need to get back in the game and that is what the universities of Australia want; that is what they are asking for. And as I said when I started this speech, they are not normally on our team but on this occasion they are. They are rock-solid behind the education reform of the minister of this government, and that is what they are looking for. They are seeing you as nothing but cheap shooters; you are all about cheap shots, scaring the hell out of everybody across Australia with this $100,000 fee.
I know a little bit about American education, I have got family that are in it, and in this country grandparents do not have to give up their superannuation and their savings to help put their grandkids through university. Parents do not have to take mortgages against their homes to put their kids through university. That is the great thing about this country: no-one will have to come up with one cent of cash. It does not matter how rich or how poor you are, not one cent to enter the best universities in this country. And it is an absolutely dishonest campaign by that party over there, the Labor Party, who have lost their way; they have no vision. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should start telling the truth, and that should start with the Leader of the Opposition—I am not sure the last time I heard a straight sentence come out of his mouth.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Order! The discussion is concluded.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:22): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Defence Annual Report 2012-13. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms GAMBARO: On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have pleasure in presenting the committee's first report for the 44th Parliament, entitled Review of the Defence Annual Report 2012-13.
The review of the defence annual report is an important oversight activity. It provides an opportunity for the committee to inquire into a broad range of defence issues as part of the process of accountability of government agencies to parliament. The Defence Subcommittee considers this to be a key part of its role.
The subcommittee resolved to focus on five main areas for its review:
Asset management and capital investment programs;
Defence Cooperation Program;
Naval combat capabilities;
Air combat capability; and
Defence Materiel Organisation and Capability Development Group.
The subcommittee heard from Defence officials at the public hearing held on 6 June. It also received evidence from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and two small- to medium-sized enterprises, QinetiQ and Nova Systems.
As part of its review, the subcommittee considered Defence estate issues, including the cost pressures associated with the maintenance of heritage listed buildings. The committee recommends government should review the process by which Defence properties are placed on the Commonwealth Heritage List and how their maintenance is funded.
The subcommittee also considered the efficacy of Defence contracts to ensure that SMEs are paid in a timely manner by prime contractors. Based on evidence received, the committee recommends that the government should review its contract templates and procurement processes.
The subcommittee considered the scope of the Defence Cooperation Program and options for a whole-of-government approach to supporting regional partners. Noting the complexities of achieving a structured and coordinated regional security effect, the committee commends Defence on the development of a future framework in the Pacific. However, Australia needs to ensure that it is achieving value for money with the Defence Cooperation Program, and specifically the Pacific Patrol Boat Program.
During the course of the review it became apparent that, despite some positive developments, Defence's approach to capability management remains fragmented. There does not appear to be a single continuous system which Defence can use to conduct capability assurance from definition, through acquisition and service life, to disposal.
The committee believes that the introduction of such a system, managed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, would increase transparency and enhance oversight by the government and the parliament of capability management by Defence.
That being said, it was pleasing to see some positive outcomes arising from the SEA 1000 Industry Integrated Project Team—a working group made up of Defence and industry experts who are developing the design brief for the new submarines and examining potential industries able to execute such a project. The committee encourages the further development of this initiative along with transparent communication of the team's view to government.
The committee believes that expertise within the private sector could be leveraged for all stages of the capability development life cycle. Rather than contracting for specific packets of work, greater benefit could be gained by entering into teaming arrangements as part of a whole-of-life approach to identifying and managing risk.
The committee was also concerned by the lack of detail in the Defence annual report on the progress of implementation of all the Coles review recommendations relating to the Collins class submarines. This is something that needs to be expanded upon in future Defence annual reports.
Other recommendations made by the committee include the use of independent subject matter experts in a system of gate reviews as part of the seaworthiness system, and enhanced reporting on Defence's cybersecurity capability.
It is disappointing to note that the committee is still awaiting a response from Defence to the recommendations of its previous Defence annual report review, which was tabled in June last year. The committee hopes to receive a response to its previous review shortly.
I also would like to commend the chair of the Defence Subcommittee, Senator David Fawcett, and Deputy Chair, Deb O'Neill, and other members for their great diligence and great efforts in producing this report. My special thanks go to the committee secretariat. I would like to thank Jerome Brown and all of the work that the secretariat have done, and their professionalism.
The committee acknowledges the dedication and the commitment of the service men and women of the Australian Defence Force and commends them on the outstanding service that they have provided to the nation. The committee recognises that the members of the ADF are supported by an enduring network of families, friends and loved ones and to these people we owe our thanks.
Finally, the committee notes the loss of Lance Corporal Todd Chidgey during 2014. Our deepest condolences and our thoughts are extended to his family and friends.
I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
BILLS
Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GRAY (Brand) (16:29): The opposition will be supporting the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. The bill adjusts entitlements for serving parliamentarians and the bill attends to issues that affect retired parliamentarians. The bill also abolishes the gold pass.
Although the opposition will be supporting this bill through this place and will support the bill when it gets to the Senate, there are issues attached to this bill and the bill should be improved. It should be improved for its content, its purpose and its practical operability. That is why I have referred it to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. I hope that in that committee process we can improve the poor structure and purpose of the bill and that can be attended to in an effective and efficient manner.
The government's purpose here is good. Abolishing the gold pass is a good thing to do. We had closed the gold pass in 2012. We believed that that was both a safe course of action and a prudent course of action. The government's choice to abolish the gold pass is an action that is supported by the opposition and an action that is contained in this bill.
I am concerned that other changes in the bill have not been driven by or even properly considered by the Remuneration Tribunal. They should have been. Any matter affecting the entitlements and remuneration—certainly the salary and conditions—of MPs should only ever get into this place after it has been thoroughly considered by the Remuneration Tribunal and recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. Not to have the Remuneration Tribunal fully considering and recommending is a weakness. I accept that the Remuneration Tribunal has been consulted in part on these measures, but these measures do not arise organically out of the consideration by the Remuneration Tribunal.
The reason the Remuneration Tribunal is structured as it is is to simply separate decisions about MPs' entitlements and conditions from us the parliamentarians. We carefully select the Remuneration Tribunal members. Some have been members for in excess of a decade. They have in mind why decisions were made in 2008 and why they were made in 2012 and how they might relate to decisions that get made in 2014. That body of wisdom and that consideration has not been brought to bear on this bill. Politicians should not be writing their own entitlement arrangements even though on this occasion what this bill does is abolish a significant entitlement and create new entitlements in other areas.
Let us go through it in some detail. It cuts travel for dependent children. I can see no good purpose, at a time when our work and lifestyle in this place are hard enough on families, to make that change for the travel of dependent children, albeit for children aged over 18 and under 25. They are still in the category of dependent children. No parliament has ever done that.
It cuts the entitlement to travel for former prime ministers. We have never in this chamber cut an entitlement for a former Prime Minister. I was asked to do it once by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and I refused to do it. We should refuse to do it this time too. Our former prime ministers do immense good work. Even when that immense good work is in a partisan way and even when that immense good work is to support their political parties, they are still functioning in our community as former prime ministers.
I can tell you quite honestly that John Howard coming down to campaign in my electorate would be a good thing for visibility in the city of Rockingham, Kwinana or Mandurah, as it was when Bob Hawke came to Kwinana, Rockingham and Mandurah. These are good things for former prime ministers to be doing. But more important than that our former prime ministers travel our country bringing exposure to issues and communities in ways that only add to the service that they have already committed to in this place. I would not cut one single entitlement of a former Prime Minister.
The bill imposes cost-recovery onto ministers for errors made by others. The ministers may not even know of, or even reasonably be expected to know about, these errors that may have occurred by the minister's staff. The bill creates a cost-recovery process that the minister may not understand that comes from a future travel entitlement payment to that minister. This is not transparency. This is not effective governance.
No-one is standing in this place arguing in support of loosening our system, but it has to be practical and it has to be workable. The measures in this bill take it beyond the workability stage. It is not wise legislation and I would replace it if I were the minister at no additional cost to the taxpayer. I would seek advice and publish the advice from the Remuneration Tribunal. There are unwise measures in this bill and they can be fixed at no additional cost to the taxpayer and they will produce, I am convinced, better outcomes, better transparency, better management systems and hold not just members and senators accountable but also those people in the Department of Finance who sign off on travel and travel allowances for members. It was my experience as a former minister that there were occasions when my then department got things wrong. Embarrassment was created for members of parliament when the department got things wrong. I used to ask the department to apologise directly to the members and senators who had been the victims of the errors made by the department. I think that is an important point of accountability too.
I understand some retired members will challenge this legislation in the High Court. I disassociate myself from that. I am enthusiastic to support the parts of this bill that abolish the gold pass and previous legislation under my time as minister that may also be challenged in the High Court. Labor supports this bill but thinks it can be improved. It will not be improved in the High Court. In government I worked with the opposition minor parties and even the crossbenchers to introduce measures that were proposed, always proposed, by the Remuneration Tribunal. They addressed areas of salaries. They addressed areas of entitlement use. They addressed areas of accountability, and they were always agreed on the basis of the independence of the Remuneration Tribunal and, dare I say it, the integrity that was brought to the table by a genuinely bipartisan approach to resolving these issues. I congratulate the now Speaker of this place on the terrific role that she played when shadow minister.
In 2012, one measure that we changed was to remove the non-gold passed, post-service travel from 25 return trips, which is what it was from 2004—25 return trips at business class to anywhere in Australia, and that applied for five years. We replaced it with five trips to Canberra in the six months after leaving parliament. That may have been an extreme cut, but I do not think any of us could genuinely justify 25 return trips at the conclusion of parliamentary service. Those five fares in six months have changed in this bill to 10 trips per year over six years. That seems excessive when the Remuneration Tribunal had been asked to consider cost-less measures—measures that did not cost the taxpayer anything, such as making the resettlement payment a redundancy payment, a measure that would not have cost the taxpayer.
Currently, when a member or senator ceases their term of duty and are thrown out by the people—they lose an election—there is a resettlement allowance paid if you have served more than one term in the parliament, or two terms or three. Because that is paid as salary it is taxed as salary. It should be a redundancy payment. It is a cost-less measure that could be attended to that is about fairness and is about the proper equal treatment of parliamentarians as with other classes of employees, albeit employed by the parliament. I regret that I did not get an opportunity to attend to that measure; I simply did not know it existed as a problem until after the last election.
I have had raised with me since the last election the possibility of self-managed superannuation funds also being available to receive parliamentary superannuation payments. It never occurred to me that that was not the case. That is a cost-less measure. I would have done that in a blink of an eye if I had been asked. There are measures that can be done that support, enhance and assist parliamentarians that literally do not cost a cent.
Other measures that are needed could be funded through winding back the 60 post-service travel trips, and they include occupational health and safety sickness benefit insurance. It is missing for MPs and senators. An MP or a senator who is injured at work is entirely at risk for that cost themselves. I know that because I enjoyed the hospitality of the Western Australian hospital system as a consequence of a cardiac event that I sustained in the north of Western Australia in 2011 on the duty of a parliamentarian.
It should be the case that from the point of election to the point of not being a parliamentarian, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, we in this place are covered for simple occupational health and safety benefit insurance. It is a cheap thing to do, especially for a class of people such as parliamentarians and senators whereas individually the cost of carrying that insurance is quite high—on occasions for an individual as high as $6,000. We have seen former MPs and senators leave their service having been harmed. Our resettlement provisions are not adequate and should be considered by the Remuneration Tribunal in light of modern employment practices. Any changes should be funded by reconsideration of the 10 trips per year as allocated in my earlier reference.
The measures in this bill do not build upon the processes that had been created throughout what we used to call the Minchin protocol or the high-level Department of Finance processes for considering when an MP or a senator has got something wrong or has deliberately made a mistake. The process right now is under the Minchin protocol—so called because former Special Minister of State, Nick Minchin, in the late 1990s designed it. Should any of us—any of the 226 members or senators—have even a reference made in a newspaper or on a website about potential entitlement abuse, the Department of Finance looks at it. They consider it, they look at it and they make a decision as to whether or not they need to carry out a further level of investigation. It is a good system. The member is not informed until such time as the member or senator needs to be informed. The minister is not informed. It is a good process. It protects the integrity of our system and it allows all of us to know that, should a question be raised about the behaviour of any of us, there is a very good system that has survived 15 years, designed by former minister Nick Minchin in order to protect not only the taxpayer but also the integrity of parliamentarians.
The measures in this bill, unless amended, will cause ministers great concern, and that is not productive. It is not useful, and in my view it is not probity. The opposition will support the government to pass this bill. When governments wish to attend to matters such as the gold pass in this way, they deserve to have the complete support of our parliament and they will have that. We would prefer to improve the bill. As I have said, at the first opportunity I will support a full reconsideration of the measures funded by the unnecessary expenses created by this bill and on the advice of recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal will present an amending bill.
We believe better processes exist to deal with incorrect payments. I am not here referring to the 25 per cent surcharge for any incorrect claims; that is fine. I am dealing here with the processes for investigating and then allocating that decision. Transparency should also include the Department of Finance documenting the advice it gives to MPs and senators. It should provide advice and it should keep that advice on file for consistent advice's purpose. Consistent advice is important to parliamentarians. For instance, the bill requires that all travel post-service be for public benefit. It sounds good, but I do not think it would include travel to attend Gough Whitlam's funeral—and I think it should. And I am not even prepared to advise any of my friends who are former parliamentarians to seek advice from the department on whether or not they could utilise their travel to attend the funeral of the former Prime Minister; it is just too risky, and this bill makes it unnecessarily risky.
Because we cannot get the advice that helps parliamentarians and senators do their job well, sometimes there are things that we just cannot do. The bill cuts the ability of former Prime Ministers to function. We have never thought this dignified or useful. We should not be cutting the ability or capability of our former Prime Minister's, even to campaign. I know that if any us or if any journalists contact a former Prime Minister, any of our former Prime Minister's would say: take it away. They are decent people. They deserve to be protected by us. They do not deserve to be cut by us.
I would like to see our former Prime Ministers travel. I would like to see Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, John Howard, Paul Keating, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd all active and travelling our country. Let's not cut the ability of our former MPs to function in our community or in our political community. Let's make their travel and their ability to function unlimited, as annoying as that would be to all of us on occasions. But enjoyable it would be to the fabric of our political community and our broader community to see these men and women continuing to do their work in our community and for our community. The bill introduces even more bureaucracy, paperwork and cost. It does nothing to make the work of MPs or ministers or officers of the parliament more effective.
In conclusion, I want to work with the government to fix this bill. By all means pass it if you need to but let's do better than that. Let's improve its effect upon MPs and senators, fix some of the problems and save some money. Get the gold pass abolished and do some good, and do it on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal not on the thoughts and the whims that have come to us in the form of this bill. When this bill is put to a vote, the opposition will support it and support it to a person. I tell the government: we can do better, we should do better and we are prepared to do better. Through the Senate committee, I hope that is one very good way that we can make this bill do better.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (16:47): I rise today to support the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which will reduce the life gold pass travel entitlement before abolishing the scheme for all other than former Prime Ministers. The bill will also strengthen the rules governing parliamentarians' expenses.
The issue of parliamentary salaries, allowances and entitlements generates much interest and comment in the community and, of course, much interest and comment around this building. In my own electorate of Hume, I often receive correspondence, calls and personal approaches from constituents on this issue. Many believe that current parliamentary entitlements are out of step with what the community thinks is reasonable. I accept that some of this commentary and feedback is driven by a level of cynicism in the community in relation to politicians and political life. But for me, as the federal member for Hume, I never forget that it is the taxpayers of Australia that pay my salary. I know that the majority of my constituents work hard each day to meet their commitments and to pay their bills at the end of every week and every month. As their local representative, I know they want me to work hard and act with integrity to ensure that their lives and burdens get easier, not harder. I know that most reasonable constituents do not begrudge my salary if they believe I am quite literally busting a gut for them. And that is what I seek to do every day.
I am delighted to report that one year into this job, I know what most representatives in this House do for their constituents every day. Some of the very best work in this place goes completely unnoticed but that is the nature of public service. I think that some of the cynicism about politicians stems from the lack of transparency about how we spend our time and that is something which I seek to address with, amongst other things, very regular Facebook posts. But it is crucially important that the remuneration and benefits we receive are in line with community expectations and are in line with changing employment patterns outside of this parliament.
We know that many former parliamentarians have a very successful career beyond their time in this place, often facilitated by the experience and networks they developed while here. Years ago, one career was enough. But these days many of us have a series of careers, and that is a good thing. This legislation is simply one of a series of reforms in this area over the last 10 years intended to bring parliamentary remuneration and entitlements more into line with changing community expectations and changing employment arrangements.
In relation to superannuation, a very common bone of contention for some of my constituents, changes have previously been made to the parliamentary contributory superannuation scheme. This was a defined benefit scheme which provided for rates of retiring allowance varying from 50 per cent of parliamentary allowance after eight years' service up to 75 per cent parliamentary allowance after a service of 18 years or more. The changes closed the scheme to new members from 2004 and moved parliamentarians to an accumulation scheme under the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004. I believe this is in line with most of my constituency in their own employment agreements and so it was a good reform.
Senators and members can have their superannuation paid to a complying superannuation fund or to a retirement savings account of their choice, subject to the same rules that apply to employees in the private sector and public service, and it has the same preservation age. It is true that the contribution from the Commonwealth at 15.4 per cent of salary, is, I acknowledge, more generous than most employer schemes.
In relation to MPs' entitlements, in 2009 the Australian National Audit Office highlighted the shortcomings in the management of these entitlements. The ANAO said that it was difficult to understand and manage for both the parliamentarians and the Department of Finance, which administers the entitlements.
The audit supported a review of the entitlements framework and greater transparency in the system. Before this, entitlements had not been comprehensively reviewed since 1971. In December 2009 in response to the ANAO report, the government set up a committee to review parliamentary entitlements, chaired by a former senior public servant, Barbara Belcher. The report from this review, the Belcher review, drew a distinction between remuneration and tools of trade, or entitlements, such as office facilities and transport. It recommended that salary be dealt with by the Remuneration Tribunal, while entitlements would be dealt with by a single piece of legislation. The government accepted the recommendations of the Belcher review, and from August 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal was given the power to determine parliamentary base salary and is required to publish reasons for its decision on parliamentary remuneration. Under legislation the parliament does not have the power to disallow parliamentary remuneration determinations made by the tribunal. In other words, our remuneration is no longer in our hands.
Further in December 2011 the Remuneration Tribunal made a number of recommendations, including: the parliamentary base salary be set at $185,000; the prospective closure of the Life Gold Pass Scheme; termination of the overseas study travel entitlement; greatly limited severance travel entitlement; severance of the link between pensions under the old superannuation scheme and current parliamentarians' salaries. These recommendations were accepted and legislation to effect these changes came into effect March 2012.
Since coming to office, this government has been exploring opportunities to make sensible changes to the parliamentary entitlements framework, including those of former parliamentarians, to ensure that we deliver value for money, openness and transparency. This is always an extremely tricky area. I fully acknowledge that we are impacting many who have made an enormous contribution to this country over a long period of time. Former parliamentarians from all sides of politics deserve our greatest respect. And, as a parliamentarian myself, I now understand the scale of the commitment so many of these people make to our country.
But travel entitlements beyond the life of a job are unusual in this day and age. Community standards and expectations are changing dramatically, and it is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to pay for something that they cannot expect from their own employment relationships. In addition, it is increasingly true that parliamentarians can expect a career, often a lucrative career, beyond their time in this place.
Some of my constituents argue that former parliamentarians should be constrained in some way, particularly with respect to lobbying. However, I will always defend the right of former parliamentarians to remain involved in the political process. They have a wisdom and experience that makes them extraordinarily valuable to society for many years beyond their time here.
The changes announced in November 2013 and in the 2014-15 budget and encompassed in this legislation reflect community standards, ensuring that taxpayers' money is well spent. This bill amends the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 and changes the title to the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Act 2002 to better reflect the intent of the legislation. It will reduce, remove and reform travel entitlements for holders of the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement for both current and former senators and members.
Specifically, the bill: imposes time limits on using the entitlements; and imposes limits on access to the entitlements, including closing it to people who have not met the qualifying periods before 14 May this year, and mandating that no-one can access benefits under the scheme, except for a former PM, if they retire from 1 January 2020 onwards. The bill reduces the number of trips per financial year under the entitlement for the time it is still in operation. The bill removes the ability of spouses and partners to access the entitlement, other than retired former PMs, and removes the entitlement to travel by a spouse or partner of the PM or a sitting former PM.
Lastly, and importantly, the bill requires that all parliamentary retirement travel, including travel by the spouse or de facto partner of a retired former prime minister, be for the public benefit. That is an extremely important aspect of this; it should always be for the public benefit. That means that in practice it does not include travel for a commercial or private purpose.
This current legislation will also amend the parliamentary entitlements framework to: impose a 25 per cent penalty on travel claims that require subsequent adjustment more than 28 days after being first submitted; limit the entitlement provided to the dependent children of senior officeholders to those who are less than 18 years of age. Just to clarify that: a senior officeholder is a minister, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House or Leader of the Opposition.
At this point I thought it might be useful to complete a scorecard in relation to the main bugbears of community members and many of my constituents, in relation to MPs' entitlements once this legislation is in place. The first and most common complaint is that MPs and senators pensions are too generous. On this point I think the changes made to MPs' superannuation, moving to an accumulation plan or nominated superannuation fund, addresses this key concern. I do acknowledge that there are MPs and senators who entered politics 25 or 30 years ago who have accrued entitlements under previous arrangements, and that for many in the community this remains a concern. However, I would emphasise that, wherever possible, we should respect a defined benefit scheme established some time ago. Those parliamentarians came into and in many cases left this place with a legitimate expectation that their defined benefit scheme would remain intact.
The next complaint I often get is that politicians should no longer vote themselves a pay rise. Again, the changes made in 2011 move this power to the Remuneration Tribunal, which now determines base salaries and is required to publish reasons for its decisions, as I said earlier.
Lastly, I often hear that politicians should not be entitled to a gold pass for travel. Of course, the purpose of this legislation is to reduce that entitlement and to set up a path to the eventual termination of the scheme. So, clearly, some important changes have been made and we are heading strongly in the right direction.
The other important piece of context here is the budget. The government made a number of difficult decisions in the budget. I have said before in this House that we seek to address two fundamental problems in the budget. The first is the $50 billion deficit in the last financial year, alongside debt expected to reach $667 billion if there is no intervention. But the last government left a far more insidious legacy, of fast rising expenditure—particularly in areas like health and welfare.
This is the most dangerous problem we face, because expenditure rising faster than revenue over an extended period drove the US and Europe into deep and sustained economic crises. The government is working very hard to turn that around, to get spending into line with tax revenue. It is totally inappropriate that we should keep borrowing from our children and grandchildren to fund expenditure today. I fear that those opposite intend to pass the buck to our children and our grandchildren. If not, it must be that they intend to raise taxes; time will tell. My money is on a sharp increase in taxes if Labor ever gets into power in the coming years. But as each day passes, the need for fiscal responsibility becomes even clearer.
For instance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Phil Bowen, recently commented that commodity prices could fall faster than expected, increasing our budgetary challenge. I think that this prospect is now very real, particularly with respect to iron ore prices. His key point, I believe, was not to cry wolf or to inject a flavour of panic. He was identifying the need for prudent budgets which include building a sensible buffer—a sensible buffer—against economic shocks.
There is much in this bill that some current and past parliamentarians do not love, and understandably so. But the process of bringing our remuneration and benefits into line with community standards and expectations is an important one, and one that I strongly endorse. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (17:02): I rise to speak in support of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.
In making what will be a relatively brief contribution today I would like to start by reflecting on one very important point: members of parliament are elected to serve the community. And, in the case of members of the House of Representatives, they are elected to serve their electorates. Members of parliament are duty-bound to serve with integrity, honesty and transparency. The standards which apply to members of parliament are high, and so they should be. Australians deserve no less.
I digress for one moment, noting that the former member for Corangamite was in the House today. It reminded me of the failure of the former member for Corangamite to serve with integrity when he ran a very dishonest campaign in relation to a particular—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): I will ask the member for Corangamite to withdraw that. Those imputations are not acceptable. The standing orders clearly say that you cannot impugn a member or claim that his motives are improper, and that is what you have just done.
Ms HENDERSON: I am not impugning a member. I am reflecting on—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You just said that he ran a dishonest campaign and the statement you made before that was impugning him.
Ms HENDERSON: He is not a member, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. He is a former—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does not matter!
Ms HENDERSON: He is a former member and—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have asked you to withdraw it!
Ms HENDERSON: Unfortunately, the record does stand—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have asked you to withdraw it!
Ms HENDERSON: Well, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will reluctantly withdraw it—
Mr Dreyfus: No! Unreservedly!
Mr Fletcher: Let's have some more bullying from that side!
Ms HENDERSON: because there is no question in relation to the conduct of the former member for Corangamite. It is unfortunate that you have made that ruling, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, but in light of the fact that you have I will withdraw it.
