The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (09:01): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) yesterday in Question Time when the Special Minister of State was asked about statements he had made in relation to the Ashby Affair, the Minister said 'In relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question';
(b) on Channel Nine Television News last night, in a story by journalist Laurie Oakes, the original version of the 60 Minutes interview was played and makes it clear that there were no words omitted which could in any way be considered part of the question the Minister was asked;
(c) as a consequence, the Minister clearly misled the House of Representatives during Question Time yesterday; and
(d) at no stage did the Minister take the opportunity to correct the record in the Parliament despite the House of Representatives sitting until 9.30 pm last night;
(2) therefore resolves that the:
(a) Minister has misled the Parliament and has failed in his obligation under Clause 5.1 of the Prime Minister’s Statement of Ministerial Standards to correct the record as soon as practicable; and
(b) Member for Fisher’s commission as Special Minister of State and Minister for Defence Materiel and Science must be terminated forthwith; and
(3) censures the Prime Minister for his:
(a) atrocious judgement in appointing the Member for Fisher as a Minister with responsibility for Government integrity; and
(b) complete and utter failure to show leadership and sack or even stand aside the Special Minister of State from his ministerial responsibilities.
Leave not granted.
Mr DREYFUS: I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Isaacs from moving the following motion forthwith.
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) yesterday in Question Time when the Special Minister of State was asked about statements he had made in relation to the Ashby Affair, the Minister said 'In relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question';
(b) on Channel Nine Television News last night, in a story by journalist Laurie Oakes, the original version of the 60 Minutes interview was played and makes it clear that there were no words omitted which could in any way be considered part of the question the Minister was asked;
(c) as a consequence, the Minister clearly misled the House of Representatives during Question Time yesterday; and
(d) at no stage did the Minister take the opportunity to correct the record in the Parliament despite the House of Representatives sitting until 9.30 pm last night;
(2) therefore resolves that the:
(a) Minister has misled the Parliament and has failed in his obligation under Clause 5.1 of the Prime Minister’s Statement of Ministerial Standards to correct the record as soon as practicable; and
(b) Member for Fisher’s commission as Special Minister of State and Minister for Defence Materiel and Science must be terminated forthwith; and
(3) censures the Prime Minister for his:
(a) atrocious judgement in appointing the Member for Fisher as a Minister with responsibility for Government integrity; and
(b) complete and utter failure to show leadership and sack or even stand aside the Special Minister of State from his ministerial responsibilities.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (09:04): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion moved by the member for Isaacs seconded?
The House divided. [09:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:15): A minister is now allowed to lie to the parliament. Is that what we are now reduced to?
The SPEAKER: The member for Watson needs to second the motion.
Mr BURKE: I second the motion. I want to see if the Leader of the House will defend the minister in the next speech. I want to see whether he will gag himself—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (09:16): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (09:19): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The House divided. [09:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Goods and Services Tax
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (09:24): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) requests the Treasurer acts in accordance with Clause 5.1 of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards by attending the House of Representatives as soon as practicable to explain the discrepancy between:
(a) his statement in Question Time yesterday 'The only other group that I am aware of in this parliament who has raised it and had modelling and assumptions worked out on a GST increase is the member for McMahon, when he was the Treasurer'; and
(b) reports today in The Sydney Morning Herald that the Treasurer is in possession of modelling requested by the Liberal government on the impact of a 15 percent GST; and
(2) notes that if today’s media report is accurate, the Treasurer has misled the House.
Leave not granted.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (09:25): I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended, as would prevent the member for McMahon from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) requests the Treasurer acts in accordance with Clause 5.1 of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards by attending the House of Representatives as soon as practicable to explain the discrepancy between:
(a) his statement in Question Time yesterday 'The only other group that I am aware of in this parliament who has raised it and had modelling and assumptions worked out on a GST increase is the member for McMahon, when he was the Treasurer'; and
(b) reports today in The Sydney Morning Herald that the Treasurer is in possession of modelling requested by the Liberal government on the impact of a 15 percent GST; and
(2) notes that if today’s media report is accurate, the Treasurer has misled the House.
Mr Speaker, there is one principle in this House and it has taken a beating from two ministers—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (09:26): I move :
That the member for McMahon be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Watson be no longer heard.
Honourable members: No, McMahon!