In any event I think that the people of Corangamite understand how important it is to serve with integrity. The Australian community needs to have every confidence that their elected representatives are serving in a way which also delivers value for money and openness. I think that most people in the community understand that most members of parliament work hard. They understand that politics is pretty much a 24/7 business and that the commitment to public service requires a commitment to long hours and the capacity to deal with many issues concurrently.
In the electorate of Corangamite, which I am honoured to represent—a large regional electorate of more than 7½ thousand square kilometres and consisting of some 166 different communities—there is much work to be done to build a strong and prosperous economy and a safer and more secure Australia. Of course I work to be a strong local voice for the people of Corangamite.
Australians understand that members of parliament, when doing their job, have legitimate business expenses. But Australians have a right to expect that the parliamentary entitlements system is robust and transparent, and reflects community standards. This bill will make changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements Framework as announced by the government on 9 November 2013. It will also reduce parliamentarians' retirement travel entitlements as announced by the government in the 2014-15 budget.
The bill will amend the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 in order to impose a 25 per cent penalty loading on travel claims that requires subsequent adjustment more than 28 days after being first submitted, including a legal right of recovery of the 25 per cent penalty loading. It will also limit the travel entitlement provided to the dependent children of senior officeholders to those who are less than 18 years of age.
This bill also amends the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 in order to: reduce the travel entitlements for holders of the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement for both current and former senators and members; remove spouse travel, except for retired former prime ministers; and require all parliamentary retirement travel to be for the public benefit. As the member for Hume has said in his contribution today, that is a very important component of the changes in the bill. The bill also establishes a statutory basis for recovering overpayments to address the risk that certain payments made in the administration of entitlements may constitute a breach of section 83 of the Constitution.
Australians understand that parliamentarians have an important job to do and that that costs money. I certainly concur with the member for Hume in emphasising that parliamentarians on all sides of politics make a very important contribution. But let us be blunt, Australians do not like any suggestion that politicians have their snout in the trough. Our government's decision to apply a 25 per cent penalty loading on travel claims that require substantial adjustment sends a very clear message that any mistakes, oversights or, unfortunately, abuses, as has been alleged in the past, by members of parliament with respect to travel claims will not be tolerated. There will be a penalty and it is one that our government takes seriously.
Our government's decision to remove, cease, limit and reduce travel entitlements once an MP retires also demonstrates a commitment to adapt to changing community standards. As the member for Brand said today in his contribution, abolishing the life gold pass over time is a good thing to do. Special entitlements, of course, have been preserved for former prime ministers, and that is appropriate. The member for Brand has been critical of the cut in the entitlements of former prime ministers, but I wish to remind the House that former prime ministers will continue to be entitled to 30 trips per year for life and 20 trips per year for the former Prime Minister's spouse or de facto partner.
The Special Minister for State has explained each of these measures in detail in the second reading speech to the bill. I do not propose to go into much more detail than has already been done in this debate. I simply say, in my view, the people of Corangamite and Australians more broadly will appreciate the efforts of this government to tighten up the access to various entitlements, to add an extra layer of accountability and transparency, and to send a very strong message that being an elected representative comes with appropriate limitations on the cost to the taxpayer.
In getting Australia back on track and in getting our budget back on track, each of us has to make a contribution. That includes, of course, members and senators of the Australian parliament. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (17:10): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. This bill gives effect to the changes announced by the government on 9 November 2013 that require amendments to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 and to the changes announced in the 2014-15 budget that require amendments to the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002.
Firstly, in relation to the changes announced in November 2013: the bill limits the domestic travel entitlement of dependent children of senior officers from those under 25 to those under 18 years of age. The bill establishes a 25 per cent penalty loading on any adjustment of a parliamentarian's claim for prescribed travel benefits, other than where the adjustment is made within 28 days of the claim or was the result of an administrative error by the Department of Finance.
In addition, the bill establishes a mechanism to minimise the risk that payments made in the course of administering the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 or the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 breach section 83 of the Constitution. This mechanism is comparable to mechanisms included in other acts, such as the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. As part of this mechanism, the bill establishes a statutory right for the recovery of payments that are beyond entitlement from parliamentarians or former parliamentarians. The bill also establishes a statutory right for the recovery of the 25 per cent penalty loading.
Secondly, the bill amends the title of the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 to the Parliamentary Retirement Travel Act 2002 to better reflect the entitlement, following the amendments contained in this bill. The bill removes eligibility from parliamentarians who did not meet the qualifying period for parliamentary retirement travel on or before 13 May 2014, other than for the spouse or de facto partner, or surviving spouse or de facto partner of a retired former Prime Minister.
The bill also removes eligibility for parliamentary retirement travel from spouses and de facto partners of retired parliamentarians, as well as sitting senators and members, who have met the qualifying period for parliamentary retirement travel. The bill requires that parliamentarians, other than former prime ministers, who met the qualifying period for parliamentary retirement travel on or before 13 May 2014 retire before 1 January 2020 in order to access the entitlement. The bill requires that all parliamentary retirement travel, including travel by the spouse or de facto partner of a retired former Prime Minister, be for the public benefit.
The bill ceases parliamentary retirement travel for former ministers, other than former prime ministers, presiding officers and leaders of the opposition—that is, senior officeholders—who left the parliament on or before 13 May 2008. The bill limits the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement of senior officeholders who left the parliament after 13 May 2008 to 10 return domestic trips per year from their retirement date to whichever is the lesser of six years or the second end of a parliament that occurs after their retirement.
The bill ceases parliamentary retirement travel for former parliamentarians, other than senior officeholders, who left the parliament on or before 13 May 2011. The bill reduces the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement of former parliamentarians, other than senior officeholders, who left the parliament after 13 May 2011 to five return domestic trips per year for three years from their retirement or the next end of a parliament that occurs after their retirement, whichever is the lesser. The bill removes the current restriction on a prime minister who enters or re-enters parliament on or after 6 March 2012 becoming eligible for parliamentary retirement travel. The bill reduces the parliamentary retirement travel entitlement of a retired former prime minister to 30 return domestic trips per year. The bill also reduces the entitlement of a spouse or de facto partner of a retired former prime minister who qualified for parliamentary retirement to 20 return domestic trips per year.
These are sensible reforms to improve accountability in the spending of taxpayers' money, which will strengthen the parliamentary entitlements system. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (17:16): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) 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) (17:16): Freedom of information laws are essential to Australia's democracy because they give the Australian public and media access to information about what the government elected by the Australian people is doing in their name. Labor has long championed freedom of information laws. The establishment of a Commonwealth FOI Act became part of Labor's policy platform in 1972. With characteristic farsightedness, Gough Whitlam first called for an FOI law in a speech as opposition leader. Though these laws were not passed for another decade, it is yet another example of the reforming vision that characterised Gough Whitlam's political work and which reinforces his place in history as one of the great leaders of this nation.
Since FOI laws were first introduced in state jurisdictions in the 1970s, Labor has worked to strengthen these laws to improve transparency in government and to champion the public's right to know. Before the 2007 election, the federal Labor Party committed to substantially overhaul the FOI Act as part of its policy platform to restore trust and integrity in government after the secrecy and abuses of public trust that characterised the later Howard years. Labor's commitments were set out in the policy document titled Government information: restoring trust and integrity. As that document made clear, the object of the overhaul was to restore trust and integrity in the use of Australian government information and to promote openness in government.
Unlike the present government, which specialises in nasty surprises and broken promises, Labor fulfilled its election commitment to restore the public's right to know. Labor engaged in extensive consultations on the proposed changes to our FOI laws in 2008 and 2009, including through a parliamentary inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The reforms were passed into law by parliament in three separate pieces of legislation in 2009 and 2010. The first of the three acts was the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009 which, among other reforms, repealed the power to issue conclusive certificates for exemption claims under the act; abolishing conclusive certificates gave jurisdiction to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to undertake a full merits review of any exemption claim brought before the AAT. The other two acts passed in 2010 were the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010. Again, in a good piece of legislative work, they were first released as exposure draft bills, then introduced to parliament before passing and coming into effect on 1 November 2010.
A key feature of these improved laws was the establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner as part of the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010. This office was created to provide independent oversight of the FOI regime and to champion freedom of information across government. This reform was applauded by the public, legal experts and the media. Taken as a whole, the reforms introduced by the three acts I have mentioned were the most substantial reform to Australia's freedom of information scheme since it was established in 1982.
Speaking on Labor's reforms to FOI law in the other place on 13 May 2010, Special Minister of State, Senator Ludwig, noted that:
The passage of the FOI Act was a milestone for Australia. The Rudd government continues to recognise that we are responsible and accountable to the people we serve. For this reason, when we were in opposition we committed to overhauling the FOI Act and we have delivered on this promise. This legislation expressly recognises that giving the Australian community access to government-held information strengthens Australia's representative democracy, recognises the role that this object serves to increase public participation in government processes and increases accountability in the government's activities.
The Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 established as a statutory body the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and introduced the statutory positions of Australian Information Commissioner and Freedom of Information Commissioner. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has a comprehensive range of powers and functions which are intended to provide independent oversight of privacy and FOI. The OAIC also develops information policy and management across Australian government agencies.
The inaugural Australian Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan AO, was appointed on 1 November 2010. The commissioner has been ably supported by two statutory officers: the Privacy Commissioner and the Freedom of Information Commissioner. Mr Timothy Pilgrim was appointed Privacy Commissioner for five years from 19 July 2010 and Dr James Popple was appointed FOI Commissioner for five years from 1 November 2010. I take this opportunity to commend Professor McMillan, Mr Pilgrim and Dr Popple for the excellent service that they have provided to the Commonwealth in their respective roles up to this time.
Unsurprisingly, I regret to say, given its liking for secrecy the Abbott government is now seeking to abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and to introduce other measures to close the door on open government in our nation—and it is doing so without any mandate from the public that elected it. This is a government that wants to hide what it is doing from the Australian public and, when you look at what we do know about what the Abbott government is doing, you can see why they would want to be hiding. This government has been seeking to work in secrecy and to avoid its obligations under the existing FOI Act since it came to office.
The changes in this bill, gutting the public's access to information about what this government is doing, were first announced on budget night. There was no prior consultation—and there has been none since. Notably in introducing these reforms the Abbott government appeared to ignore the comprehensive and independent review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 completed only last year by Dr Alan Hawke AO. In his review Dr Hawke found that the Labor reforms to FOI were 'working well and having … a favourable impact in accordance with their intent' and 'that the reforms have been operating as intended and have been generally well-received.'
In his review delivered to me as Attorney-General in July 2013 Dr Hawke made a range of practical, helpful and thoughtful recommendations for the improvement of the Commonwealth's FOI scheme. I regret to inform the House that this government has entirely ignored Dr Hawke's recommendations. There is not even a reference to the review conducted by Dr Hawke—and reported on in July last year—in the second reading speech introducing this legislation to the House.
It is worth noting that in advocating for the measures in this bill in a media release dated 13 May 2014—budget night—Senator Brandis, as Attorney-General, argued:
Simplifying and streamlining FOI review processes by transferring these functions from the OAIC to the AAT will improve administrative efficiencies and reduce the burden on FOI applicants.
This is patent nonsense—or, as Professor Richard Mulgan of the Australian National University described the Attorney-General's statement, 'deceitful sophistry'.
The truth is that this bill would abolish the opportunity that members of the public currently have to request the independent Information Commissioner to review a refusal by the government to provide documents under FOI. This right is currently exercisable at no cost to the applicant, but by abolishing the independent Information Commissioner the Abbott government will force anyone wanting an independent review of a government decision to refuse to provide documents under FOI to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the filing fee alone is over $800. Only the Abbott government could argue that introducing this new regime of heavy fees to replace free, independent oversight will 'reduce the burden on FOI applicants'.
This bill is clearly part of the Abbott government's plan to avoid scrutiny by the public that elected it. This bill about weakening freedom of information in Australia comes from a government desperate to hide what it is doing from the Australian people. This is a bill which should be opposed.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (17:28): I join with my Labor colleagues in opposing the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014. As noted, this bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and repeals the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010, as well as making consequential changes to other legislation, for the purposes of implementing the Abbott government's 2014-15 budget measure 'Smaller Government—Privacy and Freedom of Information functions—new arrangements'. The bill will repeal a number of incredibly sensible amendments that were introduced by the Rudd government in 2009 and 2010 to improve transparency across government by strengthening the freedom of information regime and establishing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, or the OAIC.
Specifically, the bill seeks to abolish the OAIC and the positions of Australian Information Commissioner and Freedom of Information Commissioner; provide for an Australian Privacy Commissioner as an independent statutory office holder within the Australian Human Rights Commission, AHRC; provide that external merits review of FOI decisions will only be available at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; provide for the Attorney-General to be responsible for FOI guidelines, collection of FOI statistics and the annual report on the operation of the FOI Act in place of the Information Commissioner; and, finally, provide for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be solely responsible for investigating complaints about FOI administration.
This is a bill from a government that continues to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people. The measures in this bill are very much in keeping with this government's preferred modus operandi of silence and secrecy. This is a government that says one thing before the election and does the exact opposite after being elected, a government that announces and acts without consultation and then draws up the veil of secrecy to hide behind—when it suits them, that is. It is a government determined to block the public from knowing what they are doing and how their actions will affect those to be impacted.
The government's first budget was so cruel that it is little wonder that members opposite tried hard to bury as much of the detail as possible. A glaring example was, of course, the failure to publish a Women's Budget Statement for the first time since 1984. Rather than deal with the impact their budget would have on women up-front, they tried to bury the detail in volumes of budget papers. The Women's Budget Statement was introduced 30 years ago has an important equity measure to single out initiatives that directly target women.
Mr Fletcher: Point of order on relevance. This is a debate about freedom of information and not the Women's Budget Statement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I do not think there is a point of order. We have been free ranging with these issues.
Ms CLAYDON: When questioned on why the government had failed to produce the report, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women said:
There will not be a Women's Budget Statement this year. The Government prepared a small number of budget statements and highlights which focused on key areas of reform which are pivotal to all Australian's, regardless of gender.
But the facts of the budget were very clear. There were so many measures that impacted negatively on women that this government should, at the very least, have produced a dedicated statement outlining the implications for what this would mean. The production of the statement by previous Labor governments was not a PR exercise, as has been claimed by members of the government; it was an important measure of openness, transparency and equity. Indeed, it goes to the point of order just raised by the member opposite, who asked about the relevance. The point being that this is a government that lacks openness and transparency when dealing with the Australian public. That was one example.
Even the Howard government saw the merits of producing the Women's Budget Statement. The reason for hiding the impact that this year's budget had on women was likely because of the harm it was due to cause. As Marie Coleman, Chair of the National Foundation for Australian Women's Social Policy Committee, made clear:
This is a Budget that will hurt practically every woman—whether a single parent, unemployed, in the workforce, studying or a homemaker. Very few will remain unscathed.
When releasing their own financial analysis of how budget measures will affect women, Ms Coleman said that not releasing a statement reduced transparency in federal government reporting and accountability.
We have seen the government try and hide from their own budget papers and the facts that contradict their statements time after time in this House. What next? No budget papers available to the public at all?
Freedom of information and transparency of government is essential to ensure the health of Australia's democracy. It gives the Australian public and media access to information about what the government they elected is doing in their name. It is a very important tool in providing an open and transparent government. At a time when we are looking to extend security powers, it is vital that we find a balance in law that ensures and maintains strong and effective accountability of government. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only be assured through strong and rigorous oversight and scrutiny.
Since FOI laws were first introduced in Australia in the 1970s, Labor has worked to strengthen these laws to improve honesty and transparency in government, and to champion the publics' right to know. In 2010 the federal Labor government established the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to provide independent oversight of the FOI regime and to champion freedom of information right across government. Unsurprisingly, the Abbott government is now seeking to abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. This government has been seeking to hide what it is doing from the Australian public and to avoid its obligations under the existing FOI Act since it came to office.
A classic example of this is being undertaken by the minister responsible for FOI law himself. The Attorney-General claims that processing a simple request to release his diary for his first six months in government would unreasonably interfere with the work of his office and has refused an FOI request to do so. This is despite world leaders, who I would suggest have far more on their plate than our Attorney-General—like the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, US President Barack Obama and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard I might add—all publicly publishing their schedules as a matter of course. The minister responsible for FOI laws should be setting the standard for openness and accountability, not denying reasonable applications and hiding behind poor excuses.
The changes to FOI before us today were first announced on budget night. There was no prior consultation and there has been none since. In advocating for these laws in a media release dated 13 May 2014, it was Senator Brandis who argued:
Simplifying and streamlining FOI … processes by transferring these functions from the OAIC to the AAT will improve administrative efficiencies and reduce the burden on FOI applicants.
In fact, the government is purporting to be improving efficiency and reducing the burden on FOI applicants by actually pricing out most of the would-be applicants.
Peter Timmins, a lawyer and blogger on FOI issues defends the OAIC notwithstanding the backlogs and time delays experienced by applicants, which he says have been due to under-resourcing, noting that that office at least gave people the right to make an application for review without fees. He makes the point that the change to the AAT review will in fact place FOI review back into the realm of very expensive legal representation.
Professor Richard Mulgan of the Australian National University described the Attorney-General's statement as 'deceitful sophistry', as was mentioned by the shadow Attorney-General. The recently released OAIC annual report revealed that the office is in fact improving efficiencies significantly without meddling from the Attorney-General or pricing average citizens out of challenging decisions.
In 2013-2014, the Information Commissioner indicated that many problems of backlog had been resolved and the office had improved response times despite a significantly increased workload. In his media statement releasing the annual report, the Australian Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan AO, said:
The OAIC made excellent progress in resolving freedom of information (FOI) matters, completing 646 Information Commissioner reviews, an increase of 54% from last year. Another success was to reduce the time taken to commence work on new review applications, down from 206 to 40 days.
The OAIC also processed 2,456 extension of time requests and notifications and responded to 1,903 phone and written enquiries about FOI. This dramatic improvement is evidence that in just the first two years of operation the OAIC is making real progress in providing information to the Australian people and helping to ensure open and transparent government.
The simple truth is that this bill would abolish the opportunity that members of the public currently have to request the independent Information Commissioner to review a refusal by the government to provide documents under FOI. This right is currently exercisable at no cost to the applicant; but, by abolishing the independent Information Commissioner, the Abbott government will force anyone wanting an independent review of a government decision to refuse to provide documents under FOI to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where we know the filing fee is over $800. It is a fee that would put lodging an appeal beyond the reach of most citizens. A right to access information should not be determined by the size of your wallet.
Only the Abbott government could argue this new regime of heavy fees to replace an independent oversight which is currently free would allegedly 'reduce the burden on FOI applicants'. This bill is clearly part of the Abbott government's plan to avoid scrutiny by the public that elected it. This bill is about weakening freedom of information in Australia by a government desperate to hide what it is doing.
The Information Commissioner, Professor McMillan, has said:
The OAIC's vision has been an Australia where privacy and information access rights are respected and public sector information is managed in the public interest.
This is a vision that is absolutely worthy of defence. Scrutiny of government is necessary—indeed essential—for a healthy democracy. It should happen independent of government and at arm's length, not in the office of the chief lawmaker. The small savings outlined in executing the measures contained in this bill cannot in any way justify the gutting of an entire FOI system—a new system that has just started hitting its stride in making sure that government is operating in an honest, open and transparent manner. The Australian people deserve no less from their elected representatives.
This bill is a massive overreach on the government's part, and I join with my Labor colleagues in opposing this bill and standing up for an open and transparent government instead.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (17:42): I also rise to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014. It is a bill designed to implement the new arrangements to deliver privacy and freedom of information functions as outlined in the 2014 Abbott government budget. I commend the member for Newcastle for her contribution and the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, for his contribution. I note their particular commitment, both in government—for the member for Isaacs—and in opposition, to open and transparent government.
Sadly, sometimes people who speak loudly when in opposition change their tune when in government. That seems to be what we see at the moment. These measures before the chamber include the repeal of the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 and amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Privacy Act 1988, the Ombudsman Act 1976 and other acts.
To understand the culture of government, oppositions and their approach to open and transparent government we need to go back a little and explain why the Labor opposition will be opposing this legislation. Freedom of information, or the statutory right of access to government documents, is always a good thing in that it encourages transparency and political accountability and discourages any corruption and other forms of wrongdoing. As a member of parliament from Queensland I know how hard it can be to have that sort of transition. I remember the seventies, when the Bjelke-Petersen government had a completely different attitude to transparency, government accountability and even to the separation of powers.
Australia was actually a leader in the Westminster style democracies in introducing FOI laws in the 1970s and 1980s across a variety of jurisdictions. However, over time the reforms that were rolled in have been shown to be inadequate. There was a minimum of cultural change in government, and a presumption in favour of disclosure was not practised across government. Lots of people were receiving documents containing black lines throughout. Governments were hiding things through commercial reasons or administrative reasons or reasons designed to stymie the flow of information rather than make governments accountable to the public.
There has generally been a view that government agencies could exploit all of the restrictions and gaps in FOI laws to make it more difficult for the public to gain access to government information, especially information that might be politically embarrassing to the government or to the agency. That is not a reason to conceal information. I recently had an FOI request made on my military service records. I do not know what that was about: I was not able to find out who had made the application, but I was quite happy for it to be revealed. I have not heard anything more from it, but it made me, in having my conversations with the decision maker and the defence, understand the decisions that are made by departments.
The bill before the chamber that the Abbott government has proposed will do a number of things. It will abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the OAIC, and the positions of Australian Information Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner and Freedom of Information Commissioner. It will provide for an Australian Privacy Commissioner as an independent statutory officeholder within the Australian Human Rights Commission. My understanding is that those arrangements are actually in place as we speak. It will also provide that external merit reviews of FOI decisions will only be available at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The AAT obviously costs money—money that a media organisation or a billionaire miner might have, but perhaps not money that a member of the public might have. The changes will also provide for the Attorney-General to be responsible for FOI guidelines, the collection of FOI statistics and providing an annual report on the operation of the FOI Act rather than the Information Commissioner, who was more at arms-length from the government. The changes will also provide for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to be solely responsible for investigating complaints about FOI administration.
In 2009-10 the Rudd Labor government introduced major FOI changes with the principal intention being to promote a pro-disclosure culture across the Commonwealth government that would then build a stronger foundation for more openness in government. These reforms, although potentially risky for the Labor government, were wide-reaching and they affected all aspects of the FOI laws: access procedures, FOI charges, exemption criteria, FOI objectives, the procedure for review of disputed decisions, and publication of information by agencies and FOI reporting by agencies so that they were actually more accountable for what they were concealing as well as what they were revealing.
A major part of those Labor government FOI reforms was the establishment of that new statutory agency, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. It served an important role. The previously freestanding Office of the Privacy Commissioner was integrated into the new arrangements and two new statutory positions were established: the FOI Commissioner and the Information Commissioner. The OAIC was then given a comprehensive range of powers and functions to provide that independent oversight of privacy and FOI and advance information policy and management across Australian government agencies.
As I said, these commitments were made when we were in opposition and while it took a while—there was a little bit of debate, and perhaps it was not a perfect mechanism—it was rolled out by the Rudd and Gillard governments. The OAIC was welcomed by FOI advocates, including voices in the media. I know there was the odd person who said it was not the completely right structure, but nevertheless I think overall it was accepted by those who support open and transparent government that this significant shift was a good thing.
One of the problems with the new two-tiered system was rolling it out and having public servants process the applications in time. Obviously we did learn from some of the other jurisdictions—the United Kingdom, Canada and several Australian states—and where they had improved the process. There was more to be done; it had only been introduced a relatively short number of years ago really. So the 2010 changes brought this new two-tiered system of external merit reviews of FOI decisions. The first review was conducted by the Information Commissioner and the second was by the AAT. Obviously the advantage of the Information Commissioner review was that it could be undertaken without prior internal review, without legal advice—obviously a good thing because not everyone was able to afford lawyers—and without application fees.
We are talking about the very foundations of our democracy in that the government is responsible to the people. The building we are in was designed upon those principles. There is a line straight through the building—from the public area to straight under the flagpole and through to the cabinet room—to the Prime Minister's desk. That is the line because the people should have a direct line of access to the government and FOI is a part of that process, making sure that governments are accountable to the people. Obviously, these two chambers that intersect that line of power play a role, but we should never forget that people should have direct access to their government, to the executive.
The 2013 review by Dr Hawke—it was a requirement of the legislation that it be reviewed—noted that the reforms brought in by the Labor government had been operating as intended and had been generally well received. There were a few questions about the new two-tiered FOI merits review process. I think they were particularly raised by some people in the media, but, nevertheless, over all, because the new mechanism had only been operating for a while, it was given the tick of approval. So the Labor opposition were a bit surprised when the government announced the abolition of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in the budget—on that horrible night when the budget was visited upon the Australian people. So many horrible things. That budget was a betrayal of all that is decent and Australian, I would suggest, and hence the problems for those opposite trying to sell it. So that announcement of the attack on FOI was completely unexpected. It was not in the National Commission of Audit recommendations at all, there was no mention of it at all, so it was a surprise. The budget measure relating to the OAIC was explained as follows:
From 1 January 2015, the OAIC's status as an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 will cease and funding for ongoing functions will be transferred to other agencies.
The foundation blocks of democracy are open and transparent government, and for this small saving they were going to sacrifice one of those features of good government.
Two of the three commissioner positions—the FOI Commissioner, James Popple, and the Information Commissioner, John McMillan—are to be abolished but the Privacy Commissioner, currently Timothy Pilgrim, who does good work and has appeared before a number of committees that I have either chaired or been a member of, is to be transferred to the new position of Australian Privacy Commissioner operating independently within the AHRC. Obviously there would be some redundancies, and the budget papers estimate a saving of 23 positions, so making sure that there are enough people to do the job of providing freedom of information will be a challenge.
With those comments, I think I have explained clearly why Labor is opposing this piece of legislation. The OAIC has only been operating for three years, and that is a very short time to get a new body humming—obviously, there are always some teething problems for any department when they are combining and making sure that they are getting all their systems set up—so disbanding that body is very premature. The Information Commissioner review showed that there had been a jump of 54 per cent in the number of completed Information Commission decisions, up from 419 to 646, and the time lag going in opening new cases had been reduced from 206 days down to 40 days, which I would suggest is not an unreasonable time. They were definitely just finding their feet in terms of being able to process requests and make sure that the commonwealth government is held to account by those who seek information.
The Attorney-General has argued that the changes will lessen the burden on FOI applicants—I find that very hard to believe. He has not detailed how that will take place. Media groups are an important part of our democratic process. I mentioned this building before and the Reps, the Senate, the public and big government. The other resident of this building is the fourth estate, who play an important role in keeping us honest as parliamentarians and governments. So, media groups do use FOI regularly. It has been put to me that they are generally in favour of a return to the AAT review. However, that $870 application fee might be okay for a mainstream media organisation but it is not for an individual—that is disappointing. The ordinary citizens who we answer to have a line of power from the front of the building through to the government, through to the cabinet, through to the Prime Minister—we should be looking after their interests and not just the interests of large-scale media organisations. If we focus on the mainstream media groups too much we will lose what it takes to be a healthy democracy.
The return to compulsory internal review prior to seeking an AAT review will have implications on agency resources and timeliness. We will see how the data is presented by the Attorney-General in the months and years ahead. I am sceptical. I live in hope, I guess, but I think that they have acted prematurely and that is why we are not supporting this piece of legislation. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments we had started to change the culture and this legislation now before the chamber is a change in the changing of that culture of openness and we will be all the poorer as a democracy for it—that is why we are opposing this legislation.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:57): This government has rarely seen a piece of information that it does not want to hide. Of course, if the government thinks distributing that information is in its interests, it is quite happy to leak it or shout it from the rooftops. But if the government thinks information is potentially damaging to it, it goes to great lengths to conceal it. We have seen that with its approach to dealing with refugees who come here; we have seen a minister who is quite happy to selectively leak certain information, often in a misleading way. However, when it comes to finding out what is being done in our name under so-called Operation Sovereign Borders, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection routinely comes in here and tells us that it is an on-water matter and he cannot comment—as if boats could somehow be somewhere else. He comes in here and says, 'I cannot tell you what is going on, even though it is being done in your name and with your money.'
This government went to an election saying that any project over $100 million has to have a cost-benefit analysis, and yet they put in $1.5 billion for stage 1 of EastWest Link without a published cost-benefit analysis and $1.5 billion for stage 2 before anyone even knew what stage 2 was. So billions of dollars are going into it, and just coincidentally it is helping the Victorian government during an election period by helping them get back to surplus; nonetheless, billions of dollars of taxpayers' money is going to a project for which the government will not release the cost-benefit analysis.
Then of course we have this Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill—a bill that looks at transparency in the operations of government and says, 'Let us remove some of the offices that are charged with campaigning for greater openness and transparency within the operations of government.' Generally, we should always err on the side of openness when it comes to freedom of information, but we should especially do so with this government. We should be especially sceptical of a government that says, 'We are doing this in the name of removing red tape'—because one person's red tape is another person's protection. When it comes to freedom of information, it is the public that is being protected. The public is being protected from the making of bad decisions by ministers and by governments. That is why it is absolutely crucial that we continue to campaign for expansion of freedom of information laws in this country, not their restriction.
The government has a catch-all explanation for any kind of reform that it wants to do, which is that it is removing complexity and removing red tape. In this instance it has said it is doing that because of the complexity associated with a two-tiered system—that is, ministers make the decisions and someone oversees them and there is someone potentially to go to and then separate to that is a system of tribunals and courts when you can have a review. It is very clear what the review of this legislation and the operation of the commissioner has stated. The 2013 review by Dr Hawke concluded that this office:
… has been a very valuable and positive development in oversight and promotion of the FOI Act.
It went on to say that yes, it has been there for only a short period of time and there are some who might say that this is another layer in the system, but it is a layer of transparency and a layer of driving change within government about how government thinks about information and releasing it. That is why the review went on to say:
The current system of multi-tiered review has been in operation for two and a half years—
not a long time—
At this stage there is insufficient evidence to make a decision on whether this is the most effective or efficient model for reviewing FOI decisions, particularly in relation to the two levels of external merits review. The Review considers this issue warrants further examination and recommends that the two-tier external review model be re-examined as part of the comprehensive review recommended in Chapter 1.
We have not had that. We have not had the government come say, 'We have had a look at the whole system and there are some things that need to be tweaked.' We have just had the government say, 'Here is an extra layer of scrutiny, transparency and accountability on us, so what can we do to get rid of it?' In effect, what they are doing is demolishing a system that has not had a chance to prove itself but that the reviews we have had so far have said is taking positive steps towards openness and transparency.
What we did not hear in the minister's second reading speech was that the abolition of the office is going to remove the statutory monitor of compliance with the scheme. This is very significant. This is a seismic shift in how government decision makers think about the openness of their information. This is not something that ought to have been new to the Australian decision-making system. Back in 1995 the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that we take action on this front. It took 15 years for the government to act. I commend the previous government for at least acting. Having taken that step that has been called for since 1995 and having had now a couple of years of operation of this, which is generally receiving positive comments, with the caveat that it should be given a bit more time to let it prove itself, the government is now taking us back to the situation before anyone took any steps at all. We are going to have a gap in our system and there will now not be an independent officer charged with driving that kind of accountability and transparency within the government. Similarly—and this was also not referred to—we are going to now not have an officer charged with that provision of strategic advice to the government on the broader questions of information management.
To that extent you can see that this is not about addressing real issues in the system. It is not about addressing technical questions that have arisen during the brief operation of a system that may have had some flaws and may have introduced some level of complexity. Some might say it needs some tweaking. If that is the case then have a proper review of it and come back with some suggestions to make the system work better. Do not abolish it completely. That is the direction that this government is going.
I will conclude my brief remarks here, but we will have more to say about this when the bill reaches the other place. If ever there were a government that you should not take on its word—'Just trust us and it will be all right; just let us have a bit more power, a bit more secrecy and a bit less responsibility to the public'—it is this one. We have been seeing that this week in other debates in this place and in the other place. We should be shining more light on the processes that governments make decisions by. For those reasons the Greens will not be supporting this bill.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (18:06): I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. The Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014 will streamline arrangements for the exercise of privacy and freedom of information functions from 1 January 2015. I would like to address some of the matters that have been raised by members who have spoken in this debate. It was put by a number of members, including the member for Newcastle, the member for Moreton and the member for Melbourne, that the freedom of information regime is a very important tool to facilitate the open and transparent operations of government. The Abbott government certainly strongly agrees with that proposition. The Abbott government is strongly committed to transparent, accountable and open government.
I want to emphasise that this bill does not affect the legally enforceable right of every person under the Freedom of Information Act to request access to documents of an agency or official documents of a minister, nor does it make any changes to the objects of the Freedom of Information Act or the matters that agencies and ministers are required to consider in making decisions regarding freedom of information requests. The bill simply removes an unnecessary and anomalous layer of external merits review for freedom of information decisions.
It was put by the member for Isaacs and some other speakers that the Abbott government is seeking to abolish the information commissioner because of a desire to hide information from the public. I reiterate: that is a fundamental misconception of the rationale for this bill. The freedom of information arrangements, as I have just described—that is, the fundamental right of citizens, a legally enforceable right to request access to documents of an agency or official documents of a minister—are not going to change in any way.
There was some questions raised about the rationale for the amendments to the freedom of information arrangements and in particular the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner arrangements that are contained in this bill. Can I remind the House of what the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, said on budget night, that this bill will 'streamline and simplify Australia's external merits review system'. The problem that this bill addresses is that the establishment by the previous government of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner created an unnecessarily complex, multileveled system.
What we have seen in, notwithstanding the glowing assessments provided by those on the other side of the House, is that in practice what the current system has resulted in—the system that has been in place since the previous government introduced these arrangements—is a duplication of complaint handling, and there have been very significant processing delays. These issues have existed since the 2010 changes were made and are inherent in the design of the system. That is the very reason why this bill proposes to correct that fundamental design error that was made by the previous government.
The member for Isaacs and the member for Newcastle raised some concerns about the cost of going to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to seek a review of freedom of information decisions. Let me just make some relevant points here. While it is true that the application fee to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is $861, there is a reduced fee of $100 in the case of hardship. In certain specified cases there is no fee payable at all, and those include FOI reviews about Commonwealth workers compensation, family assistance, social security payments and veterans' entitlements. I also remind the House that consistent with other matters in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, successful FOI applicants will receive a refund of $761 of the full $861 fee.
What the government is doing in this bill is to remove a layer of external merits review to bring the process into line with review arrangements for other government decisions. I reiterate: there will continue to be a merits review, but it will be a review by the AAT—a single merits review as opposed to the anomalous arrangement which has been in place since 2010 of having two layers of review.
The last point I would like to address is one raised by the member for Isaacs, who questioned why there was no reference to the Hawke review of freedom of information arrangements in the second reading speech. I want to emphasise that the government is not ignoring the review conducted by Dr Allan Hawke, who, as the member for Isaacs rightly said, is an extremely eminent former government official. The government is carefully considering the 40 recommendations in Dr Hawke's report and will determine its response in due course. It is simply not appropriate at this time to express any interim views in relation to that matter. So I do want to foreshadow that I will be moving a minor amendment to item 3 of schedule 2 to the bill to clarify the arrangements between the Australian privacy commissioner and the Australian Human Rights Commission.
I also want to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the Australian Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan AO, the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Dr James Popple, and all of the staff of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. These new arrangements are in no way a reflection on their performance; they are a reflection on the system and the inherent design of the system in which they presently operate—an inherent design which needs correction. That is the purpose of this bill.
I conclude by reiterating the point that these arrangements will reduce the size of government, streamline the delivery of government services and reduce duplication. It will mean business as usual for privacy and it will largely restore the system for the management of freedom of information that was in place for many years before the establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (18:13): I present a supplementary memorandum and seek leave to move government amendments.
Leave granted.
Mr FLETCHER: I move government amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 12 (line 11), omit "must", substitute "may".
(2) Schedule 2, item 3, page 12 (line 13), omit "must", substitute "may".
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (18:15): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (18:15): The Social Security Legislation Amendment Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1999 in two stages with the first set of amendments coming into effect from 1 January 2015 and the second set of amendments coming into effect from 1 July 2015. Under current job seeker compliance provisions contained within the act, the secretary may determine that job seekers in receipt of a participation payment—that is, Newstart and, for some people, youth allowance, parenting payment or special benefit—may incur a payment suspension for certain participation failures such as the failure to attend an appointment with the payment being reinstated when the job seeker notifies the secretary of their intention to comply with a reconnection requirement. In practice, this would be a requirement to attend an appointment with their job service provider.
The government is seeking to make amendments which would mean that from 1 January 2015 a payment suspension for a participation failure would not be reinstated until the job seeker had actually attended an appointment with their employment provider rather than just notifying the secretary of their intention to do so. The suspension could end earlier where the person subsequently provided a reasonable excuse for not attending the first appointment or where the job seeker could not be given an opportunity to attend another appointment promptly—according to the bill, typically within one to two days.
The government is also seeking amendments which would mean that from 1 July 2015, if the job seeker did not have a reasonable excuse for missing the first appointment or did not give notice of a reasonable excuse when it was reasonable for them to do so, the job seeker would not be back paid for the period of their noncompliance. Currently, once the period of suspension ends the person receives back pay for that period regardless of whether or not their excuse was reasonable for missing an appointment in the first place.
Let me be clear at the outset that Labor has and does support the concept of mutual obligation—that is, that job seekers have an obligation to actively seek work and that the government has an obligation to support them and provide them with the resources to assist them into the labour force. Indeed, as the assistant minister quoted Labor in his second reading speech:
All Australians on income support should have the opportunity of work—but with the opportunity comes responsibility.
It was, as the assistant minister pointed out in his second reading speech, Labor that moved to encourage job seekers to attend their appointments with their employment service provider because we believe that this increases the likelihood of them gaining work. Labor is not opposed to measures designed to assist people into work. On the contrary, we introduce policy and reforms which were very effective at doing just that.
Labor recognises the need for government policy which assists people to find work. But the key word here is 'assist'. We need to assist job seekers to obtain employment by supporting them, understanding their individual circumstances, understanding any barriers they may have to employment, their talents and their strengths. Government must also play a role in job creation and ensure that the conditions are right for the labour market to expand.
However, Labor does not and will not support punitive measures which put at risk vulnerable people. We will draw a line when and where we believe the current government goes too far. We did this when the post this government Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, which sought changes that could have seen the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people left without income and without options for up to eight weeks for each penalty.
Labor is also opposing the government's proposal for job seekers who are under the age of 30 and on Newstart going without any payment for six months of each year that they are unemployed—that is, no money at all for six months that they are unemployed. Labor has been clear: we will not support measures that impact on vulnerable people or that will make people vulnerable. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to survive with no money at all for six months, let alone also being required to meet activity tests such as the government's original proposal for job seekers to apply for 40 jobs per month. We were pleased to see the government recently backed down on the 40 jobs per month in the current request for tender for job services. But this Newstart under-30 measure will leave more than 120,000 young Australians without income support for six months of each and every year that they are unemployed. The government has admitted this and it knows that this will have adverse outcomes. It is at odds with the government's own McClure welfare interim report, a report that said:
The system of sanctions should be progressive, with timely, lighter measures first.
Denying people with no income for the first six months of their unemployment is not a lighter measure first.
We saw the government resort to punitive measures again when it sought to tighten the definition of a 'reasonable excuse'. Social Security (Reasonable Excuse-Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1) sought to change what matters the secretary must take into account when determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for participation failures.
This measure attempts to strip away protections for people with mental illness, people who do not have a safe place to live, people with literacy and language issues, people requiring treatment for illnesses, people with drug or alcohol dependency, and people who are victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault. These people are our most vulnerable job seekers, and this government wanted to disadvantage them further. It is no wonder that Labor finds it hard to trust this government when it comes to supporting people into jobs and not applying harsh, punitive measures.
Through this bill, the government is seeking to treat non-attendance failures in the same way as other failures for the purposes of 'reasonable excuse', under section 42UA of the act introduced by Labor, meaning that an excuse for a non-attendance failure will not be reasonable unless the person gave prior notice of the failure to attend, or unless the secretary is satisfied that it was not reasonable to expect the person to give advance notice. Indeed, with this bill, it appears that, in determining reasonable excuse, the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1), enacted by Labor whilst we were in government, will remain the legislative instrument used to decide whether or not an excuse is reasonable, due to the fact that the government's tightened version was defeated in the Senate by a disallowance in August.
So Labor is pleased that we moved this disallowance in the Senate. It makes us just that little bit more comfortable, knowing that if these changes are implemented we will ensure that vulnerable people are still protected. But there are no guarantees that if Labor agrees to the passage of this bill the government will not try again to change the determination of reasonable excuse. Labor is somewhat assured by the assistant minister's second reading speech, where he said:
The bill will not impact those whose failure to attend is beyond their control, for instance, where they were taken ill or had an unexpected caring commitment and gave prior notice.
And it will not impact the majority of job seekers who attend their appointments or those who let their provider know in advance if they genuinely cannot attend.
And further that:
… employment providers will remain able to exercise discretion in when they report a failure to the Department of Human Services.
So, whilst Labor is agreeing in principle to the no-show, no-pay appointments contained in this bill, we do have some concerns regarding the practical implementation of this measure. We know that the government has form when it comes to trying to go too far in penalising job seekers, as I have outlined. We want to make sure that they do not with this measure.
The bill's explanatory memorandum states:
In practice job seekers would generally have the opportunity to attend a reconnection appointment with their employment provider within a short period of time and thereby have their payment reinstated quickly. Typically this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension. Employment providers will also be able to offer telephone appointments for job seekers in these circumstances. If the job seeker could not be given an opportunity to attend such an appointment promptly it is intended that their payment would otherwise be reinstated.
Our concern in relation to this measure centres on: 'typically, this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension'. We are concerned about how, in practice, job seekers will be notified of their payment suspension, and we are concerned that this is done within a timely manner so that the job seeker has the ability to make contact as quickly as possible.
I have been informed anecdotally by job seekers and providers that some job seekers are currently unaware of breaches of penalty until they try to access their bank accounts on the usual payment day and find no funds. That is when they make contact. So, my question to the minister would be: how will job seekers be notified when they have missed an appointment under this measure, and how quickly? If job seekers are immediately suspended upon missing an appointment, and are not notified until some days later, or until they go to get funds, it is foreseeable that some job seekers may go some time with their payment suspended and not be able to get back-pay. It may be much longer than two days before they know. Therefore, notice of a payment suspension needs to be provided as soon as the suspension is implemented, to give job seekers the opportunity to contact their employment service provider for a reconnection interview as soon as possible.
So Labor supports the in-principle no-show, no-pay measures; we will not support job seekers going extended periods without any income support because they were not aware that they had breached their obligations. This potential for extended periods of payment suspension could account for the large amount of savings the government is anticipating as a result of the changes contained in this bill. We seek assurances that job seekers will be notified immediately and sufficiently of any suspension and that they will have the opportunity for a reconnection interview within two days or else they will be reinstated with their payment immediately.
Labor is also concerned that the bill seeks to remove the right to a review of a decision to suspend payments. We are concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent in which people are denied their right to natural justice. We are also concerned that it will be used to stop job seekers requesting a review of a decision not to back pay where they had a reasonable excuse for missing their appointment and that their reasonable excuse had not been taken into account. Labor does not and will not agree to the removal of a job seeker's right to seek a review of decisions which have a financial impact on their lives. Whenever a government seeks to financially penalise people for noncompliance, it is only right and fair that those government decision-making processes are subject to review.
This is particularly the case where job seekers could be going without payment for some time, as I just outlined.
As the payment of back pay from 1 July 2015 is contingent upon job seekers being determined to have had a reasonable excuse, it is paramount that the decision is subject to review. Otherwise, an anomaly could present where a job seeker who had a reasonable excuse was determined not to have such an excuse and therefore not entitled to back pay. The job seeker would then be prevented from seeking a review of the original decision in order to receive the back pay to which they would otherwise have been entitled. Therefore, Labor does have an issue with this removal of a right of appeal when people are having their payments reduced, because we believe the government should be focused on positive measures to get people into work and not on financial penalties which disproportionately affect vulnerable people.
Currently, job seekers at the age of 55 or over on Newstart or on special benefit are taken to have satisfied an activity test where they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of approved voluntary work, paid work or a combination of both, unless the secretary considers that they should not be exempt from an activity test due to the employment opportunities available to that person. There are also currently similar provisions regarding parenting payment recipients at the age of 55 and over, which would mean that they cannot be made subject to requirement to undertake suitable work if they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of voluntary or paid work, or a combination of both, unless the secretary considers that they should not be exempt from the requirement to do suitable paid work due to the opportunities for employment available to the person.
The government is seeking to amend the act so that the above concessions would not apply to a class of persons specified in a new disallowable instrument. So the government is saying that job seekers over the age of 55 and up to 59 will have the same mutual obligations as 54-year-olds. We have nothing against the concept of treating job seekers the same but we do have serious concerns with this measure, given the recent reports regarding age discrimination in the labour force. Labor is concerned that older Australians, who would be required to meet these activity tests and attend appointments may find the task more difficult, given that the discrimination they are subjected to is real and can impact on their wellbeing.
Following on from the release of the exposure draft for Purchasing Arrangements for Employment Services 2015-2020, stakeholders have been increasingly concerned at the prospect of their supporting role becoming one of a disciplinary decision maker. The exposure draft stated on page 41:
The Employment Provider will also determine whether the Job Seeker had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at their initial appointment in accordance with legislation and guidelines.
I note from the minister's press release on the request for tender going public that the government has now backed down on this, which I am very pleased to hear and that I am sure that employment service providers will appreciate. However, we are still concerned that in schedule 2 of this bill the government is seeking to extend the secretary's powers of delegation under social security law to include regulations and other legislative instruments.
We are concerned that attempts to delegate government decisions to providers and away from government departments sets another dangerous precedent. We do not trust that the government will not again attempt to delegate its decision-making responsibilities onto nongovernment organisations into the future. There is no evidence or valid reasons provided by the government to show that there is any need to delegate decision-making responsibilities away from government departments, or that doing so is a good idea. The department and the government do not detail what specific disallowable instruments it is seeking to delegate or why. Job seekers who are affected by this bill are receiving some type of government payment from the Department of Human Services. It is proper, then, that decisions relating to whether or not a person receives such a payment also continue to rest with the department and not with a nongovernment organisation.
Labor believes the government needs to refocus its attention away from increasing penalties and making it harder for job seekers to looking at its role in creating jobs. When in government, Labor moved to improve the accessibility of training and employment services; we announced changes to Job Services Australia; we introduced a system of flexibility to better match individual job seekers with jobs available; and we prioritised resources for those job seekers who were most in need.
Indeed, we helped more than 1.6 million people secure jobs across the employment services portfolio when we were in government. We supported the economy during the global financial crisis, saving an estimated 200,000 jobs. We did not simply revert to punitive measures which fail to address the fundamental problem—a lack of jobs. There are currently 800,000 job seekers in Australia on Job Services Australia's books and only 147,200 vacancies in this country at the present. Clearly, there are not enough jobs to go around. So what is the solution?
Work for the Dole will only work for a certain cohort of job seekers. And we know that the government will not be able to place all the job seekers it will require to participate in their Work for the Dole expanded program, with an estimated 150,000 job seekers being required to participate in Work for the Dole in its first year. Rather than create jobs, which the government promised they would do, we are seeing more companies sending their businesses offshore. The government still has no plans for job creation; even members of the government acknowledge this, with the member for Eden-Monaro saying that the government 'desperately needs a jobs plan'. And it does.
It is clear that the government's first budget has been bad for the economy and it has been hurting business and consumer confidence. The government has made massive cuts to industry investment, to innovation, to science and research, and to education and training that it will have a lasting impact. The government really does need to turn its attention to job creation, because if they believe, like Labor, that everyone deserves the opportunity of work and the dignity that goes with work, then they need to do more.
The fact is that there will always be some people who do the wrong thing. But it is also a fact that the people who do the wrong thing make up a very small percentage, and they are immensely outnumbered by the vast majority of people who do the right thing. The problem with continually attempting to target a small minority of wrongdoers with blanket legislation is that you also penalise and cause grief for the people who are trying their best to do the right thing.
It is clear that the government needs certain measures contained within this bill to become law for its Request for Tender for Employment Services 2015-2020 Purchasing Arrangements. The government's record in employment services for this term of government so far can only be described as a debacle. The government only introduced this bill on Thursday, 25 September 2014. By its own deadline the request for tender was due in late September. The government was not able to meet its own deadline for this with the request for tender for employment services worth more than $5 billion announced on 7 October.
It could not keep its own deadline in relation to the appointment of the Work for the Dole coordinators in time for the commencement of mandatory Work for the Dole on 1 July this year in the expanded sites. The Work for the Dole coordinators were appointed on 19 August this year—more than six weeks late. The government has known for over 12 months that the new contracts need to commence on 1 July 2015 and the steps that need to be taken before that commencement, including the tender process. The request for tender still has sections in it. It closes in mid-November with (subject to legislation) because it has not been able to organise itself and get it together.
In conclusion, Labor does support the 'no show, no pay' provisions in this bill provided that the government is able to give the assurances that we have requested, namely in relation to job seekers being immediately notified of any breach. Labor has concerns about including the 55- to 59 year-olds in an activity test without further analysis. Labor will not support job seekers having no right of appeal to decisions that impact on their payments. Labor will not support the extending of delegations for the secretary to include regulations.