The SPEAKER: Sorry. The member for Watson thinks I have a set against him. The question is that the member for McMahon be no longer heard. I could be accused of thinking ahead.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
The House divided. [09:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:34): I second the motion. If the Treasurer did not lie, he can stand up now and explain himself.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (09:34): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
The House divided. [09:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (09:37): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The House divided. [09:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:41): The question is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
The House divided. [09:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:43): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government outlined its fiscal strategy in the 2014-15 budget, and reaffirmed that strategy in the 2015-16 budget: the aim being to strengthen the government's balance sheet by redirecting spending to boost productivity and workforce participation, while maintaining strong fiscal discipline.
This approach is augmented by the government's budget repair strategy which holds the objective of achieving—on average—budget surpluses over the course of the economic cycle.
We are, as a government, committed to fiscal discipline in the Social Services portfolio. While significant savings from this portfolio have been secured through recent federal budgets, we must continue with our efforts to spend our Social Services budget more effectively to reduce the long-term pressures, to make available resources that will better target support to those who need it most, and to ensure that Australia's social security safety net is sustainable for future generations.
This budget repair bill gives further active support of our government's collective efforts towards budget repair, including through implementation of savings measures to secure the budget position.
The bill will reintroduce several measures improving the fairness and sustainability of the pension system.
The first measure was announced in the 2015 budget. From 1 January 2017, the bill will reduce from 26 to six weeks the length of time the age pension, and a small number of other payments with unlimited portability, will generally be paid at the basic means-tested rate while the person is outside Australia.
After six weeks, payment will be made on a proportional basis according to the length of the pensioner's Australian working life residence—a concept representing the length of time the person has resided in Australia between age 16 and that of pension age.
Pensioners overseas on the implementation date will stay under the current 26-week rule until they return to Australia. Subsequent trips will be under the new six-week rule. Those pensioners with 35 years or more of Australian working life residence, and those already exempt from the proportional payment rules—such as some recipients of the disability support pension—will not be affected.
It is not considered reasonable for taxpayers to pay pensions indefinitely to people outside Australia, without regard to their period of residence in Australia, for anything other than short absences. This measure will therefore reinforce and strengthen the residence based nature of Australia's social security system.
This bill also takes the opportunity to reintroduce some further measures from the 2014 b udget, all of which are currently before the Senate in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 4) Bill 2014. The reintroduced measures will no longer proceed as part of that 2014 bill.
Two of these reintroduced measures are to cease the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment.
The pensioner education supplement was introduced in 1987 to assist single parents with the ongoing costs of education. At the time, this was in recognition of the difficulties that single parents experience in obtaining employment after being in receipt of the then sole parent pension for up to 16 years. Since then, eligibility has been selectively extended.
Despite its name, the pensioner education supplement is not available to people receiving the age pension. The most common payment type whose recipients also receive pensioner education supplement is parenting payment single (43 per cent), followed by disability support pension (41 per cent) and carer payment (9 per cent).
As at the end of September 2015, the pensioner education supplement provided fortnightly payments to around 46,000 people studying full-time or part-time in secondary or tertiary education while on income support payments.
The education entry payment was introduced in 1993 to help remove financial barriers to education by providing assistance to certain long-term payment recipients with the up-front costs of study when they begin approved education courses. In 2014-15, around 83,000 recipients received an education payment worth $208 per year, paid annually as a lump sum.
When they were introduced, both of these payments aimed to assist long-term income support recipients who had been out of the workforce for a long period of time by helping them improve or re-build their skills to be more competitive in the labour market.
However, since the introduction of these payments, several policies have been introduced to reduce the length of time that income support recipients, including single parents who have capacity to work, remain out of the workforce. Policy changes include varied eligibility and participation requirements for parenting payment, recognising that, as their children age, parents' capacity to work increases.
There have also been a number of changes to assessment and eligibility criteria for payments for people with reduced capacity to work, requiring these people to work or look for work in line with their capacity. Such individuals are assisted into the workforce through services, such as jobactive, which can help jobseekers develop skills that they need to look for, find and remain in work.
The government remains committed to providing incentives for income support recipients to improve their employment prospects through study or training. However, more appropriate channels of Government-funded study and training assistance for income support recipients are available through employment service providers, the Higher Education Loan Program, FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP tuition loan programs.
Additionally other income support payments, including youth allowance (student) and Austudy, are particularly targeted towards students, taking into account their particular circumstances and needs. These student payments will continue and will not be affected by the removal of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment.