Given all of the above, it is my intention to move amendments that I hope the government will consider supporting. Labor has also moved to have this bill referred to a committee in the Senate for further examination of the issues that I have outlined and any further unintended consequences. The amendments I will move will have the effect of opposing the government's attempts to remove review rights in respect of the payment suspension decisions; opposing the government's attempts to remove the concessions on activity tests currently applying to job seekers aged 55 and over; and opposing the government's attempts to extend the secretary's powers of delegation to delegation of powers under regulations or other instruments. Thank you.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (18:39): I stand in this parliament representing the 10,000 job seekers from Dobell on the Central Coast. The majority of job seekers are genuine in their attempt to secure employment. They do the right thing. They understand that obtaining employment will lead to a more prosperous future and fulfilled life, a life with choice and opportunity. Unfortunately, there are some members of our community who appear uncommitted to finding employment, with many failing to fulfil their mutual obligation whilst receiving income support. This government encourages job seekers to be active in seeking long-term employment. This government also understands that job seekers should have access to a reasonable safety net when not engaged in employment in order to assist them in their genuine search for work. This said, looking for a job should be a full-time job.
This government is committed to building a more robust, efficient and effective employment services system, which assists more job seekers to obtain and secure employment. We are also committed to protecting the integrity of our income support system to ensure that it is affordable and sustainable in the long term. To achieve these outcomes, we require a strong job seeker framework which ensures compliance and includes appropriate incentives and sanctions for those presently receiving income support. This is necessary if we are to facilitate and encourage widespread change in job seeker behaviour, to promote a more efficient employment services system and to enhance the integrity of our social security system.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 strengthens the incentives for job seekers to honour their scheduled appointments with employment service providers and ensures penalties are applied where a job seeker fails to meet their obligation without reasonable excuse. The measures contained within this bill build upon our commitment to reinforce mutual obligation for job seekers who receive income support in addition to reducing red tape for employment service providers. As part of their mutual obligation, a job seeker is required to attend monthly scheduled appointments with their employment service provider to discuss their job search progress and available options in regard to obtaining employment. This enhances and assists opportunity for people to move from welfare to work. Currently job seekers are required to attend one appointment per month. This bill seeks to ensure that job seekers fulfil their obligation whilst in receipt of income support.
From 1 January 2015, if a job seeker fails to attend a scheduled appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse, their income support payment will be suspended until they actually attend a rescheduled appointment. Only when they attend the rescheduled appointment will the suspension on their income support be lifted with back pay provided for the period of non-compliance. This improves the present arrangement where back pay is paid for simply just rescheduling an appointment and not necessarily attending it.
From 1 July 2015, this bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by ensuring that if a job seek has income support suspended as a result of failing to meet their obligation, they will not be entitled to back pay for the period the payment was suspended due to non-compliance. By allowing the immediate application of penalties and removing loopholes by which job seekers can fail to attend appointments with employment service providers without consequence, we are making the application of compliance measures more effective and efficient. These changes are necessary to ensure that those receiving income support are fulfilling their obligation and requirements to earn, learn or participate in Work for the Dole.
In 2013-14, 12.75 million appointments were scheduled for job seekers and 4.47 million of these appointments were missed, representing a non-attendance rate of 35 per cent. Alarmingly, 2.7 million of these appointments were missed without the provision of a legitimate reason. In 2013-14, 280,000 people—that is, more than one in five job seekers—who receive activity tested payments had a participation failure against their name for missing a scheduled appointment. This simply is unacceptable and undermines the integrity of our income support system and social responsibilities. Furthermore, the failure of job seekers to meet these requirements is a significant waste of taxpayers' money and the resources of employment service providers. It is estimated that changes within this bill will result in $106 million of savings by removing the need to back pay job seekers who fail to uphold their mutual obligation requirements. I would like to emphasise that these changes will not impact—I repeat: will not impact—upon those who fail to attend a scheduled appointment due to circumstances beyond their control—for example, someone who has taken ill or has an urgent carer's obligation. Provided prior notice is given, and their appointment is rescheduled, no penalties will be imposed.
The previous speaker mentioned safeguards for vulnerable job seekers. Current safeguards for vulnerable job seekers will not be affected by this bill. Additional safeguards are in place for vulnerable job seekers. Vulnerable job seekers are identified on the IT systems used by employment providers and Centrelink by a vulnerability indicator which ensures that providers and Centrelink staff are aware that the job seeker's personal circumstances may impact on their capacity to meet their requirements. Data indicates that job seekers with vulnerability indicators do have a poorer attendance rate than the general job seeker population—that is 62 per cent, compared to 65 per cent—and are more likely to be reported for noncompliance. Forty-two per cent had at least one report in 2013-14, compared to 32 per cent of the general population. However, they are no more likely than any other job seeker to incur participation failures for nonattendance at appointments. This shows that the safeguards are working.
This government believes that job seekers need to be proactive in meeting their obligations. This includes informing their provider beforehand when they are unable to attend a scheduled meeting and providing a legitimate reason for failure to attend. If they fail to provide legitimate advice or a reason they should be held accountable for not meeting their obligations. These changes are about job seekers doing the right thing. We want to see these job seekers take responsibility for their actions and participate as conscientious members of society. This government is implementing a suite of measures designed to assist job seekers and diversify employment opportunities. We owe this much to the 10,000 men and women on the Central Coast—3,900 of whom are aged below 24—who are presently searching for work.
This government is ensuring that all Australians on income support have the opportunity to find and secure employment. Under this government's reinvigorated Work for the Dole program, job seekers are provided opportunities to develop the skills and experience needed to move from welfare to work and contribute back to their community. Earlier this year, I welcomed the Assistant Minister for Employment, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker MP, to Dobell to officially launch the government's new Work for the Dole program. Since my election as the member for Dobell I have strongly advocated the need for the reintroduction of an effective Work for the Dole program. Job seekers benefit from Work for the Dole activities by developing on-the-job skills, demonstrating abilities to potential employers, obtaining references from work experience employers, participating in training, staying connected to the workforce and, importantly for some, developing a strong work ethic. Importantly, programs such as Work for the Dole provide the long-term unemployed the opportunity to enhance their confidence and self-esteem while developing skills to enable them to enter into employment.
In addition to Work for the Dole, another incentive introduced by this government for long-term young unemployed Australians is the job commitment bonus. This bonus will provide a payment of $2,500 to eligible young Australians aged 18 to 30 who have been on Newstart allowance or youth allowance as job seekers for 12 months or more if they find and keep a job, and remain completely off welfare, for a continuous period of 12 months. Eligible young people will receive a further payment of $4,000 if they remain in a job and off welfare for a continuous 24-month period. As of March 2014, there were 5,425 recipients of Newstart allowance and 1,014 recipients of youth allowance (other) in the Dobell electorate. The job commitment bonus will provide approximately 2,000 eligible recipients in Dobell with a real incentive to obtain long-term paid employment. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to ensuring positive outcomes for our youth on the Central Coast.
Finding a local job can be a challenge. Information released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that as of August 2014, approximately 148,000 people on the Central Coast were engaged in some form of employment. Currently we see 26 per cent of our workforce—that is, approximately 38,000 people—commute out of the region for employment every working day. While this government continues to build a stronger economy that can support more local jobs, it remains true that not every region has the capacity to host the appropriate amounts of employment opportunities for job seekers; therefore, when required, job seekers will be supported and encouraged to look beyond their local area to find work. This government has introduced a Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, which provides practical and financial assistance to job seekers who require assistance to relocate in order to take up ongoing and sustainable employment. Eligible job seekers may be entitled to be reimbursed up to $3,000 if relocating to a capital city or $6,000 if relocating to a regional area; and an additional $3,000 if relocating with dependent children. Relocation assistance is flexible and can be used for a range of relocation costs. Relocation assistance may also be paid up-front to job seekers displaying financial hardship. This government is providing practical and feasible solutions to help Australians find work and build better lives.
This government also wants to see senior Australians have access to employment opportunities. This bill also introduces amendments so that job seekers who are aged 55 or older, who have a full-time mutual obligation requirement, will no longer meet this requirement simply by undertaking part-time voluntary or paid work. The aim of this amendment is to ensure job seekers aged 55 to 59 who are currently engaged with Job Services Australia are encouraged to continue looking for full-time work. We have an ageing population and the ratio of working-age people to people aged over 65 years will fall from the current five to one to three to one by 2050. In order for us to increase mature-age workforce participation, we need to actively engage with employers and work with them to develop opportunities for mature Australians. This government's Restart program offers a wage subsidy of up to $10,000 for employers willing to hire job seekers aged 50 or older. Under the scheme, eligible employers would receive $3,000 if they hire a full-time, mature-age job seeker who has been unemployed and on income support for six months, and employ that person for at least six months. Once the job seeker has been working for the same employer for 12 months, the employer receives another payment of $3,000. The employer will then receive a further $2,000 once the job seeker has been with them for 18 months, and another $2,000 at 24 months. This amounts to $10,000 over two years. Restart will benefit as many as 32,000 mature-age job seekers every year and assist them in finding ongoing employment. This government acknowledges that Australians aged 50 or over have a great deal to contribute to their community and country and that they are often overlooked in the labour market. It is also difficult for mature workers to find work after losing a job. This is despite qualities such as reliability, experience, initiative, skills, stability, insight, leadership and a lifelong work ethic. The Restart program will benefit not only the economy but also mature Australians as they continue to enjoy the benefits of working.
This government is committed to assisting and supporting people to obtain long-term employment. We do this because we are conscious of the benefits of work not only to an individual but to their families and the broader community. Australians are known worldwide for their generosity. We are always willing and ready to put our hands in our pockets and help those in need. This government strongly believes in a hand-up not a hand-out. We are always there to give a hand-up. What we need to ensure is that we do not fall into the trap of giving unsustainable hand-outs without receiving anything in return.
The measures within this bill are not unreasonable. We are asking those individuals looking for work and receiving income support to fulfil their mutual obligations. We are asking them not only to honour the Australian taxpayer and the role of employment agencies but to help themselves by increasing their chances of finding work. This legislation is not about penalising those genuinely requiring a helping hand during difficult times. It is about making sure the right thing is done by those receiving income support and them doing the right thing for themselves, their families, their self-esteem, their community and the Australian taxpayer. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (18:54): As has already been stated, Labor agrees with the no-show no-pay principle for appointments contained in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. However, we do have some concerns regarding a number of measures contained within the legislation.
Yesterday Melbourne experienced a wild thunder-and-lightning storm. It delayed planes from Melbourne. On-the-ground commuters faced chaos on the roads and the public transport system. Radio talkback was full of people calling in to say it had taken them an hour to travel five kilometres or that it had taken 2½ hours to get to work. There was one story of a four-hour commute. People in Melbourne were sitting in these cars waiting at bus stops and train stations. Some of them were people from Lalor—outer metro workers trying to get to their place of employment.
There would also have been job seekers from Lalor sitting in these cars and waiting on platforms—job seekers who would have been late for their appointments through no fault of their own, job seekers who currently would be able to make an explanation and hopefully be able to reschedule their appointments. I listened with interest to the member for Dobell when she talked about the fact that there would be no penalty as long as prior notice is given, and I wondered how someone sitting at a train station or at a bus stop or even in a car on the highway is going to give prior notice for not meeting an appointment. The legislators in this place always need to bear in mind personal circumstances, circumstances that do not necessarily occur to those of us here in Canberra who do not face the same problems in getting to work that those back in our electorates do.
This legislation means that next year those job seekers might have their payments suspended. A day like yesterday could mean automatic suspension of payments. Hopefully common sense would prevail and these payments would be reinstated, but even a short period with no payment means limited money to catch the train or drive the car to the rescheduled appointment. It is reassuring to hear that the provisions that already exist within the system will be maintained despite this legislation—but we will wait and see how that pans out on the ground.
Labor does believe that job seekers need to be assisted to find work. I believe that most job seekers want that opportunity. They want to work. They value not only the income but the pride in employment. Labor agrees there must be measures in place that require mutual obligation in receiving a support payment while seeking work. In government we drove policy and reforms to do just that.
Being a former teacher and school principal, and someone who spent a lot of years working at the senior end of secondary school, I have heard a lot of reluctance—
Mr Ewen Jones: Were you working or were you a teacher?
Ms RYAN: I will ignore that comment from the member for Herbert and continue.
Mr Robert interjecting—
Ms RYAN: Because your wife is a teacher does not make the comment any more forgivable—by either her or me.
Over many years I have heard of students' reluctance to register for Centrelink. These might be school leavers who are reluctant to register for Centrelink—often out of pride—and who have to be told that they need to register as a job seeker. But the message from governments and the community over time is that standing in a queue at Centrelink means that, somehow, you are a dole bludger, notwithstanding that we have a system that means you need to register as a job seeker to get support to find a job. Sometimes they are reluctant because they fear the punitive measures that might occur because they have registered. This can come from family history and family knowledge.
I have had frustrated former students outline the efforts they have undertaken to find employment. As a mother of three adult sons, I have lived some of those frustrations with my children. I have seen their logbooks of job applications written—and it is not just school leavers but university graduates. Recently in my electorate I met with two recent university graduates looking for entry level work. Both were looking for entry level work in the finance sector. These men—both refugees to this country who had gone on and completed degrees—could sit there and show me their work history. Prior to entering education they had done menial manual labour, consistently worked and had found their way to university. They had a situation where they were applying for jobs and being told that they were overqualified—obviously, they had a degree and they did not want them to drive a forklift anymore. They were applying for entry level jobs and being told that they were underqualified because they did not have experience. We all know the story. We know how the job market works. What we have to bear in mind when we legislate is those people and the impact it can have when you are seeking jobs, not getting the interviews you want, not getting the positions you want—not even for menial jobs that three years previously you were successful in gaining. We have to remember the impact that can have on the individual over time.
Have I also known young people who disengage from the workforce with no sense of purpose? Of course I have. But it is not like the old days where they could collect payment with no obligation. Those days are long gone. I have equally sat with people over 50 in my electorate office when they have come in with those same logs that they are presenting to Centrelink and those same frustrations. What worries me about this piece of legislation is that there is not built into it protections for vulnerable job seekers. And I mean vulnerable job seekers: those people suffering from mental illness that could in fact have been brought on by this process—if you are out there looking for a job every day for 12 months it is going to impact on your mental health; those people who are drug affected; those people who might be homeless—and in my electorate of Lalor couch surfing for young people is a serious problem; those people who have limited English; those people who may in fact be finding it difficult to find work because the barrier to them fighting work is prejudice. I hear that from various support services locally, where job seekers come back time and time again to people and say, whether it be true or not, that they feel that they are not being successful in getting a position because of their English, because they come from somewhere else. It happens.
I hear from those supporting people with mental illness. I hear from those supporting the homeless. These services have expressed deep concern for their clients, our most vulnerable job seekers, and their capacity to cope if the government seeks to disadvantage them further. So I have issues with this piece of legislation is. I want to see some provisions in there that guarantee me that those people will not be further hurt by this legislation. Of course, the Centrelink figures back up those concerns. There were over 13,000 no show, no pay penalties to job seekers with known vulnerability indicators in 2013. We know that. And we know that in the current system there were things in place that would ensure that they had recourse if they missed an appointment.
What concerns me most is that we get up and we make fine speeches about the impact of mental illness in this chamber and the chamber upstairs and we wax lyrical about the debilitating impact of depression. We point out the compounding effects of community stigma and a lack of understanding and then we fail in our legislation to ensure that we do not live what we say. This is an opportunity, I think, to fix that.
It really is important. In my electorate of Lalor, unemployment in Melbourne's west, of which we are a part, is at 8.1 per cent. For youth in Melbourne's west the unemployment levels are at 13 per cent. So it is okay for us to say that we have mutual obligation; it is okay to say that there should be no show, no pay. But if the jobs are not there then we risk punishing people who have been in that system, who are suffering from lack of work, suffering from a lack of opportunity, and we risk putting them into a cycle where we know full well standing in this place that the members do not stack up but we will put in punitive measures anyway.
The Werribee Centrelink is the busiest in Victoria. I suppose that goes to our youth unemployment. We have job support agencies just about on every corner around my electorate office. We have an enormous number of young people. Unemployment is hard. Seeking employment is hard. The longer it takes to get that job the harder that gets. This has been made harder by the attitude of this government in its attitude to creating jobs—that all we have to do is somehow cut spending and jobs will magically be created. I do not believe they will be.
On top of that the government's current policies are driving up the cost of living for families and they will be having an impact in my electorate. The $7 GP co-payment is estimated to have, if it comes into being, an $11 million impact on our local economy. Families tightening their belts are not going to spend the way they did. Families are not going to do that carport, they are not going to build that pergola. It is clear what happens in this cycle: people lose jobs. Our unemployment queues will certainly not get shorter with a contracting local economy. It will all lead to reduced employment opportunities.
I am concerned mostly about the elements in this piece of legislation where job seekers are made to comply with measures that do not actually lead to an outcome, where they then get disheartened. They will disconnect. They will stop looking for support. This and other changes to Newstart eligibility and plans to leave under 30s with no support will all work seamlessly to disengage our young people. Aside from the human costs in terms of mental illness—and that will take us to the health budget, and that is a whole other story—this will mean, I believe, when children start to disengage, young people stop attending, stop applying, stop going to Centrelink to register as a job seeker, that the data for our unemployment will be obfuscated. Then no-one will know what is happening out there.
These measures are about savings. The budget indicates that. It calculates what they think the savings will be. My conclusion is the government expects to breach a large number of job seekers to achieve this savings. That is my reading of the situation. I will be happy if someone can demonstrate to me that that is not true. I find really disheartening the thought that we could have a government that was consciously planning to save money because people were going to breach this, knowing full well what the implications of those breaches would be long term for those individuals and for the system. I find that really alarming. So we expect to breach them.
I want to finish on another important point: whether or not the JSA should be handed the responsibility of dealing with this compliance issue given that they do not currently have the skills and given that, if it is the government that wants this done, it is Centrelink and the department, not JSAs, that young people and their families should hold responsible. For me that is a solid argument.
The fact is that the legislation on this has been late, that the work for the dole coordinators have been late, that in Werribee there is no sign of the Werribee rehabilitation project that we were promised. What is the government's penalty? Where is the compliance here? Do we need a JSA to come into the chamber to hold those of us here to account when we are late and do not show up for a very important appointment?
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (19:09): I follow the member for Lalor and say it is a good thing the JSA penalties were not in place for the last government, because they would have been all over them from daycare centres to trade training centres to GP superclinics. Imagine the penalties they would have been paying in those situations.
First and foremost, if we had two per cent unemployment, we would not be having this conversation. The fact is that we have rising unemployment and rising challenges in this area. In my own city of Townsville we have unemployment of 9.7 per cent, some of the highest in the state. We have an economy in transition. In my city of Townsville we have a manufacturing sector which has copped the brunt of high costs of energy transmission from Gladstone all the way through to Townsville. That has affected the unemployment market.
When you get an unemployment market, the thing to remember first and foremost is it is not just the 9.7 per cent. That is just the overall total. When you start talking about unemployment, it is the youth, the elderly, the disabled and the new migrants who cop it the worst. Whilst we have an unemployment rate in Townsville of 9.7 per cent, I guarantee that our youth unemployment is quite high, our over-50s unemployment is quite high and it is only that space in the middle there.
The member for Lalor is 100 per cent correct when she says that people are turning up trying to get jobs as forklift drivers who have bachelor's degrees and not getting a job and there are people turning up as forklift drivers trying to get jobs in other things and being underqualified. So we have a real challenge. What I would like to say is that we are trying to reinforce the mutual obligation which was started in the last government. I think it should have been, and we supported it in the last government.
I am an auctioneer by trade. When the market is tough, you do not do less. I worked as a manager for a national firm. I worked for a couple of firms in this space. I worked in the finance game for a finance company. When the market is tough, you do not get your budget lowered because it is a tough market. We have journalists in this place. You do not see the boss of Channel Seven saying: 'Ah, it's a slow news day. Don't worry about it; we won't do the news.' That is when you have to earn your money. A tough market is when you have to get out there and you have to deliver the goods. You have to do more. In an auctioning game, when cars are not selling, you must find the market. You must think of different things. You have to spend more hours. You have to visit more people. You have to do more cold calls and all that sort of stuff to get your sales through because, if you do not get your sales through, you do not make a profit. If you do not make a profit, your people do not get paid. If they do not get paid, you go broke and they lose their jobs. That is the simple transaction that we go through here. It does not matter where you are; that is the consequence of not working harder in a tough market.
So that is the thing that we must do and that is the thing that we are asking people to do in the unemployment market. We are asking them for their job whilst they are unemployed to be to get a job. It has to be hard to work to get that space, because it is hard at the moment. No-one in this place is denying that it is hard, but when it is hard is when you have to put in more. If there were millions of jobs out there, we would not be having this discussion. There are not millions of jobs out there. We have to find the ways to apply things, stimulate the economy and still drive down debt. It is a very delicate thing to balance. But we must ask the people who are receiving the unemployment benefits and those things around that place to put in. The sense of mutual obligation must go through. If you put in, we will put in.
I hear a lot about the rights of the unemployed. I understand all that, but I would also like to speak about the rights of the people who actually earn the money that pays the tax that pay for the unemployment. Those are people we have to look out for as well. What we are finding in this place after the last six years of government, I am sorry to say, is that a lot of friends of mine who are self-starters and small business people were actively looking for jobs for wages because it was just too hard and just too hard to employ people. So we have to look at the whole thing around why people are not getting employed. We have to try to work in that space.
With this bill we are offering inducements and assistance for people to shift where there is work. I had a phone call from a gentleman who said he was up the government because he had to shift to Melbourne for a job. His family was still in Townsville. I did not know what the problem was. I said: 'I shifted to Townsville for a job. I've been here 20 years.' I shifted to Townsville for a job because that is where the job was. If it were not for the jobs, most Australian migrants would not have come to Australia in the first place. So I do not have a problem with shifting or asking people to shift to where work is. I think that is a natural consequence. Millions of people do it every year. We do it all the time.
We have a social security budget from which we pay out about $145 billion a year. Social security payments make up nearly 35 per cent of the overall spend. It is a massive amount of money. For the member for Lalor to sit there and say that we are trying to disqualify or discredit people so that we can save money—imagine what that figure would be up against $145 billion per year. It is laughable that we would be in this space. I do take her point about looking after those people who are unable to comply. I take her point about the storms in Melbourne yesterday and people not being able to turn up to appointments. In Townsville, talking about unemployment, anyone living in the Upper Ross who does not have their own car has to catch the bus from the Upper Ross to get to the Willows and to get the other bus to get into the city. If you miss that bus, or if it is early or late—because we have an infrequent public transport system in Townsville—you miss your appointment. So when services like Centrelink and job service providers are trying to organise these appointments it is important that they do recognise where these people are coming from. In a place like Townsville, even if you live near the major bus routes you can have trouble. When I had two daughters going to university, the bus would stop just down the road from us, in front of the Cathedral School, and take them straight to the university. They knew the bus did not come on time all the time, so they got down there at least 20 minutes early to make sure they got the bus to university. But quite often, at least twice a week, the bus did not turn up, so they would have to ring either my wife or me to go and pick them up and take them to university. That sort of thing happens with the unemployed, and people need to be cognisant of how they are going to get to job interviews. It is pointless asking someone from the Upper Ross to get into the city by 8 o'clock in the morning for a job interview if they are catching public transport, because they will never get there. That has to be factored into the system.
I would also like to speak about new migrants. The member for Lalor intimated that a little bit of racial prejudice might be a reason why new migrants do not get jobs. That may be a part of it. My wife is Italian, and we all know what that heritage means. They are great people. When the Italians, the Greeks, the Poles and all those sorts of people came to Australia after the Second World War, you would have a non-English-speaking forklift driver, you would have a non-English-speaking bloke on the broom in the shed, you would have them as machine operators at GMH and Ford, because you could have those sorts of guys there. It did not matter; you just showed them how to do the job and everything went through. The problem we have now is that whilst those jobs are fewer and fewer, with our workplace health and safety requirements they cannot pass the basic English to get that job. With the generation that went through before, the first generation, whether they were an architect, a brain surgeon or a labourer from another country, they would get in and do whatever they could and make sure that their kids went to school, got a great education and they became the doctors, the lawyers, the carpenters and the builders in our society. What we are seeing now is a section of society which is being vilified by other people—especially Africans, in my community, because, firstly, they look different. They are being vilified because we do not see them going to work—not like the Italians did, not like the Greeks did. We do not see them going to work, because they do not have good enough English and because we will not hire people in those situations and we will not put them on, because business cannot afford the risk. That is the issue when it comes to all things migration.
I have a magnificent city in Townsville. I come from a fantastic part of the world. I use the line: Townsville is the place where God goes for holidays. It is a great part of the world, and we are a great multicultural population; we are a great multicultural city. But we do have that section of society who will not rent houses to people of African origin. We will not give them a job—firstly, because they do not speak English and we have that great deal of difficulty. When it comes to those sorts of groups, what I have said is that they get them together as a group and they hunt as a pack. When it comes to houses, when it comes to jobs, they have to use their English-speaking people to get them into these situations. I think that we as a government must work harder with these people to try to make sure that we get them through.
People who are intellectually disabled or are dealing with mental illness will always be looked after. The first rule of government is to look after people who cannot look after themselves, and that is why social security is there—specifically for these people. So when we get into this space I do say that we are spending $145 billion a year on social security and we do have to be cognisant. That is a massive amount of money. So when we are asking people to make decisions about whether they are going to go to work and that sort of thing, we ask that they do respect the taxpayer and that they respect the fact that someone out there is paying the tax. Someone has to put the cash in before we can take the cash out. Those are things that we have to do in a city like Townsville where we have a real issue when it comes to youth disengagement and lack of education. We have real issues in that space and we have got to work on those. But that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about trying to get people to understand that their work, whilst they are collecting unemployment benefits, is to search for a job. If we can get them into things like Work for the Dole, if we can get to them into programs where there is some sort of manual labour or some sort of job, then they turn up every day and do something.
The only way to guarantee a result is to do nothing. That is the only way to guarantee a result. When you are cold calling as a businessman, an auctioneer, a finance company representative or a sales representative, the only way to guarantee that you do not make the sale is to not knock on the door of that business. That is the only way, because most of the time they are going to say no. But one of them is going to say yes, and that is how you get paid. And the tougher the market is, the fewer people who are out there actually doing it, the more it makes sense that you must be in there and you must be driving it hard.
I have never been unemployed. I was unemployed for a week between jobs, and I would never wish it on anybody. I think it must be soul destroying. The statistics show that if you are on there for 12 months you are on there for two years, and it is awfully hard to come off. But are we more likely to get a good result by saying to people, 'Just go home and collect the dole' or by asking people to work hard in a tough market? Are we likely to get a good result by telling people that their job is to get up and have a go? That is what we have to do.
I support this bill. By and large, I understand that even though the member for Lalor bashed us around a bit on her way through it is pretty much bipartisan that we have these things. This sort of mutual obligation has been around for a fair while. I do support this bill. I do support the fact that we have to make sure that we scrimp and save every taxpayer dollar, because if we do not respect the taxpayer dollar how can we expect those people who receive it to respect the taxpayer dollar? I support this bill. I support what the government is trying to achieve with this and I hope that we get it through. I thank the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:22): I will start by responding to a couple of the comments made by the previous speaker on this bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. One of the comments—it was one of his last comments—was: 'We just want people to get up every morning and have a go.' The truth is that the vast majority of job seekers are getting up and having a go. They are turning up to job interviews. They are turning up to their Job Network providers. This bill is not about getting up and having a go. This bill is about penalising people who get up and have a go. This bill comes from a government that says, 'Even if you get up and have a go every single day but are under the age of 30 we are not going to pay you a cent in Centrelink support. We're not going to respect our obligations under mutual obligation and ensure that you have the financial means to get up and have a go and get to that job every day.' These are empty words from the government, trying to pretend that it is the friend of the Australian people, trying to pretend that it is the friend of job seekers. It says that it just wants people to get up and have a go. This bill does not speak to that. This bill is all about saving money. This bill is all about penalising and demonising people who are trying to find a job.
Shortly after I was elected, a young man came into my new office in Bendigo. He was angry and frustrated. All I could do was ask him to sit down and tell me his story. Until recently he had been working as a contractor working for a labour hire firm in a packing facility in Bendigo. He was on a good rate of pay but it was insecure work, so the moment that the hours dropped off he was told, 'There are no more hours for you. I'm sorry, we have to let you go.' There was nothing he could do about it, because he was employed as agency staff, as a contractor. When he came to see me he had been unemployed for about nine weeks. He did not qualify for any support assistance, because he had not been made redundant and he was actively looking for work. He walked past MatchWorks in Pall Mall in Bendigo and saw advertised a job that he thought would be perfect for him. He rocked into MatchWorks and said, 'How do I get the details of that job in the window?' They said, 'Sorry, you can't. That's reserved for people who are long-term unemployed.' He said, 'Why have it in the window, then?' They said, 'That way you come in and we can talk about you coming onto our books and us helping you look for work.' He goes: 'Okay, how do I do that?' They said, 'You've got to have a Centrelink number.' He did not have that number so he walked around to Centrelink and said, 'I need to get a number. I need to register with you so I can go and register with a Job Network.' The frustration was on this young man's face as he told me how he went to Centrelink and was handed forms and told, 'Fill in these forms, come in for an assessment interview and we'll take it from there.' The job was in the window but he could not apply for it because of the hoops he had to jump through. That to me speaks of a system in crisis. This young man wants to work yet has to jump these hurdles. This government is going to exacerbate that problem with the measures in this bill.
We have not seen from this government a focus on providing opportunities and creating jobs. The government's head is in the sand on this one. In my electorate of Bendigo youth unemployment is spiking. It is now at 30 per cent. The young man who came into my office those many months ago is still looking for work because he is in competition with 30 per cent of the young people in my electorate, those who are looking for work. He did what was expected. He completed grade 12. He did not go to TAFE, because he had a young family and could not afford the fees. He did not enrol at university, because he had to earn an income to pay the mortgage. There are no job opportunities available to him in Bendigo, partly because work is not being created and partly because youth unemployment is so high. We simply do not have available the jobs for many of the job seekers we have today.
I am strongly opposed to the changes in this bill that fail to provide appropriate protections for vulnerable job seekers, particularly those relating to the right to review. This bill seeks to remove the right to review a decision which suspends payments. This sets a dangerous precedent for people and denies them their right to natural justice. What kind of government, what kind of Liberal are you, if you start to deny people their right to natural justice? One person's decision would be the beginning and ending of it. We heard the previous speaker say, 'There has to be flexibility in case there is a storm or people cannot get there on public transport.' Not in this bill there isn't. That kind of flexibility is going to be knocked out as a result of this bill.
There are many reasons why jobseekers miss appointments, and their individual circumstances need to be taken into consideration. In regional areas, it has been outlined, there is a lack of public transport. Buses get cancelled or there is no bus. Another problem that we in regional Australia have is the post. Quite a few pensioners around Australia received a letter from the Prime Minister two weeks ago. In Bendigo they received it last week. The post is very slow in regional Australia. Mail from Bendigo takes about a week to get to Melbourne. Mail from Canberra takes even longer to get to Bendigo. If you are notifying people by letter they might get the letter on the day or the day after they need to turn up for an interview.
The other problem we have is that sometimes people are told by text message that they will have their payment cut. To have their payment restored they have to ring Centrelink and wait in queues. Job cuts in call centres and smart centres as a result of this government's budget mean that people are having to wait up to 70 minutes. They may have registered for the call back service, which means they may not have to incur the very large phone bill, but they have to be there waiting to take the call.
Who will they punish when it comes to these changes that they are introducing? They will penalise and punish the most vulnerable and disadvantaged job seekers. These people are typically overrepresented in having penalties for noncompliance. These are not like the young man who rocked up at my door and said, 'I just want a job; I'll take any job, but nobody will help me find a job.' These are the people where there is something else going on in their lives that is impacting on their ability to look for work.
Last year, over 13,000 small daily 'no show, no pay' penalty rates were imposed on job seekers known as having vulnerable indicators. This included over 4,000 who have psychiatric problems or mental health issues and just under 2,500 with 'homeless' flagged on their file. How do you know to turn up at a meeting at Centrelink if you do not have a home address for your mail to be sent to? What happens if you are one of the young people who are couch-surfing because you cannot get into the rental market and you are trying to provide a fixed address to Centrelink? These people need our compassion and support. These people do not need to be demonised by this government. What we need in our approach to job seekers—particularly those who are most vulnerable—is a compassionate understanding, respect and support. But this government has simply thrown those ideas out the window.
Another problem with this bill is that the government seeks to transfer the responsibility of determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse from DHS employees to the JSA provider staff. Let's just call this change what it really is—another example of the government's attitude to privatising the functions of government. There is a broader problem with this proposal. There are certain jobs within our Public Service that should stay within our Public Service. Fines at a state government level should stay with the Public Service. If you are being penalised by a body as a result of a state law or a federal law, it should be those public servants who enforce that. If this is the legislation that will be set up and if these penalties that will be imposed are a result of this parliament, they should be enforced by the people employed by this government—by the public servants. They should not be outsourced. This government should not be outsourcing its responsibilities with it comes to breaches of Centrelink.
JSA providers are not impressed by this reform, and they have also expressed their concern. They believe that the ability to make these decisions could have a negative impact on their relationship with the very people they are trying to assist in finding work. How can you say to someone, 'Sorry, you didn't turn up to this interview, so we're docking your pay; but we want to have a good relationship to try to get you a job'? It just does not work. It does not work to create that conflict. And the providers themselves have voiced their concern about this particular issue.
Throughout this bill the government seeks to impose harsher measures on job seekers,. This is in addition to the six-month waiting periods for young people before becoming eligible for Newstart and mandatory Work for the Dole schemes. It is an entire generation of young people. There are very few entry level jobs today. These people are actively out there looking for work. Thirty per cent of young people in my electorate are not sitting at home playing the Xbox and eating Cheezels—as the member for Herbert would like us to think. Thirty per cent of young people in my electorate are actively looking for work, but we have not created the job opportunities for them. Creating job opportunities is the role of government; it is the role of business; it is the role of industry; and it is the role of community—working together to create these jobs. Yet, rather than focusing on job creation policy for young people, all we have seen from this government are further attacks and demonising. To suggest that young people are sitting at home playing the Xbox and eating Cheezels is a disgrace and demonstrates how out of touch this government is with the young people in their electorates.
I would like to finish by sharing Kate's story. Kate is a young job seeker in my electorate. She lives in Kyneton. This is her experience of being unemployed, navigating Centrelink and navigating the Job Network system. She said:
People don't like it when you are unemployed. They think you are lazy and wasting their taxpayer dollars.
It is not hard to understand why Kate thinks that, when you have the member for Herbert going on TV and saying exactly that and saying that in his contribution. Kate said:
In the year that I have been unemployed, I have applied for one hundred and seventy jobs. Less than ten bothered to reply. They were all 'unsuccessful applicant' emails that were sent out in bulk.
Again, that goes to the problem in our community of actually having good, secure jobs that people can apply for, that people can count on.
Kate told of her experience with a Job Network provider. She said that, when she first went to meet with them 'they just assume that you have a mental illness or a disability.' She was given a list of jobs to apply for. After she applied for them, she found out that she needed to be an individual with a disability. So her Job Network provider struggled to find a job that was suitable. Kate gave another example of the Job Network provider not recommending a suitable job. She said:
When I received notification that they had put my name down for a position injecting hormones into chicken necks before their eventual slaughter, I was somewhat surprised considering that I hold a BA in Professional Writing/Philosophy, a Masters in Screenwriting for Film, my TAE Cert IV to teach at TAFE or Uni and had worked in a managerial role for a decade.
She said, 'That was not what shocked me; it was the fact that I have been a vegetarian for 15 years.' She said when she was informed that the job she had been matched to did not match her CV that she was told by the job network provider, 'You just need to learn how to grab the chicken by the feet. The rest is pretty simple.' That does not create confidence in our system. Kate is one of many in Australia who are struggling to find a job, yet we have seen from this government a lack of understanding about the few jobs that are available. Instead we have seen not a jobs plan but measures that will make it harder and harder for people like Kate.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (19:38): It is a pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. I think the member for Bendigo eloquently sums up what is wrong with the modern Labor Party. The modern Labor Party is not about the worker any more but about the nonworker, the leaner and not the lift up because they have assiduously opposed for a decade policies that support principles of mutual obligation and the endeavour to get young people and unemployed people back to work. That is what this bill is about, primarily—getting people back to work. Why would anyone be opposed to that? We know that many people miss appointments each year without a satisfactory response.
The member for Bendigo talks about people with legitimate mental health concerns. She talks about people who are homeless. These are not the people we are targeting in this legislation. These are not the people upon whom we are looking to enforce a tougher regime. These issues are being tackled by governments and by charities. They are being dealt with by our whole society and of course these people deserve our sympathy and passion. What we are addressing is the bulk of the rest of them, the 4.5 million missed appointments every year without a satisfactory response—that is, 35 per cent, a good third. It is not unfair, in my view, to ask people who are not doing anything else, who are able-bodied, who do not have mental health concerns, who are not severely disadvantaged to the point that they cannot leave their home or pick up the phone, or look on the internet, or visit a workplace to get a job.
These are the realities of life and that is what the modern Labor Party misses. They also missed the other end of the equation which is that they think a government has to produce of jobs plan. Governments do not create jobs except in the public sector. The government's role is to enable the economy and society to produce more jobs. You will not hear the member for Bendigo talking about Kyneton, which I am familiar with and which is a great local town and a great regional community, and she will not be talking about alleviating the harsh and inflexible weekend penalty rates. Alleviating penalty rates could enable businesses to open longer and to employ many more young people. If she talked to a small business, which I doubt the member for Bendigo has done in a very long time, she would find that they need more flexible system especially on weekends, public holidays and at other times to employ more young people. They would add young people to their business. This is not a big business issue; this is a small business issue. You have no real plan for the Labor Party to allow the economy, which is the only sector which creates the job, to do their job—that is, to employ more people.
So we have a double nexus of failure from the Labor Party and we find them in the their ongoing problem and malaise—that they do not recognise the fundamental principle of this debate which is that welfare is not good for you. Welfare is not something we want people to be on. While they talk about how much of a right it is for every Australian to get welfare, it is not something that develops a good person, it is not something which people in this situation want to be on; it is something they want to get off and something we want to get them off. It is something the Labor Party ought to want to get them off. Yet they continually talk about the right to be on welfare, saying that people need to be on welfare.
People do not need to be on welfare when we run a productive society that can create as many jobs possible. At the moment we are not enabling our society to do that. That is why the government is so fixated on an economic action strategy that will allow the economy to produce more jobs and get more people off welfare. Getting people off welfare is good for them. We have intergenerational welfare problems in Australia now and those intergenerational welfare concerns produce ongoing serious effects, particularly for people who are stuck in the intergenerational welfare nexus. So to ask people to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework and say, 'You must turn up when you say you're going to turn up,' that is a principle of getting a job. That is a principle of being a person who is willing to get a job. To say, 'I slept in', which is one of the excuses that are given—
Ms Hall interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: The member for Shortland scoffs, but these are all on the public record. These are all available. If the member for Shortland bothered to read these things, she would find out that the excuses people give are available on the public record. 'I slept in' or 'I forgot' are not legitimate excuses. As the member for Bendigo says, these are not people with a mental illness or people who are homeless. These are people saying, 'I forgot to turn up for my job appointment.' If the member for Shortland did her homework she would see that sleeping in, forgetting, could not be bothered are excuses published each quarter as part of the report on job seeker compliance. They are not good enough. I do not believe the vast majority of Australians would find those excuses good enough when the vast majority of Australians are working to pay for people to be on welfare. They expect that those people will get a job, though they will get training and retraining if they have too. The member for Bendigo raises the example of Kate who has a masters in philosophy and all those other degree she has learnt from universities and is unable to find a job. This government will offer her education at the taxpayers' expense to retrain in an area where she could get a job. And if she is unable to do the work which has been found for her, there will be other avenues.
The member for Bendigo really should stop adopting a negative approach and telling her constituent that it is good to stay on welfare or to be on welfare and help her to get off welfare by offering her the opportunities which exist in this great country from retraining, for education and for opportunity. There are more opportunities for young people in this country than in any other country in the world today. There are more of them right now, regardless of which side is in government. Young people should be given that message and told to get off welfare and to go out to find those opportunities because they are real, they exist and they are within the grasp of every single Australian.
If you are not able to grasp them, if you have a legitimate mental health concern, as the member for Bendigo raises, or you are homeless, there are other avenues and services of government in our society that are there to provide for you. That is not what this bill is talking about. It is disingenuous of members opposite to suggest that this will adversely affect people in these categories. They are not the target of this legislation.
We know that there is a significant ongoing problem with non-attendance rates at appointments. This has been the source of much consternation for government over many years. If the members opposite really wanted to understand this issue, I would simply point them to statements by previous spokespeople on this issue, including the minister at the time in the previous government, the current member for Adelaide, who said: 'I believe that attendance at appointments can and must improve. That is why we made an election commitment to strengthen the compliance system.' Why would the current opposition oppose strengthening the current compliance legislation when it was their position in government? They understood this. Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, understood this. So why are they opposing it now? Is it simply because they have fallen into the trap of opposition of opposing everything for opposition's sake? It is not punitive to say to people that they should be seeking to get jobs and that they must attend their appointments unless they have a legitimate excuse. Nobody here is questioning that there are legitimate reasons or legitimate excuses for people not to turn up. The operative word is 'legitimate'.
We have to create a system as well that supports what both sides of parliament have been saying over many years, which is that we have to strengthen the compliance framework. That means that we have to amend in this legislation the provision that allows people to drop in an unacceptable excuse and then have the money immediately go into their account. In amending this legislation, the government is ensuring that if you do not have satisfactory attendance you will have your payments suspended, and this is the real incentive. I suspect, if members opposite thought deeply about this, they would understand that it will lead to a decrease in these pathetic excuses. And they are pathetic—'I slept in,' 'I forgot,' or 'I simply couldn't be bothered.' I do not think we will be seeing many of those when people's payments have been suspended and they have difficulty obtaining that money. I think people will get the message and those people who are doing the wrong thing will start doing the right thing. The right thing is to meet their side of the bargain, and that is to go and look for a job, to do it appropriately and to do everything they can to get employment and get back on their feet.
I do not think people ought to be picky about it. You take what jobs are available. Many of us here in this place have worked in small shops and jobs that we did not think we would be in for our whole lives. There are plenty of people who have been very successful in life who started in jobs that were very low paid, difficult, unpleasant or not the jobs they wanted to do. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how you start out. That is the signal we have to send. Unfortunately, the modern Labor Party sends the signal to everybody that your first job should be your last job, that you should be highly paid when you are 18 and in your first job and that it should be your job for life. That is just not the case. You take the work you can get. You learn the skills you need. It will not be a super high-paid job that you should be doing forever and ever. It is the culture of the victim that the modern Labor Party creates, saying that, 'Everything is against you, the system is against you, life is against you and you cannot succeed, so we are just going to agitate for less work and more pay.' That is the modern union-Labor nexus—less work for more pay—which is strangling our enterprise and initiative in this country.
This bill is going to significantly reduce the cost of red tape for employment providers. That is a theme of this government as well. I am a big fan of this because we have to reduce the time spent administering this whole ridiculous excuse system and improve the ability of these people to spend the time that they need to be spending on getting these young people and other people who are unemployed jobs.
We are investing $5.1 billion over three years in the new employment services system from 2015. This is a very significant investment. It is very important that we update, by amendment, the framework that goes along with this investment. That is such a significant investment that if the Labor Party is suggesting we do not need to update the compliance job seeker framework, contrary to what they thought when they were in government, they really need to come forward and say why and not put forward a whole sob-story and blame story about how the world is against everybody, because it is not the case in a country like Australia. It never has been, and it is not going to be under any government. There are plenty of accessible opportunities for all people who are unemployed in Australia to seek education or retraining or to go and get the job that they have been looking for.
I would encourage those people who are doing the wrong thing to go out and do the right thing. That is what the member for Herbert was saying. There are people who assiduously do the wrong thing and game the system, which we have not talked about here. It may not be similar to the proportion of people who are homeless or have legitimate mental health issues. It may not be the bulk of people who are unemployed. But there are people who are unemployed who are deliberately doing the wrong thing by not showing up for an appointment or who have lost hope or have, for no reason, given up. It is not a good signal for the government to send to say, 'That's okay.' It is not a good signal to say, 'Society is to blame.' We really need to look these people in the eye and say, 'You do need to go and turn up to appointments and to go and get a job.'
I would encourage the Labor Party to drop this rhetoric of railing against society, our system and our fairness when we are a very fair and equal society and we offer many, many ways for someone to get themselves out of a difficult situation in this country. I can tell you from dealing with businesses, small and large, that there are so many people who employ people in this country who are willing to give young people and unemployed people a go. They exist. They are real. They are there. But they are looking for that spark of desire. They are looking for those people who want to get that job. They are looking for someone to have a bit of self-belief. That is what we have to give people who are unemployed—a bit of self-belief.
The first thing we can do is be honest with them and say, 'You can't provide a pathetic excuse to government on why you're not going to your appointments.' Sleeping in or 'I forgot'—these sorts of things have to stop. They are real excuses; they are not something this government has made up. They are in the reporting; they happen every year; and they are unacceptable. This amendment to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework ought to have the support of both sides of parliament. It did have the support of ministers in the previous government. This is a simple update to ensure that we are doing everything we can to get people out of the welfare system and into work.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (19:52): Listening to the contribution from the member for Mitchell shows how out of touch he is. As he stood in this House, he gave a scenario of reasons that people are unemployed. Listening to his contribution you would believe the only reason that a person is unemployed is that they failed to comply with the requirements of Centrelink—or they're lazy or they can't get out of bed or they just forgot about it. I say to the member for Mitchell that I have worked with people who are unemployed for many years and I know how desperate they are to try and find employment. A person does not choose to languish on welfare; a person tries to get a job. In my area there is a very high rate of youth unemployment and there is very little assistance available for them, particularly since this Abbott government cut so many of the programs—like Youth Connection—that helped young people move from school to work. There is a need to have a compliance regime, and we on this side of parliament do not walk away from that in any shape or form. But the reason a person is unemployed is a lot more complicated than not complying by not turning up for appointments.
There needs to be more jobs. This government has absolutely no plan for jobs. A plan for jobs is not cutting wages and working conditions. I have worked in small business, I have owned a small business and I know that there are many challenges for small businesses, but I know that small businesses cannot take all the young people and all the older people who are unemployed. If you look at the difficulties associated with older people wanting to enter the workforce, you would know there are so many barriers to stop people gaining employment. It is not that they do not turn up for jobs and it is not that they will not attend appointments; it is rather the simple fact that the jobs do not exist.
Mr Sukkar: You're not helping, Jill.
Ms HALL: If the member on the other side of this House occasionally listened to what other people were saying, he might learn something. He is one of the rudest members in this parliament. I have noticed him having a go at people all the time. I encourage him to listen occasionally to the shadow minister, who could teach him a thing or two. You have been here five minutes and all you can do is shout abuse across the chamber. As I was saying, this government has absolutely no plan for jobs. What has happened to jobs since they have been in power? The car industry has been decimated—sorry, we don't have a car industry. Submarines are going to be built overseas and shipbuilding, an industry that is very important in my area, is about to become non-existent.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
Ms HALL: Please, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I can ask for him to be silent.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): The member for Shortland should ignore the interjections. The member for Deakin, the member for Shortland does have the call.
Ms HALL: I would be very pleased for the member opposite to listen and learn.
Mr Sukkar: I'm not learning anything from you, Jill.
Ms HALL: I have had a number of constituents come to see me who over the years have been breached by Centrelink. The most common reason that a person comes to see me when they have been breached is that they were called into work on that day. That was not considered an acceptable excuse. I had one person that it happened to three times, and she was in a lot of trouble. She was faced with the situation of 'Do I go to work or do I go to an appointment?'
Mr Hartsuyker: You can ring up.
Ms HALL: I see the minister shaking his head. They did ring up and were told that their reason was not acceptable. The one side of the equation is that you need to have compliance and the other side of it is that you need to have in place programs to help people.
Mr Hartsuyker: You are making it up.
Ms HALL: The minister said that I am making it up. No, I am not. I have also had people come to see me who have had to rush a sick child to hospital. One person even had their husband have a heart attack and she was breached. On another occasion a constituent came to see me after being involved in a car accident and they were breached. It took a lot of work for my staff to get those Centrelink benefits re-instated. Those on the other side of this House do not understand what the real world is about.
This legislation is set to cause enormous hardship. The government is seeking to make amendments which would mean that from 1 January 2015 a payment suspension for a participant—a participant is a person who failed to attend an appointment—would not be re-instated until after the person had attended an appointment with their employment provider. As I said, many of the people that have been breached are people who actually work. The provision could mean that they have to wait quite a considerable time before they can attend an appointment.
This is legislation that from one perspective is designed to encourage people to comply with the requirements that are in place so that they can receive Newstart or whatever other benefit it might be, but from another perspective shows a total lack of understanding of people, a total lack of understanding of the job market and a very simplistic and narrow approach to looking at why people do not attend appointments. It is looking at extending compliance requirements to job seekers who are 55 and over. Currently it is a lesser requirement. I mentioned a moment ago the barriers that people who are older face when trying to obtain a job. The government would be much better putting in place a series of programs that would actually help people get the skills that they need to enter the workforce and support them. And if there are people who really need extra assistance, people who may have a mental health problem, which seemed to be an issue that the member for Mitchell raised on a number of occasions, then they should be supported. If a person is constantly sleeping in or missing an appointment for some reason, maybe there is something else going on.
Those on the other side of this parliament are just interested in cutting costs because this is seen as a budget saving measure. It outlines a total of $161.1 million in savings over four years. I would argue very strongly that the $161.1 million should be put into programs that will help people get skills, programs that will help them move from being unemployed to work. I would argue that money would be best spent on programs like Youth Connections, which did a fantastic job in my area. I worked so closely with them.
In my office, I have an employment group. A number of providers come in. We look at and analyse the areas where there are going to be shortages in jobs and then the employment providers look at how they can help people train in those areas and then link them into those industries. Within my area, occupations that will be in demand are in aged care, because Shortland is an older electorate, and disability. But to do that you need to spend about $161.1 million to help develop the skills. You need to put in place a job plan so that you know the direction that you are going in. And a job plan is not about cutting wages, it is not about cutting conditions; a job plan is about making sure there is a proper analysis of the economy, that you look at the areas where there is going to be job growth. You do not to stand up and speak platitudes and say there is no such thing as unemployment, that people are unemployed because they do not want a job. That is not true. My staff spend quite a bit of time helping people prepare resumes. We look at linking them with contacts in the local community. I know it is not what those members on the other side of this parliament would do, but we recognise that there is a very tight job market at the moment and it is getting tighter.
Since the Abbott government was elected, the number of jobs that have been available in my electorate and throughout Australia has shrunk. You only have to look at the figures to see that that is the case. We have had an increase in the level of unemployment; the number of people looking for jobs has decreased—that is, the participation rate, people seeking employment. That is because people know that the jobs are not there and the assistance is not there. The assistance is not there because this government really thinks, 'We'll bring in Work for the Dole; we'll tighten up the compliance mechanism'—the opposition support strong compliance mechanisms, but we also support fair compliance mechanisms. We do not support mechanisms that are going to create hardship and we definitely do not support removing the right of people to appeal decisions that have been made. That is unfair: it is taking away people's natural justice and it means that that people can be ridden over roughshod. It has been one of the tenants of this social security system for many, many years—that is, people have the right to appeal decisions that have been made.
This bill was introduced on Thursday, 25 September and it had its own deadline. The government was trying to get it through because it had request for tenders that were due in September. It did not make it; it has failed to actually meet its own deadlines.
This government needs to take a step back. The minister at the table, the member for Cowper—I have been on an employment committee with him in the past—needs to take a step back. He really needs to look at the issues. The area that he represents has got one of the highest levels of unemployment in this country—real unemployment. I have family who live in that area; I know there are a number of Indigenous people who live in his area who cannot find jobs. Businesses open and they absolutely ignore those young people who are unemployed and who are looking for work. It is a retirement area. He should be sitting down and setting up an employment group in his own electorate similar to the one I have. He should be getting out there and looking at running job expos, looking at doing things that will lead to a better outcome for the unemployed people in his electorate.
Once again, I do not support transferring the decision to breach people to the job agencies. Those on the other side stand condemned for their total lack of understanding of issues surrounding unemployment and how to actually facilitate people re-entering the workforce. (Time expired)
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (20:07): The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill is designed to ensure that jobseekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligations requirements. Central to this is the requirement for jobseekers to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider. This bill is another example of how the government is focussed on delivering outcomes—not just processes or press releases. I came to this place to deliver outcomes, not just optics, and this bill is a fantastic example of how we are seeking to do this.
I am a bit disappointed that the member for Shortland has left the House, because I thought we could have had a chat here about what really drives employment in an economy. I went back to my old economics textbooks from my bachelor and masters degrees to have a look at what drives jobs growth. I have heard a lot about this idea of a jobs plan, so I looked under 'J' in the indexes and there was nothing there. Then I looked under 'P' and there was nothing there either. But then I looked in the text and there was a story about jobs plans, so I was delighted to find that jobs plans were there. The textbooks said that the Soviet Union had jobs plans. It turns out, though, that they had a hell a lot of unemployment—the Soviet jobs plans did not work.
I am absolutely confident that a jobs plan coming from those opposite will have no impact on unemployment and employment in this country. I then thought I would do justice to this issue and I would take a look at what really does drive employment. What I discovered in my textbooks was a very simple story—there is the demand side and the supply side. Let us talk about them. The demand side is all about creating jobs, and we hear about this from the opposition but they do not really understand what it involves. It turns out there are three factors in creating demand and jobs in the economy. Firstly, there is government consumption—there is no doubt about it, that is the one they are best at. The trouble is that they have spent all the money so there is no more room for government consumption. Secondly, we move to private sector consumption—we can try and up that but under their term of government we saw private debt levels escalate to record levels in this country, higher than almost any other Western country in the world—I think the Irish are ahead of us—and it is clear now that the consumer is not going to be there creating jobs for us and we are seeing that it is a tough time in retail. Thirdly, there is investment, and of course what they miss is that we had a mining investment boom of $120 billion a year, which under their government was threatened. It was threatened by a mining tax and it was threatened by red tape at every level. As we got into government we saw mining investment on the verge of collapse. Fortunately, our Minister for Industry and our Minister for the Environment have been working hard to turn this around, and they have made billions and billions of dollars worth of approvals to get these jobs going in the 12 months we have been in government. Already we are starting to see the fruits of their very hard work.
But there is another side to investment, which is infrastructure investment. We are undertaking the biggest infrastructure investment program in this country's history—the Snowy Mountains scheme many, many times over. We are motivating the states to get on with the job of building roads and building railways, and that is exactly what they are doing. We understand the demand side of the economy does not need a jobs plan, it just needs good, hard-headed economics—something those on the other side of the House have no comprehension of. The textbooks then told me there was another side to this—the supply side. The supply side is all about getting potential employees into a position where they are seeking jobs, where they want jobs and where they are skilled for jobs. Part of that is about our industrial relations system, but that is not the focus of this legislation. The other part of it is the job search system. That is exactly what we are focused on here.
I thought I would research the job search system a little more and see what the experts—not the member for Shortland—had to say about job search systems. Specifically I want to talk about the work of British economist Stephen Nickell. Stephen Nickell has been researching in this area since the late 1970s and has co-authored a text and a number of papers on this issue of job search systems. The primary focus of that work is creating a framework for the purpose of understanding unemployment and how job search systems impact on unemployment. I was lucky enough to be taught by him in my time at Oxford as a graduate economics student. Nickell highlights four important features of an employment system that drive unemployment—benefit levels, the duration of the benefit, the extent of the benefit system's coverage and the strictness of enforcement. Specifically, Nickell points out that the strictness of the enforcement of an unemployment benefit system is of absolutely crucial importance to influencing unemployment. Stephen Nickell is from the left—he is not from my side of politics. But he understood, as a good, hard-headed economist, that the unemployment benefit system and job search are absolutely crucial in influencing unemployment. This is particularly so for countries with a relatively generous level of benefit, which includes Australia.
Nickell spent a lot of time looking at active labour market policies—measures which provide active assistance to the unemployed to improve their chances of obtaining work. Once again, he found that well-directed active labour market policies are effective tools in reducing unemployment and in particular well-directed job search assistance tends to have consistently positive outcomes. He points out that those policies are only needed in countries with high unemployment benefits because additional pressure on the unemployed is not required if benefits are very low relative to potential earnings in work. It is a good thing that we have a generous benefits system, but the quid pro quo of having a generous benefits system—and these are the words of Stephen Nickell, not Angus Taylor—is that you need additional pressure on the unemployed to ensure that they get into jobs. So we have here strong and rigorous research and support for the proposition that strictly enforced unemployment benefits and well-directed job search assistance improve employment outcomes and reduce unemployment. That is from one of the gurus of labour market economics and one of the most respected labour economists the world has ever seen.
The government are committed to building a strong and prosperous economy, promoting workforce participation and helping job seekers to find jobs. We are also focused on ensuring that job seekers remain in employment over the long term. We are investing $5.1 billion in employment services to better meet the needs of job seekers, employers and employment providers. Our objective is to promote strong workforce participation by people of working age and, importantly, to help more job seekers move from welfare to work, because there is no better welfare than a job. To do this we will be providing stronger incentives for employment providers to deliver high-quality services, we will be making the expectations we have of job seekers very clear in terms of active participation and we will be reducing the level of regulation, complexity and red tape for employment providers—and they have been wrapped in red tape in recent years by the former government.
This refocus of employment service arrangements will complement measures announced in the recent budget, including changes for job seekers aged 18 to 30 and the restart wage subsidy to support mature age employment. It will also build on other government programs, including the job commitment bonus for young Australians and relocation assistance to take up a job.
As has previously been the case, we expect that there will be a mix of employment providers. That will include for-profit and not-for-profit organisations involved in delivering these services across Australia. We are simply interested in organisations that are going to deliver outcomes and we are simply interested in making sure we pay them for delivering outcomes not optics.
There are a range of other changes that we are making in concert with this. The training will be more targeted. Job seekers will not undertake training for training's sake. We will be simplifying and extending the mutual obligation framework to ensure that job seekers remain actively engaged while looking for work. This is not a box-ticking exercise. It has to be far more fundamental than that.
We will also be placing job seekers into one of three service streams based on their risk of becoming long-term unemployed and any serious non-job related issues. This is incredibly important because it is going to ensure that funding and rewards are directed to the employment service providers who are able to find jobs for those in the most critical situations. We should not be paying employment service providers the full tote, the full amount, for someone who can find a job for themselves. We should be paying them to find a job for someone who is struggling to find a job.
These changes—and there are a range of them, as I have outlined—and investment in employment services are all about helping job seekers find a job and keep that job. Part of the payment we make to the employment service provider will not be for finding the job in the first place; it will be for making sure that that person stays in a job. That is not something that those opposite decided to do, but it is something we know really counts. They have to keep their job, not just get it in the first place.
If we are to maximise the value of this investment, it is vital that our job seeker compliance framework encourages people to take responsibility for their actions and encourages people to be active and engaged in the job search process. As I said earlier, Australia's welfare system is based on the principle of mutual obligation—that is, people in receipt of taxpayer funded income support, such as Newstart, are required to undertake certain activities in return for their income support. This includes attending appointments with their employment provider for help with job search and to monitor progress in finding and keeping a job.
Currently, if a job seeker fails to attend an appointment, their income support payment is suspended or put on hold and once the job seeker agrees to attend a rescheduled appointment the suspension is lifted and they receive full back-payment. It is not as though there is a lot of incentive there to turn up in the first place. Good people and motivated people will always turn up—we know that. We have to provide an incentive. As I said earlier, great research from people like Stephen Nickell tells us that that is the case.
The system as it currently stands does not provide sufficient incentive for people to do the right thing the first time. Of the 12 million compulsory appointments in 2013-14, almost 4.5 million were not attended by job seekers. This is an absolutely astounding non-attendance rate of 35 per cent. We have heard from previous speakers all the reasons given by some of those people for that. There are legitimate reasons in some cases but certainly in other cases there are not.
Under this bill from 1 January 2015 a job seeker's payment will be suspended following a failure to attend an appointment. If the job seeker does not give a reasonable excuse for missing their first appointment or does not give reasonable notice of the excuse when it was reasonable for them to do so, they will not receive back-payment once that appointment is rescheduled. It is important to recognise that this bill will not affect the majority of job seekers who do the right thing. If a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for their failure to attend an appointment then the suspension and the loss of income support does not apply. Existing safeguards and protections for vulnerable job seekers remain in place.
I am constantly focused on bringing new job opportunities into my electorate of Hume. We are lucky to have relatively low unemployment. I recognise that much employment comes from fast-growing small- to medium-sized businesses. The investments they make for the future are also the source of new jobs, whether it is new quarries, abattoirs, breweries, poultry businesses, aircraft manufacturers or education service providers. I spend time with these people to make sure they are creating jobs. The flip side is we need to have people who are actively searching for work with the appropriate level of support. That is exactly what this legislation is intended to achieve. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (20:22): It may come as a shock to members of the government, but the current rate of Newstart, the unemployment benefit, is not exactly generous. I don't know if any of them know actually what it is or have spent any time on unemployment benefits while they look for a job, but it is hardly a king's ransom. At the moment, people who are looking for work who are on unemployment benefits are living below the poverty line. When you have $250 to $260 a week to live on and you have to make everything come out of that small amount of money, you have no choice but to give up on some essentials. I invite anyone from the government benches to try for a week to live on the equivalent of Newstart. What you will find is that the only way you can get to the end of that week is either by being further in debt or by skipping out on some of life's necessities.
That is something that the Greens have been saying for some time, but it is not just the Greens who have been saying that. Someone who sits very close to us on the ideological spectrum, the Business Council of Australia, has also said that the level of support given to people in this country who have the misfortune of being out of work is now so low that in fact it is becoming a poverty trap. What do they mean by that? They mean that when you have got $250 to $260 a week to live on, you do not have the money to buy yourself those new clothes to get ready for the job interview. You do not have the money to put yourself through a course to train up to increase the chances of getting a better job. You do not have the money to get that haircut to make yourself look nice, which might put you higher up the queue. You perhaps do not even have the money to get transport to get around to look for the number of jobs and apply for the number of job interviews that you might like, or to fund someone to go and look after the kids while you look for a job.
In fact, at the moment you spent almost all of your time just surviving and working out how you are going to eke out about $500 over a fortnight and to spread it so that you get to the end of it without you or someone close to you having to go hungry. Many of the people who are getting this kind of income at the moment find themselves in country towns where youth unemployment can have a two in front of it. It can be in the 20-something per cent. Or you could find yourself in city areas where youth unemployment can be in the order of 14 per cent, where you desperately want a job, but the jobs just are not there.
When you have people who are in that situation, who are being forced to live below the poverty line and who all the evidence says we are now treating in a way that is actually pushing them further away from jobs, what do you do? One option would be to do what the Greens, the Business Council of Australia and others are calling for which is to say, 'Let's lift the level of unemployment benefit so that it is no longer a barrier to people getting a job, so that they stop spending all their time just working out how to survive and how to meet the requirements that the system imposes on them'—which does not necessarily help them get a job, but is just about making them take time out of their day to do that. You could say, 'Let's change the system so we help people find a job.' Or you could do what this government is doing.
What this government is saying is, 'Instead of giving someone who is in trouble a hand up, we are going to push them down.' What it is saying is, 'If you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being out of a job, you are going to find yourself below the poverty line'—something that can happen to anyone through no fault of their own if their employer goes under or they get made redundant. Not only is the government going to force you to live below the poverty line, it is saying, 'If you miss an appointment for certain reasons, we are going to take away even that small amount of money that you have got.'
Let us go through—because none of the other speakers from the government side have spoken about this because they would have no idea of the reality facing people who are struggling to find work or are struggling to engage with the system—some of the reasons that someone might miss an appointment in the brave new world under this Liberal government. One of the reasons might be that the Liberal government has taken away their dole for six months. What do you do if you are a young person who has no money, zero, because this government has said, 'We are going to take away your dole for six months'? How do you get to your appointments? How do you do it?
I welcome any interjections from anyone from the government bench and any advice that they might have for a young person who has got absolutely zero dollars, who is trying to pay the rent, who is looking for work and who now might miss their appointment because they do not have the money to pay for the bus ticket or the tram ticket or the train ticket to get there. What are they going to do? What do you do if the reason that you miss your appointment is that you are homeless? You are homeless and that might have been through no fault of your own, but you find yourself on the streets or living rough or couch-surfing, as many people in this situation do because they have not got the money for a stable house.
What do you do if the letter does not get to you or your mobile has been cut off and you do not get the text message and you miss your appointment? What do you do if you are in that situation? What happens is that you find out about it when you go to the bank to get out that last $20 and you find it is not there. Then what do you do? Then the problems compound. The problems compound because now you have got no money at all, assuming you were getting some in the first place. Now you have got no money at all and that might mean that you get kicked out of the place you were staying at. It might mean you do not have money for food that night. It might mean you do not have the extra money to pay to go and see the doctor, especially if you have to pay a GP co-payment as well. And that is how the problems compound. That is why, if you are this government and you take the approach to remove the carrot and beat them hard with a stick, this is an ill-thought-through measure that has the prospect of not encouraging people to look harder for work but actually has the prospect of just making them completely disengage with the system.
People who find themselves on the margins of society might not have the greatest literacy, might be struggling to find permanent accommodation and might have some mental health issues that have not even been diagnosed. All of a sudden they start getting their payments cut off and what they are actually quite possibly going to do is just disengage from the system completely. They are not going to look for work harder but they are at the risk of disengaging.
Every time the proposal of putting penalties on people comes up, whether under the previous Labor government or now under this government, when you drill down into the evidence, what you find is that punishing people in this way will not make them more likely to get into work. No-one apart from the most ideologically driven person would say that that is going to work. What you also find is the reasons that on the surface appear unreasonable for people not turning up often have complex explanations. It is the people who are falling through the cracks who will get hit the hardest, not the ones who are thumbing their nose at the system, not the ones who say, 'I do not want to look for work'. Not only that but this bill is going to hit older workers hard as well because it is going to change how their activity tests are defined and change what counts for them as being in work so they are going to bear the brunt of it as well.
It is a part of the government's war on the young, the old, the sick and the poor. It stems from a proposition that there are all these people out there who are somehow bludging off the system. I have not met that many people who are on the dole, struggling to get by on $260 a week, who would not love a job. Pretty much everyone I have met who is on unemployment benefits wants to find work. If they cannot, it is usually through no fault of their own.
When people get into work it not only helps with their dignity, it not only helps to control their lives but it has an added benefit for the government as well because the government does not have to pay welfare payments. Instead, it starts getting tax receipts. When you do that, you help people and you help the budget. But when you do what this government is going to do, you are just pushing more people further and further away.
It is notable that instead of talking about any real-world engagement with unemployed people or service providers, the previous speaker got up and read out an economics textbook and said, 'I read this in my year 12 textbook, and that is all I need to know how things work in the real world.' It does not work like that. If this government spent a little bit of time talking to the people who need help instead of taking an axe to them, we might have a more inclusive society and it might help with getting people into work. What is the answer? The answer is not this bill. This bill has to be stopped and we will be voting against it here and in the Senate.
The next step has to be to lift Newstart by $50 a week at a minimum. Let's start lifting people out of poverty—we can afford to do it if we want to—and help them find jobs. Everyone from us to the Business Council of Australia knows that if you stop making people just have to survive, if you stop making people live so far below the poverty line that it is a barrier to them finding work, it is going to help them into jobs.
Let's also have a realistic outlook about where jobs are going to come from in this country. We saw the previous speaker pillory having a jobs plan. I do not know if he talked to his industry minister about that before he gave that speech, but we saw the minister talking about the plan for the country that is going to grow the economy. It picks a good area like medical technology as a potential growth area but still this governments cannot tear its gaze away from its dig-it-up chop-it-down mentality.
Out of the five priority areas, we have got the forward-looking minister and government saying, 'I reckon fossil fuels are going to be very big in the 21st century; let's make those two out of our five priority areas. Let's ignore tourism, let's ignore all the jobs in Queensland that are dependent on the Great Barrier Reef, let's ignore the healthcare sector where we have had some of our strongest jobs growth and let's focus on the areas that did us sort of okay in the 20th century so perhaps they will do just as well in the 21st century.'
If we really want to create jobs for people including young people, first of all, you do not kick them off the dole and force them to do anything they have to just to make ends meet by taking away their income. Secondly, you ask, 'How are we going to stand Australia in good stead in the 21st century?' That means investing in education so that we as a country have something to sell the rest of the world in 15 years' time that is not just coal or uranium. We are never going to be able to compete with China or India on wages but will be able to compete with our brains. That means investing more in education instead of making people pay the equivalent of a second mortgage for their first degree. And it means having a forward-looking industry and jobs plan so that people have a job to go into as the rest of the world moves to a clean-energy future. That is not going to come from this government and, increasingly, all around the country people are realising that. And that is one of the reasons that we will be strongly opposing this bill.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (20:37): I rise to talk on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. The coalition of course believes that hardworking Australians who through no fault of their own fall on hard times are entitled to be supported through those hard times until they can get back on their feet. All fair-minded Australians will accept that if you are the recipient of such help then there is an obligation upon you—a mutual obligation, if you like—to do all you can to help get back on your feet as soon as possible. It is effectively a social compact.
This bill will ensure that more job seekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligation requirements to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider. I acknowledge that many people who receive unemployment benefits receive them despite their best intentions, and their preference would be gainful employment where their talent, abilities and hard work are rewarded. Most people on government benefits do not want to be in the situation that necessitates them being on benefits. Sadly there is also a large number that do not respect this social compact and seek to take advantage of the social safety net.
And I also make the point that the sector most impacted by these actions is not the government, but the members of the public who pay their taxes and willingly accept their obligation to pay for that social safety net. The proportion who abuse their benefits cause a lack of confidence in the system and undermine the social compact between the community and the disadvantaged.
One of the activities that job seekers are asked to do is attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider to discuss job options and to review progress in finding work. These appointments could hardly be regarded as onerous and are designed to maximise the chances of a person moving from welfare to work. Most job seekers are required to attend an appointment with their employment provider only once a month.
Appointments are generally of short duration and take into account the job seeker's capacity to attend at certain times. This is done both formally—in person or in writing, including time, date and place—and informally via SMS, phone or email. Job seekers are also informed in advance that a failure to attend an appointment without giving sufficient prior notice may result in suspension of their payment or the imposition of a penalty. If a job seeker contacts their provider ahead of the scheduled appointment to let them know they are unable to attend due to a good reason, then no suspension of payment or penalty is applied. And if it is subsequently found that a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for the failure to attend and the failure to notify ahead of time, then no suspension of payment or penalty is applied either.
I was appalled to learn that in the 2013-14 financial year 12,750,000 compulsory appointments with employment providers were scheduled; and, of these, 4.47 million were not attended by job seekers. That is a non-attendance rate of 35 per cent. So, instead of helping people with their job search, front-line staff are forced to spend their limited time chasing job seekers, rescheduling appointments and submitting reports to the Department of Human Services. This is clearly a waste of their time and the nation's resources. All of this extra effort on the part of employment providers could be avoided if more job seekers did the right thing in the first place—by either attending the scheduled appointment or picking up the phone to reschedule ahead of time. Neither of which, as I have said, are overly onerous obligations.
In 2012-13, over 238,000 job seekers had at least one participation failure applied by the Department of Human Services for missing a regular appointment or a reconnection appointment with their employment provider. In 2013-14, this figure—staggering as it was—had grown to almost 280,000 job seekers. That is more than one in five of all job seekers who received an activity tested payment at some time during the year.
The Department of Human Services only applies these participation failures after a series of checks and balances—such as whether the person should have been required to attend the appointment, whether they had a reasonable excuse or if the notification of the appointment had been sent to the wrong address. So it is clear that there are 280,000 cases each year where both the person's employment provider and the Department of Human Services agree that there were no extenuating circumstances that explain the job seeker's failure to attend. Keeping the current rules in place which allow this number of people to fail to attend is simply unfair on those taxpayers who get up every day to go to work and pay their taxes—taxes which help to fund income support payments and our employment services system. It is also particularly unfair to those on income support who meet their mutual obligations, who attend the appointments and comply with their other reporting obligations. Workers are expected to keep commitments—like appointments—in return for their wages, and the same sort of standards should be expected of job seekers in receipt of taxpayer funded income support.
It is time to make further changes to drive improved attendance rates and reduce the red-tape burden and financial strain on employment providers and our social security system. This bill will achieve this by introducing stronger incentives so that more job seekers do the right thing first time around. Currently, a job seeker who has their income support payment suspended because they failed to attend an appointment can get that suspension lifted simply by indicating that they will attend another appointment. Given the sheer number of regular and reconnection appointments that are missed each year, it is clear that the current arrangements are not providing a sufficient incentive for job seekers to do the right thing. Under this bill, from 1 January 2015 job seekers who have had their payment suspended for missing an appointment with their provider without giving the requisite prior notice of a valid reason will typically only have their suspension lifted when they actually attend another appointment.—an eminently sensible position. This will provide a stronger incentive for job seekers to attend their appointments and remain engaged with their employment provider.
From 1 July 2015 the bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by providing that if a job seeker has had their income support payment suspended for failing to attend a regular appointment with their in employment provider and it is subsequently determined that they did not have a reasonable excuse for that failure to attend then they will not be back paid for the period of noncompliance. That is what is suspected of people in the workplace if they cannot make it to work; so it is only fair and reasonable that a similar standard is applied to those people in receipt of taxpayer funded benefits.
Of course, this bill will not change the rules with regard to reasonable excuses. The bill will not impact on those whose failure to attend is beyond their control, for instance: where they were taken ill or had an unexpected caring commitment and gave prior notice. And it will not impact on the majority of job seekers, who attend their appointments, or those who let their provider know in advance that they genuinely cannot attend.
As is the case now, job seekers with a reasonable excuse will not have the suspension or penalty applied if they have given the requisite prior notice. In addition, employment providers will remain able to exercise discretion as to when they report a failure to the Department of Human Services. The bill will not remove any of the current safeguards in the system that are designed to ensure that the vulnerable job seekers do not incur penalties inappropriately. The bill will also make changes to the provisions that allow job seekers who are 55 years or older and who have full-time mutual obligation requirements to meet that requirement by undertaking part-time, voluntary or paid work.
The bill builds on the changes made in 2011 by introducing new incentives to drive more widespread changes in job seeker behaviour. The government is determined to reduce the number of missed appointments each year so as to reduce the red-tape burden and costs on employment providers. The coalition does not consider it acceptable that job seekers miss so many appointments every year, and I welcome these changes. They are ultimately part of a suite of changes which will see more and more Australians enjoying the dignity that comes with transitioning from welfare to work. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (20:47): It gives me pleasure to rise this evening to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014.
In essence, this bill makes amendments that will provide stronger incentives for job seekers to attend scheduled appointments with their employment service providers and ensure that penalties are applied when a job seeker does not attend their appointment and does not have a reasonable excuse. It is pretty simple stuff and I think what most reasonable Australians would understand to be what comes with the mutual obligation that is around those people actively engaged in seeking paid employment and the contract that they have with the taxpayers of Australia, who fund them whilst they are doing so.
These changes aim to significantly reduce the number of appointments that are currently being missed. These measures fit with the government's commitment to reinvigorate mutual obligation for job seekers who get income support while reducing red tape for employment service providers, who do a wonderful job.
The amendments will be introduced in two stages. From 1 January 2015 if a job seeker misses a scheduled appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse—and we will hear about some of those excuses in a minute—their income support payment will be suspended until they actually attend a rescheduled appointment. It is different to what the situation is at the moment. Once they attend that appointment the suspension will be lifted and the person will receive their income support, with back pay, for the period of noncompliance. The difference is that at the moment the suspension is lifted when the person only indicates an intention to attend a rescheduled appointment. And when you look at the noncompliance rate, the changes we are proposing here are reasonable—that somebody actually turns up and attends the appointment that was scheduled. It is a very reasonable position that we are advocating here.
That is not to say that the previous government did not make some changes in this area. I fully expect that the Labor Party will indeed support the amendments we are making to this bill because they did, when in government, make efforts towards improving the compliance rate. That is acknowledged; the minister at the time, the member for Adelaide, made a number of comments in this area and acknowledged that she believed attendance at appointments can and must improve. This is why we made an election commitment to strengthen the compliance system. Indeed, she went on to say that all Australians on income support should have the opportunity to work, but with the opportunity comes responsibility. With this bill we are finally going to expect that people meet those responsibilities. So the changes we are proposing here in this debate are about strengthening and enhancing the initiatives that were put forward by the previous government.
The second stage will be from July next year—1 July 2015. The bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by providing that if a job seeker has had their payment suspended in the circumstances that I have described above then they will not be back paid for the period that the payment is suspended due to noncompliance. In the initial stage, from January next year, if an appointment is missed, reschedule the appointment and actually turn up and the back pay will be paid. However, from July next year, if an appointment is missed without a reasonable excuse, the back pay that would have been due—and will be paid from 1 January—will not be paid. It is not so unreasonable. I relate the circumstances to myself being an employee with a boss in place, what would be the situation? If I did not turn up to work and I had not communicated with my boss, would it be reasonable for me to still ask him to pay me? I do not think so. I think most reasonable Australians would acknowledge that that is not the case. There does not seem to be any reason why somebody who is in paid employment and effectively has a contract and an understanding in place, be it written or otherwise, with their employer does not have reasonable obligation, in the same way that job seekers who are being paid benefits similarly have a contract in place—a mutual obligation, with the taxpayers of Australia.
The bill will also make changes to the existing provisions that allow job seekers who are 55 years old or older to meet their mutual obligation requirements just by undertaking part-time voluntary work or paid work. The bill will introduce a provision that will allow groups of job seekers, for example, 55- to 59-year-olds who would currently be in Job Services Australia, to be precluded from these provisions.
This is about changing behaviour. This is about the notion that benefits come with a mutual obligation to the taxpayers of Australia. In terms of those people who really do desire to have a job, and there are plenty out there, the majority of people who are seeking employment do the right thing. They do the right thing because they turn up to their interviews with their job service providers. They do the right thing because they want to get a job. As the member for Barker quite rightly said, the dignity that comes with having paid employment and being able to stand on your own two feet is something that we should all aspire to.
I was thinking of a story that I was told by Rod Hill from Hill Sheet Metal recently in Brighton, in the southern part of my electorate. He employs about nine or 10 people and has a number of apprentices within the business, some do not have the same qualifications. He was telling me the other day that he put on a young fellow who walked in the door. He had just left school, he had no particular qualifications and he took it upon himself to knock on the door and ask whether or not there was any work. To Rod's absolute credit, he has given him three days a week and essentially he is on a trial. I just know that if this young fellow does the right thing, he will have a really good job for as long as he wants it. Most likely, he will be offered an apprenticeship if he shows a little initiative. That is the sort of attitude we want to see with all our job seekers, be they young, middle age or older. We want to see that enthusiasm and that commitment to getting into the workforce.
The bill addresses a number of weaknesses in the current compliance arrangements not previously addressed relating to job seeker non-attendance at provider appointments. The numbers around compliance are quite stark—and I know a lot of Australians would be staggered to see the numbers and understand them. The current attendance rates by job seekers at compulsory appointments with their employment service providers are unacceptably low. In the past financial year, in fact only 65 per cent, albeit the majority, of appointments booked were actually attended by job seekers. Four and a half million appointments with job service providers were missed. Most Australians would be staggered to learn this. These figures are completely unacceptable. The amendments that we are making within this bill are designed to improve that rate of compliance.
These changes will allow immediate application of penalties and will remove loopholes by which job seekers can fail to attend appointments with their employment service providers without immediate penalty. It is quite interesting to read some of the excuses—and they are published for public consumption and information each year. We have probably heard them all before. Some of us might not have done our homework at school and used some of them. 'I forgot.' 'I slept in.' 'I just could not be bothered.' Frankly, the excuses are unacceptable and were rightly rejected by job service providers and rightly rejected by Centrelink. They are not excuses that would be reasonable and accepted by a boss with somebody in paid employment—they would not get paid and neither should job seekers who are getting paid by the taxpayers of Australia in this situation.
The bill will not remove any of the current safeguards in the system that are designed to ensure that vulnerable job seekers do not incur penalties inappropriately. The bill will not impact on those job seekers whose failure to attend required appointments is beyond their control or those who attend their appointments, or let their provider know in advance if they genuinely cannot do so. Pick up a telephone and ring your job service provider if you are unable to meet a scheduled appointment. That is quite reasonable in anybody's language. Indeed, most do the right thing. The changes that are being proposed will not impact on those people or vulnerable job seekers.
This is part of a range of packages that the government has put in place in respect of encouraging young people to get on with their lives. Most young people do find a job, but this government is absolutely committed to encouraging those who are unable or choose not to get into immediate employment and is committed to supporting them to do further tertiary study, whether it be through the Trade Support Loans with a loan of up to $20,000. If you complete an apprenticeship, 20 per cent of that loan will be written off. Once you are earning over $50,000, only then will you have to start repaying that. Or it might be through higher education, the topic of the day—higher education reforms. These truly are reforms. The expansion of the reforms to sub-bachelor and diploma and the non-university sector will be a boom for young people to go onto further study that will support them in their efforts to find employment.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:00): Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Grayndler Electorate: Norton Street Festa
Millers Point Public Housing
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:00): Last weekend I was very honoured to attend once again the Norton Street Festa, an Italian community festival at Leichhardt in my electorate. As I wandered among the stalls and greeted old friends and constituents, I was reminded of the immense strength that resides with vibrant, dynamic, strong and healthy communities. Australian communities are tightly bound by a powerful collective spirit—a sense of shared experience and history and a feeling of belonging. People in communities like Leichhardt care for each other and their common wellbeing. They understand there is an inherent value in their community. They want governments to respect and build upon that value.
I am concerned that the current government is devaluing the concept of Australian communities. Through its policies and its rhetoric, the government seeks to trigger a shift in our national culture—one that gives the concept of individualism absolute priority, to the exclusion of any concept of common interest. We see it throughout a range of policies, particularly in the budget—regarding cuts to pensions and health and the deregulation of higher education that sees it as an individual commodity that can be bought and sold rather than as a benefit to the nation. This trend is also illustrated when the Treasurer claims that Australians are either lifters or leaners and when government ministers routinely attack disability pensioners as bludgers. This rhetoric is designed to make many Australians think more about themselves and less about the many.
This is a government that does not like public education. It does not like public health, public broadcasting or public services—in fact, it simply does not like the public. And it is not just in Canberra. There is no better example of this conservative campaign to devalue communities than what is happening in the public housing precinct at Millers Point in Sydney. New South Wales Premier Mike Baird is selling about 300 public housing units which for many decades have formed the basis of a vibrant community. This is housing that was formerly controlled by the Maritime Services Board. People who live in the community either worked on the waterfront themselves, or their parents—or even their grandparents—did. So far, six of these homes have been sold. Because of this injection of private investment, the New South Wales Minister for Family and Community Services, Gabrielle Upton, recently said:
… the future for Millers Point is optimistic.
There is not much optimism among those being thrown out of their homes.
It is easy to put a reserve price on a house in Millers Point, but no-one seems to weigh that value against the lost value involved in dismantling the existing community. No-one is asking how much it will cost the government to move these residents to other areas—presumably on the edge of town, away from services, public transport and their support groups.
When Mike Baird looks at Millers Point he sees dollar signs. When I look at Millers Point, I see a living, breathing community which deserves respect and care. Many conservatives seem to hold the view that, while wealthy people should be applauded for accumulating property, the public sector has no right to be a property owner. The fact is this: vibrant communities are part of our nation's complex tapestry. It is not good enough for state or federal ministers to know the price of everything but the value of nothing. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of any government selling public housing stock when there is a public housing shortage. I am concerned that the logic the state government is putting forward would see it sell public housing in precincts like Pyrmont, Ultimo, Woolloomooloo, Glebe and North Sydney. This will change the nature of these communities.
Successful cities are not disconnected enclaves of advantage and disadvantage—they are diverse and vibrant. Successful communities are collections of individuals bound together by threads of history, common humanity, common experience and friendship. We should not toss people aside as if they are disposable. A government that seeks to engage with its community will find the community a willing partner and the entire community will benefit, regardless of its income. That is why the state government's approach is so short-sighted. I call upon them to reconsider this attitude.
Dang, Mr Dieu Xuan
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (21:05): I take this opportunity tonight to speak about the arrest and imprisonment in Vietnam of Dang Xuan Dieu. Dieu was arrested on 30 July 2011 and charged with attempting to overthrow the government under article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code. On 9 January 2013, he received a sentence of 13 years imprisonment, to be followed by five years of house arrest. He is currently imprisoned at Camp 5, Yen Dinh, in Thanh Hoa province.
Dieu was arrested for being a member of the Viet Tan but also for leading protests by Vietnamese nationalists against Beijing's imperialist policy in the South China Sea. He was also known for fighting for an education for poor children and as a demonstrator against the exploitation and environmental damage caused by Chinese concession bauxite mines in the highlands of that country. Known as a Catholic intellectual, he also promoted awareness campaigns of the plight of political prisoners.
Dieu was arrested as part of a larger crackdown on human rights fighters, and is serving one of the longest sentences of any political prisoner in Vietnam. He decided that, because he continues to assert his innocence, he should not have to wear prison clothing that has the inscription 'criminal' on it. As a result of his resistance he has faced severe mistreatment in prison, including solitary confinement and a lack of food or access to basic hygiene.
This mistreatment included, in 2013, Dieu's humiliation when for several months other prisoners were encouraged to beat him and treat him as their slave. The beatings have also come from the prison guards, of course. They have also been responsible for giving Dieu reduced meal sizes and contaminated water. Other prisoners were asked to paint him as 'a half-human, half-beast figure'. As a result of this mistreatment he went on a hunger strike, calling for a more humane prison system.
Having heard nothing from Dieu, his family issued an open appeal in June 2014 because they were worried about his welfare—and they were right to be. Since April Dieu has been intermittently held in solitary confinement in a cell of just six to eight square meters. The prisoners were often chained in pairs, but in summer officials would squeeze more prisoners into Dieu's cell to overcrowd it—in order to make it more difficult to breathe in the stifling conditions in that cell. In winter, the torment of Dieu was achieved by leaving him alone to feel the cold by himself.
On numerous occasions, Dieu went on hunger strike to protest these abuses of basic rights, not only for himself but for other inmates. Each time the prison authorities retaliated with more severe treatment. After being imprisoned, Dieu sent a letter to the police minister to complain about the mistreatment he was receiving. The result has been that just one family visit has been allowed. This meant that the abuse he is suffering only came to light after a friend and cell mate, Truong Minh Tam, was released on 7 October.
The plight of Dieu has attracted attention both inside Vietnam and internationally. We should remember that with six million followers Catholicism is Vietnam's second largest religion after Buddhism. The country's Catholic Church has been subject to government seizures of land and church properties. It would not therefore be a surprise that, at the request of family members, Catholics in Saigon have been encouraging others to pray for him and campaigning for his release.
Internationally, following his trial, a number of organisations protested the convictions as inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights relating to freedom of expression and due process. Apart from the US embassy in Hanoi, the UN human rights office, a number of international human rights groups and various parliamentarians have also raised these issues. It is also notable that Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner submitted a petition contesting the illegal arrest and ongoing detention of Dang Xuan Dieu and his colleagues to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UNWGAD, in Geneva in July 2012. In a decision announced on 28 November 2013, the working group ruled that Dang Xuan Dieu and the others were detained in violation of international law and called for their immediate release.
The reality now is that, despite the efforts inside Vietnam and the profile of his case internationally, Dang Xuan Dieu remains in prison where his mistreatment continues. Although my last two visa applications for Vietnam have been refused, I am nevertheless honoured to raise his case in the Australian parliament today and highlight this travesty of justice—as I have highlighted other cases in the same way. I believe that, sadly, his life is at risk because of the reckless physical abuse of this brave human rights defender. I therefore call upon the Prime Minister of Vietnam to release Dang Xuan Dieu and to do so immediately.
Melbourne Electorate: University High School
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (21:10): There are some amazing people in Melbourne. On Friday night I attended the University High valedictory assembly together with Ellen Sandell, our Greens candidate for Melbourne in the upcoming Victorian election. At this assembly we heard the stories of the students of Uni High, of their journey over the past six years and of their achievements at school and within our Melbourne community. At a time when many of them were no doubt under the pressure of getting ready for exams, there was a moment of shared respite at their very warm graduation ceremony. The MCs, Jasmine Nguyen and Nick Munari, were naturals—and they even stepped in to extend the time when there was a gap in the program that needed it.
The valedictory speeches from Robin Wagner and Mr Lang Qin were incredibly witty and they had all of their colleagues in the palm of their hands. What was very clear, as all the students came up to accept their graduation certificates, was the genuine warmth that all of the other members of their year had for them. These are an incredibly thoughtful bunch of students. It is often said that these are the people who will go on to make a difference in the future, but these students are already doing it now—a group came together to produce a yearbook, a feminist group had formed and there is the students-making-a-difference group.
What also became apparent as we were presenting the awards, two of which I had the honour of presenting myself, was that these are students who would put many of us to shame. Eva McLeod Goodman confided in me before the ceremony that she did not think she was going to get an award—and she won two: the English award and the Bryce all-rounder award. Madeleine Castles took out three: the English award, the humanities award and the Anne & Graham Coles musical award—a truly outstanding breadth of experience. Other winners were Annabelle Ballard; Callum Rogers; Jackie Li; Jessica Ji; Rui Jin; Shuyang Zhou; Natalie Ferrington; Nick Munari; Uri Barak, who decided to step in in the middle of the show and perform a short piece of Rachmaninov—as you do; Lewis Newland; Aditi Chetty; and Sarah Scholz. Those two young women took out the science prize—it is wonderful to see two women receiving the WEHI science prize. Dominque Tasevski, who also won one of the humanities prizes, is a student who takes politics and the humanities incredibly seriously. Gaye Kurtoglu was also a the Bryce all-rounder winner. Sumia Hadi, Sachinee Jayasuriya and Robin Wagner were other recipients.
What also became very clear was that University High principal Robert Newton, the staff, the teachers, the administrators, the parents and the other members of this tight school community are very much part of the reason for this group's success. I want to thank all of them for their dedication and support of their students over many years because they are truly part of the reason for its success.
I also want to remind everyone who is going through year 12 at the moment that, as well as making it their focus, they should remember that final exams are not everything—there is life after exams and life after year 12—and that their value is not determined by their school marks. There is an organisation called ReachOut that is providing online support and information to young Australians about mental health. It has launched a campaign called 'There's Life After Year 12 Exams', a campaign in which Australians who themselves have made it through year 12 and have been successful in other parts of their lives share their stories and provide advice to current students. If you are feeling the pressure, I encourage you to check their website www.thereslifeafter.org.
Perhaps the best point in the evening, a point that summarised the feeling shared by many of the students, came from school principal Robert Newton, who is much loved and much respected in the community. One of the things that he reflected on was, of course, the passing of Gough Whitlam and he shared his favourite quote, which was:
A true patriot can see what was wrong with their country and instead of trying to explain it or justified they set out to change it.
But perhaps the moment for me was the end of the principal's speech, when he enjoined his students to live by a simple principle: don't become one of those people who spend money they don't have to buy things they don't need to impress people they don't like. You could tell from the reaction in the room that that was something that many of those people shared, and I think it is probably a timely reminder for all of us, whether or not we are going through year 12 exams.
Suicide
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (21:15): Throughout October the issue of mental health has been highlighted, not least with World Mental Health Day on 10 October. There are a wide range of mental health conditions, but I rise today to give voice to the all too frequent tragedy in our community of suicide. Deeply personal, suicide affects everyone, from immediate family members to those who may only hear about such a tragedy long after the event.
When we hear of the loss of someone, young or old, we naturally wonder 'Why?' We long to hold on to those near to us and assure them of our love and support. Today seven Australians, for whatever reason, will decide to end their own lives. Most likely, five of them will be men, half will be middle aged and the others aged between 15 and 30. All of these individuals will be loved and very deeply missed by their families and friends.
Last month I read in the Stonnington Leader and the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader newspapers, two local papers that cover my electorate of Higgins, that 411 people have suicided in the nearby Bayside region of Melbourne in the eight years leading to 2012. The article focussed on the suicide of a beautiful thirteen year old girl, and I praise the bravery of her sister in telling her story publicly and thereby encouraging others to also be open to this type of discussion. By talking about her story she may have helped someone else to get through a crisis.
But the problem in our community may be even bigger than we imagine. A June 2014 report by the Coronial Council of Victoria said 'it is widely recognised that suicide is underreported' and that inconsistencies in coronial practices hinder the accurate collection of suicide data. It is important that policy makers have accurate data on which to plan and make decisions about necessary prevention strategies and support programs.
Whatever the true numbers, there is no doubt that suicide is a huge public health problem in Australia and I congratulate the government, with the support of the opposition, in tackling this issue. Most importantly, the government and the community generally needs to know that the monies spent by government in prevention and support programs is achieving measurable goals, including preventing loss of lives. The appointment of Professor Patrick McGorry AO as Australian of the Year in January 2010 focussed our nation on the need for early intervention to arrest the development of mental health issues in 12 to 25 year olds, and it is now generally recognised that three-quarters of mental illness first presents in people under 25 years of age.
Headspace centres, which had been established in 2006 by the Howard government, were expanded so that more young people could drop in, free of charge, to receive counselling on a range of general and mental health issues. In 2014 the Australian government announced a further 15 centres, taking the total across Australia to 100, and 80,000 young Australians in both city and regional areas will benefit from these centres each year.
In my own electorate the suburbs of Prahran, Windsor and South Yarra have a very high number of young people in the target age range, almost 22 per cent of the population, coupled with a high ratio of people living in rented or state housing and a third of residents born outside of Australia—all factors that may impact on mental health and wellbeing. There is a clear case for Headspace centre in Higgins and I will continue to campaign for one. I know this because in October 2011 more than 200 people crammed into one of my local community centres for a community forum on mental health in my electorate to share their concerns with me as well as the speakers, including the Chairman of Beyond Blue and former Victorian Premier, the Hon. Jeff Kennett AC; Professor Jayashri Kulkarni, Director of the Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre; and Quinn Pawson, Chief Executive of Prahran Mission.
This month the Australian government has announced a review of all existing federal, state and non-government mental health programs to ensure that funding is delivered to those programs that have been proven to be most effective; that services are being properly targeted; that they are not being duplicated; and that programs are not being unnecessarily burdened by red tape. In addition, the Australian government will commit $18 million over four years to establish a National Centre for Excellence in Youth Mental Health to conduct clinical trials and train a new generation of mental health workers; spend $5 million over three years to development a comprehensive e-mental health platform to provide easy access to advice and support 24 hours a day; expand the number of Headspace sites to 100; and provide a further $200 million over five years to Australian scientists and researchers working on ways to prevent or cure dementia, a brain disease that is expected to affect nearly one million Australians by 2050.
I applaud each of these initiatives to ensure that our nation has access to the very best available evidence based mental health services and that our specialist workforce receives both the training and the support they so greatly deserve. Again, I would like to particularly congratulate all of the work that community groups and individuals have put into raising awareness and also necessary funds for important research in mental health during the World Mental Health Day highlighted, as I said before, on 10 October. We are on a journey here in this parliament. I think the government is taking us further in that step on the journey, but we have more work to do.
Broadband
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (21:20): Before the last election Tony Abbott promised to trash Labor's NBN, and that is a promise he has kept. Labor's NBN was due to be under construction in the suburbs around Parramatta right now—22,000 homes in Mays Hill, Parramatta, South Wentworthville, Westmead and Harris Park were due to have fibre to the home rolling out right now. This rollout has been cancelled by the Abbott government and the hope for a first-rate NBN is gone. But they did promise to build a second-rate NBN and that it would be available to everyone by the end of 2016 with a much slower minimum speed of 25 megabits per second. Now they have broken that promise. Not one suburb in the electorate of Parramatta is on the list for the second-rate NBN—not one.
After scrapping the NBN infrastructure upgrade for our community, what have they left us with? To get a clear picture I asked the community of Parramatta to tell me how fast their internet speeds are. Hundreds of local households, schools, community groups and businesses sent me their upload and download speeds, confirming that internet speeds in Parramatta just aren't good enough. We saw download speeds as low as one megabit per second, barely enough for a few interactive web pages and standard streaming on one device. One local family in Merrylands has a dismal download speed of just .14 megabits per second. Nearly half of the respondents had download speeds of less than five, speeds suitable for the basics—file sharing small files only, internet streaming, some basic email and web browsing with one user only; not suitable for working from home or for multiple users. Another quarter had download speeds between five and 15; but, if you think about the modern household with multiple users and devices connected to one line, these speeds are woefully inadequate. Malcolm Turnbull promised a minimum of 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016. Only 10 per cent of people in my electorate who responded had downloads speeds of more than 25 megabits per second.
And it is not just households that we should be worried about. I had businesses, schools and those working from home telling me just how difficult it is becoming to operate efficiently. A carpet centre in Pendle Hill with download speeds of 6.7 megabits per second says it is fast becoming not enough for their day-to-day business needs. Jackson, a Maryland resident, told me how difficult it was for him to work from home with his download speed of 2.8 megabits per second despite being very close to the Parramatta exchange. A local school told me that, when they did not get the NBN, they had to install four cable connections and one ADSL connection to make do.
The minister does not get the internet. He talks of the need for download speeds of 15 megabits per second in 10 years, and that is not even fast enough for current domestic television streaming, let alone all the new interactive uses—e-health, education, working from home, smart houses. All these uses need not just more download speed but faster upload speed. The word 'upload' does not even pass the minister's lips, because it cannot be delivered in his model. Seventy per cent of the people who responded to my survey had upload speeds of less than one megabit per second, and 95 per cent had upload speeds of less than two. For comparison, Russia has upload speeds of on average 25 megabits per second, China 11.4, Mongolia 13.7, Japan 26.2, New Zealand 9.6 and Parramatta less than two.
It is not just about video downloads or internet browsing; this is about the technology of the future and equipping Parramatta city and surrounds to be a hub for business, health, education and community. We cannot afford to be waiting for high-speed broadband. Waiting is bad for productivity, bad for the economy and bad for our community. Investing in a real national broadband network is essential for the people of Parramatta, and I am asking the government: when will Parramatta get a real NBN? When will Parramatta, the capital of the third-largest economy in Australia, an incredibly large CBD that struggles with download speeds of less than five megabits per second and upload speeds of less than one for most people, an extraordinarily important CBD, get a real NBN? When will we get the infrastructure that we need to prosper?
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Boothby.
HIV/AIDS
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (21:25): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and may I wish you a happy birthday for yesterday.
I would like to speak about what I think is one of the great health tragedies of our time, and that is the subject of HIV/AIDS. In July this year the 20th International AIDS Conference was held in Melbourne. Michel Sidibe, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, called for a new target known as 90-90-90: that 90 per cent of people with HIV should be tested, that 90 per cent of people living with HIV should be on treatment and that 90 per cent of people on treatment should have a suppressed viral load for HIV.
When we look at the AIDS response, there is some good news there. The AIDS response has averted 10 million new infections since 2002. It has avoided more than seven million deaths, and 14 million people are now on life-saving HIV treatment. So Michel Sidibe has set the ambitious goal to scale up fast by 2020. He believes that, with that, the world should be on track to end the HIV epidemic by 2030. That means bringing the epidemic under control.
I was lucky to go on a parliamentary delegation to Southern Africa in August. When you look at the prevalence rates in Southern Africa—this is population-wide—they are the highest in the world. Swaziland has a prevalence rate of 26 per cent, Botswana 23.4 per cent, Lesotho 23.3 per cent, South Africa 18.1 per cent with 5.6 million people living with HIV and Zimbabwe 14.9 per cent and 1.2 million people living with HIV. One of my mentors and the Dean of Health Sciences at Flinders University, Michael Kidd, the President of the World Organization of Family Doctors and someone who is also locally the chair of the government Ministerial Advisory Committee on Blood Borne Viruses and Sexually Transmissible Infections, has gone over and been involved in setting up a testing program in Limpopo Province in South Africa. This is a demonstration that, when we consider HIV/AIDS in Australia, we see it very differently to how it really is in Southern Africa.
I had the opportunity in Harare to see the Harare Children's Hospital, and there the Australian ambassador to Zimbabwe, Matthew Neuhaus, and his wife, Angela Neuhaus, were very interested in making small improvements. There had been a small contribution made for an incubator for the children's hospital. It was $12,000. They sent nurses down to Cape Town to train them up, and it means they now have four incubators, which means that premature babies can live. They also see that doctors and senior nurses are able to access the diploma of children's health and the international postgraduate paediatrics certificate from the Children's Hospital at Westmead. That is available for them to do online. I learnt there that the use of antiretroviral drugs in Zimbabwe has now largely prevented maternal-to-child transmission, which they used to see. It was just heart-rending to see children with established AIDS.
We visited KwaZulu-Natal and a hospital which I had volunteered in 25 years ago. When I was there 25 years ago, the prevalence rate of HIV was less than one per cent. We had three AIDS patients. The first case had been diagnosed in 1986. Now, amongst their maternal population they see between 34 and 40 per cent of women presenting there HIV positive. But we did see the importance of leadership at a local level. Mrs Philile Khumalo and Dr Kelly Gate, who has been recognised as the South African Rural Doctor of the Year, are really making a difference scaling up their treatment program and making sure that as many people as possible are receiving the antiretroviral treatment. We received a great welcome.
It is a very different health system from ours. They are having to almost reinvent the primary healthcare system, making sure that people get good primary health care. They are also looking for more mobile health clinics to go visit their remote communities. They cost about $100,000 to $110,000 and make a real difference in this community.
When you look at the issue, you see that national leadership has been important. Uganda, Brazil and Thailand all show that. They actually had national leadership which addressed HIV/AIDS. You also see local leadership—examples like Mrs Khumalo and Dr Kelly Gate—who are making a real difference in their communities.
The SPEAKER: It being 9:30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21 : 30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Robb: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B New Air Combat Capability Facilities.
Mr Pyne: to move:
That, in respect of the proceedings on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014, the Amending Acts 1970 to 1979 Repeal Bill 2014, and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2014, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) the resumption of debate on the second readings of the bills being called on together;
(2) at the conclusion of the second reading debate or at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, whichever is the earlier, a Minister being called to sum up the second reading debate, then without delay, (a) one question being put on any amendments moved to motions for the second readings by non-Government Members, and (b) one question being put on the second readings of the bills together;
(3) the consideration in detail stages, if required, on all the bills being taken together for a period not exceeding 60 minutes at which time any Government amendments that have been circulated in respect of any of the bills shall be treated as if they have been moved together with (a) one question being put on all the Government amendments, (b) one question being put on any amendments which have been moved by non-Government Members, and (c) any further questions necessary to complete the detail stage being put;
(4) at the conclusion of the detail stage, one question being put on the third readings of the bills together; and
(5) any variation to this arrangement being made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Mr Wilkie: to present a Bill for an Act to provide a regulatory framework for poker machines that will reduce the harm to problem gamblers, and for related purposes.
Dr Leigh: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Act 2013, and for related purposes.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Budget
(Question No. 192)
Ms Rowland asked the Treasurer in writing, on 19 June 2014:
With the Government's plans to increase the retirement age to 70 (as announced as a budget measure on 13 May 2014), what will the Government do to ensure that workers who are made redundant over the age of 65 receive the same tax advantage as other workers receiving an Eligible Termination Payment in the case of a genuine redundancy.
Mr Hockey: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
It would be appropriate for the genuine redundancy rules to be considered in the context of the Tax White Paper.
South Johnstone Mill Limited
(Question No. 193)
Mr Katter asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 19 June 2014:
Why will the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) not release to constituents in the electoral division of Kennedy, the full brief sent to ASIC's legal counsel and the counsel's full memorandum of advice in respect of the South Johnstone Mill case.
Mr Hockey: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
ASIC has conducted two investigations (first in 2002 and again in 2010) into the events surrounding the receivership and subsequent sale of the assets of South Johnstone Mill Limited ("the Mill") and alleged breaches by Mr Richard John Dennis, the former Receiver and Manager of the Mill ("the Receiver").
Following the first investigation in 2002, ASIC sought independent counsel's advice on the prospects of conducting a prosecution. Counsel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the commencement of proceedings.
In 2010, following representations made by the Hon Bob Katter MP, ASIC reinvestigated the allegations of misconduct by the Receiver, reviewing relevant documents and reinterviewing key witnesses. Based on the evidence, the investigation team concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter further. Mr Katter and other interested parties were informed of that decision.
In 2013, following further representations by Mr Katter, ASIC engaged Mr Lincoln Crowley, a barrister with experience in criminal prosecutions, to review the evidence obtained by ASIC during the two investigations and provide advice on the prospects of a criminal action against any person.
Mr Crowley concluded that "…an objective consideration of the evidence and the provable facts does not reveal any basis for alleging that a criminal offence was committed by any person."
ASICs brief and counsel advice
Mr Katter has previously requested a copy of the brief provided to counsel and counsel's advice. ASIC provided Mr Katter with a summary of counsel's advice.
We explained to Mr Katter that the reason we did not provide a full copy of the brief or counsel's advice was because much of the information contained within the brief was obtained confidentially by ASIC during the course of its investigations and section 127 of the ASIC Act requires ASIC to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorised use and disclosure of information it receives in confidence in connection with its statutory functions.
However, we also noted that there are circumstances in which ASIC may release confidential information, which are set out in ASIC Regulatory Guide 103, which can be found via the ASIC website (www.asic.gov.au).
ASIC acknowledges that these events have affected Mr Katter's community deeply and we appreciate the vigour with which he has sought to have the matter revisited.
However, ASIC has conducted two thorough investigations and sought independent legal advice which concluded that there is insufficient evidence to commence a prosecution in this matter.
Budget
(Question No. 192)
Ms Rowland asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 19 June 2014:
With the Government's plans to increase the retirement age to 70 (as announced as a budget measure on 13 May 2014), what will the Government do to ensure that workers who are made redundant over the age of 65 receive the same tax advantage as other workers receiving an Eligible Termination Payment in the case of a genuine redundancy.
Mr Hockey: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
It would be appropriate for the genuine redundancy rules to be considered in the context of the Tax White Paper.
Budget
(Question No. 203)
Dr Leigh asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 8 July 2014:
In respect of his speech to the Sydney Institute on 11 June 2014 where he criticised those Australians he regards as 'leaners', does he regard the following as 'leaners': (a) pensioners, (b) people with disabilities, (c) the unemployed, (d) single parents, (e) students, (f) stay-at-home parents, and (g) carers; if not, will he identify who in Australia is a 'leaner'.
Mr Hockey: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The 2014-15 Budget is part of the Government's Economic Action Strategy to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia for all Australians.
The Government made a number of changes in the 2014-15 Budget to ensure that government assistance is targeted towards supporting the most vulnerable Australians, while encouraging those who are able to work or study.
The Government will continue to provide assistance for families, seniors, people with a disability and carers, and those most in need.
Fuel Tax Credit Fraud
(Question No. 225)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 July 2014:
In respect of a recent media report 'Hells Angels' trucking companies ripping off millions in fuel rebates' by Noel Towell ( The Age , 4 July 2014), (a) is he aware of this report, (b) what action is the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) taking to recover money paid for fictitious road haulage, (c) has the ATO referred, or does it intend to refer, evidence obtained on this issue to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration, and (d) what is the Government doing to ensure that diesel fuel rebate claims are legitimate.
Mr Hockey: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I am aware of the report.
The ATO continues to work closely with other agencies in the fight against organised crime and fraud and is a member of a variety of taskforces that include the National Anti-Gangs Taskforce.
There have been some allegations made in the media recently in relation to bikie gangs involved in fraudulent activity in the transport industry.
While there are about 250,000 registered claimants for fuel tax credits claiming between $5 to $6 billion per year, a small percentage of these do the wrong thing. In 2013-14 the ATO completed in excess of 2,200 fuel tax credit related compliance activities, with total fuel tax credit adjustments (including penalties) of approximately $21.4 million. Around 600 of these activities (with adjustments and penalties of $6.4 million) related to claimants in the road transport industry. Less than 1 per cent of the compliance activities during a year result in matters referred for potential suspected fraud.
There are two matters before the Courts currently being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) involving fuel tax credit fraud by members of the transport industry. It is inappropriate to comment on the details of any specific matters underway.
During 2013-14, the ATO, with the support of the CDPP, was successful in securing two prosecutions relating to Energy Grants Credit Scheme (EGCS) and the Fuel Tax Credit scheme (FTCs):
On 4 September 2013 - A Victorian loan broker was jailed for 6 years and 6 month for a $1.3 million fraud.
On 29 November 2013 - A Queensland registered tax agent who falsely claimed fuel tax credits and GST input tax credits was sentenced to be of good behaviour for the next three years with a reparation order for $12,235 (the amount defrauded).
The Government stands by the ATO's efforts to maintain the integrity of the fuel tax credit regime. In fairness to the majority of people who meet their obligations, the ATO conducts activities to verify compliance, identify possible incorrect claims and fraudulent activity. This includes investigating any possible abuses of the EGCS and FTCs across all industries including road transport.
Department of Defence: Conferences
(Question No. 261)
Mr Feeney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 26 August 2014:
(1) Can the Minister provide a list of conferences supported by the Department of Defence, including for each conference, the (a) amount sponsored, and (b) location. (2) How is the location of each conference selected.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) (a) and (b) Conferences that are organised by external parties and supported financially by Defence are listed at Attachment A. The total amount of Defence sponsorship for such conferences in 2013-14 was $1.439 million
(2) Defence is unable to answer this question as it has no involvement in the selection process.
Attachment A
HQ 261 - Conferences
Conference Name |
Descrption |
2013-14 Support (Actual) $m |
Location |
Indian Ocean Naval Symposium 2014. |
This forum helps to increase maritime cooperation among the littoral states of the Indian Ocean Region. |
0.561 |
Perth, WA |
Sea Power Conference 2013 |
The Royal Australian Navy Sea Power Conference provides attendees who have a professional interest in maritime affairs with an update on current strategic and naval issues from Australian and overseas perspectives. |
0.462 |
Sydney, NSW |
PAC - Pacific Conference |
Pacific international Maritime and Naval exposition. |
0.181 |
Sydney, NSW |
Engineers Aust National Engineering Convention |
Engineers Australia is the learned body that represents the Engineering Team, comprising professional engineers, engineering technologists and engineering associates across the full range of engineering disciplines. |
0.103 |
Melbourne, VIC |
Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting |
DSTO sponsors this international meeting involving several Australian eminent researchers.The meeting will have considerable exposure to the global science community and DSTO's support of the meeting will be crucial to Australia's participation. |
0.025 |
Germany |
The International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA) 2014 |
The DICTA Conference provides a way for DSTO to tangibly engage with the research community without the need for International Travel. |
0.020 |
Wollongong, NSW |
International Hydrographic Organisation Transfer Standard Maintenance and Applications Development Conference |
The focus of this conference is to maintain and develop international hydrographic standards for digital hydrographic products and is core to determining how electronic navigational charts will be produced. |
0.014 |
Sydney, NSW |
2014 Science Excellence Award |
The Science Excellence Awards are the most prestigious of their kind in the State and complement the national Prime Minister's Prize's for Science. |
0.010 |
Adelaide, SA |
Fulbright Symposium 2013 |
Showcase the impact of soft power through the Fulbright program across the themes of leadership and diplomacy, culture, educational partnerships, public policy, arts and culture, science and innovation. |
0.010 |
Canberra, ACT |
RUXCON |
Ruxcon is a computer security conference that aims to bring together the best and the brightest security talent within the Aus-Pacific region. |
0.007 |
Melbourne, VIC |
Science Meets Parliament events in 2014 |
Science meets Parliament (SmP) brings together about 200 of Australia's top scientists and puts them face to face with the decision makers in Canberra. |
0.006 |
Canberra, ACT |
Cooperative Research Centre Association Conference: Innovating with Asia 2014 |
The Cooperative Research Centres Association in 2014 will look outwards and examine the world's best practice and innovations from the fastest growing economies. |
0.005 |
Perth, WA |
Aerospace Futures Conference 2014 |
Aims to cultivate future aerospace leaders by providing undergraduate and post graduate students with insight into current research, careers and future prospects in the industry. |
0.005 |
Brisbane, QLD |
Fulbright Annual Presentation Dinner 2014 |
Esteemed guests enjoyed a poster display showcasing the important research which will be undertaken by 2014 scholars from the United States and Australia. |
0.005 |
Brisbane, QLD |
Australasian Conference on Traumatic Stress |
Explores the theme of Trauma and Conflict: Globally, Locally including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and combat stress, the mental health problems of refugees, and support for emergency service personnel. |
0.005 |
Melbourne, VIC |
Australian Defence Magazine (ADM) Congress |
Defence and Industry congress and industry awards. |
0.004 |
Canberra, ACT |
Improving System and Software Engineering Conference |
The theme of the conference is 'Achieving Program Success by Assuring Organisational Resilience'. |
0.003 |
Melbourne, VIC |
Institute of Public Administration Australia Conference |
People Strategy & Culture Branch sponsored an exhibition booth at the Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA) Conference. |
0.003 |
Canberra, ACT |
Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation 2013 |
ACRA brings together Australian and New Zealand researchers and students in the fields of robotics, automation and mechatronics providing a forum to present a breadth of research activities to the wider Australasian community. |
0.003 |
Kensington, NSW |
Australian Business Defence Industry Unit briefing |
Australian Business Defence Industry facilitates defence and industry engagement through regular events and workshops for members. |
0.002 |
Canberra, ACT |
Torpedo Organisation United States Canada Australia Netherlands (Toucan) Conference 2013 |
The purpose is to provide a forum for the exchange of information on common operational and technical issues between nations using Mk48 Heavyweight and common Light Weight torpedoes. |
0.002 |
Garden Island, WA. |
Australian Youth Aerospace Forum (AYAF) |
The Australian Youth Aerospace Forum is a five-day conference which provides senior high school students the opportunity to investigate careers and pathways in the aerospace industry. |
0.001 |
Brisbane, QLD |
Hunter Defence Conference |
Provide Defence Reserves Support Council Central Coast and Hunter access to a large number of leading businesses in the Hunter region to assist in growing the Supportive Employer network within the region. |
0.001 |
Newcastle, NSW |
|
Total |
1.439 |
|
Farm Household allowance
(Question No. 285)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 27 August 2014:
In respect of the Farm Household Allowance, (a) how many applications have been received, and of these, how many have been (i) successful, and (ii) unsuccessful, (b) what (i) total sum of payments have been made, and (ii) average amount has been paid, and (c) what has been the average processing time.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The following answers are current as at 17 October 2014:
(a) 4 957
(i) 4 098
(ii) 453
The following answers are current as at 23 October 2014:
(b) (i) The total sum of gross payments made for Interim Farm Household Allowance and Farm Household Allowance between 1 March 2014 and 23 October 2014 was $21 536 015.58
(ii) You will need to refer to the Minister for Human Services for this information as administration of the scheme rests with that portfolio.
(c) You will need to refer to the Minister for Human Services for this information as administration of the scheme rests with that portfolio.
Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme
(Question No. 286)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 27 August 2014:
In respect of the $420 million Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme, (a) how many applications have been received, and of these, how many have been (i) successful, and (ii) unsuccessful, (b) what (i) total sum of payments have been made, and (ii) average amount has been paid, and (c) what has been the average processing time.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
For the Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme, as at 30 September 2014:
(a) Nationally, 823 applications had been received.
(i) 322 applications were approved.
(ii) 430 applications were declined.
(b) (i) $152.6 million has been approved.
(ii) Of the loans approved, average loan amount is approximately $493 000.
(c) Jurisdictions have a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to assess and make a decision on 85 per cent of applications within 30 Business Days, provided they are in a complete state including all necessary information. At the last six monthly review in June 2014, all jurisdictions had met this KPI.
Drought Concessional Loans Scheme
(Question No. 287)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 27 august 2014:
In respect of the $280 million Drought Concessional Loans Scheme, (a) how many applications have been received, and of these, how many have been (i) successful, and (ii) unsuccessful, (b) what (i) total sum of payments have been made, and (ii) average amount has been paid, and (c) what has been the average processing time.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
For the Drought Concessional Loans Scheme, as at 30 September 2014:
(a) Nationally, 144 applications had been received.
(i) 66 applications were approved
(ii) 26 applications were declined.
(b) (i) $41.4 million has been approved.
(ii) Of the loans approved, average loan amount is approximately $624 000.
(c) Jurisdictions have a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to assess and make a decision on 85 per cent of applications within 30 Business Days, provided they are in a complete state including all necessary information. The first of the six monthly reviews is due in December 2014, so no information is available for this KPI.
Department of Industry: Hospitality
(Question No. 357)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, in writing, on 03 September 2014:
In respect of hospitality since 7 September 2013, has the Ministers department paid for any function to introduce to the department (a) the Minister, (b) the Ministers staff, and where applicable, each (c) junior Minister (including Assistant Ministers), (d) junior (and Assistant) Minister's staff, (e) Parliamentary Secretary, and (f) Parliamentary Secretary's staff; if so, at what cost.
Mr Ian Macfarlane: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Since 7 September 2013, the department has not paid for any function to introduce the Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or their staff to the department.
Media Monitoring and Clipping Services
(Question No. 393)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, in writing, on 3 September 2014:
In respect of media monitoring and clipping services in the financial periods since 7 September 2013, (a) what sum has been spent on such services engaged by (i) the Minister's office, and where applicable, each (ii) junior Minister (including Assistant Ministers), and (iii) Parliamentary Secretary, and (b) what was the (i) name, and (ii) postal address, of each media monitoring company engaged by each of these offices.
Mr Ian Macfarlane: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For detail of the expenditure on media monitoring for the period 7 September 2013 to 30 June 2014, please refer to Questions on Notice SI-164, AI-41 and BI-106 available at: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/economicsctte/estimates/index
To attempt to provide this level of detail from 30 June 2014 would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Drought Concessional Loans Scheme
(Question No. 404)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 3 September 2014:
In respect of drought specific concessional loans funding in Western Australia, (a) what is the status, (b) have the guidelines for (i) Western Australian farmers, and (ii) drought specific concessional loans, been approved; if so, on what date, and did they have to be refined to reflect Western Australia's climate conditions, (c) what sum of funding has been allocated, (d) which jurisdiction will cover the administrative cost, and (e) is he going to tour drought affected areas in Western Australia.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
In respect to the Drought Concessional Loans Scheme in Western Australia:
(a) The Drought Concessional Loans Scheme is open for applications in Western Australia.
(b) (i) The Drought Concessional Loans Scheme in Western Australia opened for applications on 23 September 2014, following finalisation of formal approvals by the Australian and Western Australian governments. The Australian Government has adopted a nationally consistent approach to the eligibility for drought concessional loans. As a result, Western Australian farm businesses are subject to the same eligibility and loan assessment criteria as farm businesses in other jurisdictions.
(ii) As above.
(c) $20 million in drought concessional loans funding has been allocated to Western Australia for 2014‒15.
(d) The Australian and Western Australian governments have agreed on the terms for the delivery of the scheme, which includes the Australian Government contributing funding for the reasonable delivery costs of the scheme in Western Australia.
(e) I will be pleased to visit drought affected areas of WA if the opportunity arises.
Department of Finance: Commonwealth Grants
(Question No. 420)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 22 September 2014:
In 2013-14, how many Commonwealth grants were approved by the Minister's department, and at what total cost, and of these, how many recipients have (a) signed funding agreements, and at what total cost, and (b) received payment, and at what total cost.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Grants awarded by the Department of Finance since 1 June 2013 are listed at:
http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/grants/.
Commonwealth Grants
(Question No. 424)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, in writing, on 22 September 2014:
In 2013-14, how many Commonwealth grants were approved by the Minister's department, and at what total cost, and of these, how many recipients have (a) signed funding agreements, and at what total cost, and (b) received payment, and at what total cost.
Mr Ian Macfarlane: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For details on grants please refer to the report available at:
www.industry.gov.au/AboutUs/LegalandLegislativeReporting/grants/Pages/default.aspx
Department of Education: Staff Overseas Travel
(Question No. 440)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 22 September 2014 :
In respect of departmental staff overseas travel since 7 September 2013, what (a) was the total cost, (b) is the breakdown of this cost ie, airfares, accommodation, hospitality, official passports and minor incidentals, and (c) was the travel for.
Mr Pyne The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Education was established on 18 September 2013.
The total cost of overseas travel of departmental staff for the period 18 September 2013 to 30 September 2014 was $487 764.
Of the total, airfares comprised $328 105; accommodation $91 628; hospitality $0; meals $30 849; official passports $0; incidentals $19 810 and transport and other costs $17 372.
Overseas travel was undertaken by staff to represent the Department of Education at stakeholder meetings, conferences and working parties; to take up posts as overseas counsellors; to participate in overseas officer exchange programs; and to participate in the ANZOG and the Global Leadership Practices programs.
Department of Industry: Staff Overseas Travel
(Question No. 442)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, in writing, on 22 September 2014:
In respect of departmental staff overseas travel since 7 September 2013, what (a) was the total cost, (b) is the breakdown of this cost i.e., airfares, accommodation, hospitality, official passports and minor incidentals, and (c) was the travel for.
Mr Ian Macfarlane: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For details on departmental travel for the period 7 September 2013 to 30 June 2014, please refer to Questions on Notice SI-168, AI-46 and BI-146, available at:
www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/economicsctte/estimates/index
To attempt to provide this level of detail from 30 June 2014 would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Department of Finance: Motor Vehicles
(Question No. 450)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 22 September 2014:
(1) How many motor vehicles does the Minister's department currently (a) own, and (b) lease.
(2) What is the breakdown of these vehicles by (a) manufacturer, and (b) model.
(3) In 2013-14, what (a) was the total cost to the Minister's department of all cars (i) owned, and (ii) leased, and (b) sum was spent on (i) fuel, and (i) maintenance.
Mr Hockey: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
As at 1 October 2014:
(1) (a) Nil.
(b) (i) 159 COMCAR vehicles;
(ii) 15 Executive Vehicle Scheme (EVS) vehicles;
(iii) one ministerial vehicle; and
(iv) 21 pool vehicles.
(2) Refer below.
Vehicle Make |
Vehicle Model |
Quantity |
Crown |
Forklift |
1 |
Ford |
Falcon |
1 |
|
G6E |
22* |
|
Mondeo |
2 |
|
Territory |
4 |
|
Transit |
1* |
Holden |
Astra |
1 |
|
Caprice |
114* |
|
Captiva |
2 |
|
Commodore |
15 |
|
Cruze |
4 |
Mercedes |
Vito |
1 |
Nissan |
Navara |
1 |
Toyota |
Aurion |
2 |
|
Camry Hybrid |
12* |
|
Corolla |
2 |
|
Hiace |
2^ |
|
Tarago |
9* |
*Denotes COMCAR vehicles.
^ Includes one COMCAR vehicle.
(3) (a) (i) Nil.
(ii) The Department's pool and ministerial vehicles cost $246,578.30 (GST Inclusive). EVS vehicle costs are not included as they are fully cost recovered. The cost of COMCAR vehicles is $2,621,623.62.
(b) (i) $30,877.11 (GST Inclusive) for Departmental vehicles. EVS vehicle fuel costs are not included as they are fully cost recovered. $523,051.94 for COMCAR vehicles.
(ii) For Departmental vehicles, maintenance costs are budgeted into the vehicle leases and are accounted for in answer (3) (a) (ii) above. $95,677.58 for COMCAR vehicles.
Department of Education: Corporate Credit Cards
(Question No. 459)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Education in writing, on 22 September 2014:
Since 7 September 2013, how many corporate credit cards have been issued to departmental staff, and what is the total cost of all transactions made on them.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Prior to 18 September 2013 the functions of the Department of Education formed part of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). The Department of Education did not formerly separate its financial management system from the former DEEWR system until 1 July 2014.
Records were not maintained in the level of detail required to identify credit cards issued to staff belonging to the Department of Education until 1 July 2014.
The number of credit cards issued to staff by the Department of Education from 1 July to 30 September 2014 was 1292.
This large number of newly issued credit cards is the result of the provision of new credit cards to staff, embossed with Department of Education, as a replacement for the former DEEWR credit cards.
The total cost of transactions for the period 1 July to 30 September 2014 on these cards is $770 701.