The removal of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment will contribute to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the income support system by improving the Commonwealth's fiscal position. The measure to cease pensioner education supplement is expected to save $252.4 million over the forward estimates, and the cessation of education entry payment is expected to save $64.4 million over the forward estimates.
Ceasing these supplements will also help to simplify the income support system by reducing the number of payment supplements, consistent with the recommendations of the McClure review of welfare, A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes. The review highlighted that the current 20 main payment types and 53 payment supplements result in an income support system that is complex, confusing and difficult for individuals to understand, as well as for the government to administer.
This bill also reintroduces elements of the 2014 budget measure, Maintain eligibility thresholds for Australian Government payments for three years. These changes will:
maintain at level for three years the income free areas for all working age allowances (other than student payments) and for Parenting Payment Single—from a new start date of 1 July 2016; and
maintain at level for three years the income free areas and other means test thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank limits—from 1 January 2016.
Under the current rules, income free areas and means test thresholds are indexed annually in line with movements in the CPI. Not indexing the value of these free areas and thresholds for three years will mean that increases to payments that would have occurred on either 1 July or 1 January of each year of the three-year period will not now occur. The specific customer impacts of pausing these various means test thresholds depend on payment type and people's circumstances. Payments will not be reduced unless customers' circumstances change, such as their income or assets increasing in value.
The indexation of these thresholds will recommence in 2019.
Of course, pausing indexation is a lever that has been used by successive governments to realise budget savings and help slow the growth in social security expenditure.
These changes collectively will help achieve the long-term sustainability of the payments system, while ensuring Australia has a targeted means-tested income support system that provides financial assistance to those most in need, while encouraging self-provision.
Reintroducing the amendments in this new bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to the measures. All of the changes in this bill are important measures to support the sustainability of the social security system and the nation's budget. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will introduce two family-related measures from the 2015 budget, which will simplify the family payments system and achieve combined savings of $219.4 million over the forward estimates.
Firstly, from 1 January 2016, families will be eligible for family tax benefit and additional payments that rely on Family Tax Benefit eligibility for a period of six weeks when outside of Australia. Currently, family tax benefit part A recipients who are overseas are able to receive their usual rate of payment for six weeks, and then the base rate for a further 50 weeks. This change will achieve savings of $42.1 million over the forward estimates.
This measure will align the portability rules for family tax benefit part A with those for family tax benefit part B and most other income support payments. It is a move consistent with the principle that the primary purpose of family assistance payments, which is to assist Australian families with the costs of raising children in Australia.
At the same time, the government acknowledges that families have business to attend to overseas from time to time—such as going on vacations, visiting family members—and therefore an appropriate amount of time will still be allowed overseas while retaining eligibility for their payments. Families will also be able to remain overseas for a further 13 weeks without needing to reapply for their FTB.
However, these measures make clear that for payments to continue, families in receipt of family tax benefit A will need to maintain a strong connection to Australia.
Family tax benefits are linked to other payments, so that this measure will have flow-on effects to other payments that rely on family tax benefit eligibility including child care benefit, child care rebate, double orphan pension, schoolkids bonus and single income family supplement if the family is outside the portability period.
Importantly, this change will not impact individuals who are members of the Australian Defence Force or Australian Federal Police who are deployed overseas, assisted by the Medical Treatment Overseas Program, or unable to return to Australia for a specified reason (such as a serious accident, or natural disaster). The Secretary of the Department of Social Services will retain discretion to increase the six-week timeframe for up to three years. This ensures those who serve our country overseas, travelling for medical reasons or delayed for reasons not of their own doing are not unfairly impacted by these changes. This ensures that equity remains at the heart of our social security system and continues to support those most in need and provides peace of mind for people serving our country overseas. This will ensure that their families will not be worse off whilst they selflessly serve all of us abroad.
The second measure in this bill will seek to wind back the large family supplement from 1 July 2016. This will help the government achieve savings of $177.3 million over the forward estimates.
The large family supplement is only a small component of the overall family tax benefit part A currently around $12.46 per fortnight for the fourth and each subsequent child thereafter.
Evidence from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in 2002, 2007 and 2013 consistently found that each additional child in a family costs less than a first child. The most recent research found that, on average, a second child costs 83 per cent of the cost of the first, while a third child costs 69 per cent of the cost of the first. The reason for this is that families experience 'economies of scale', in which fixed costs are shared and spread among the children. That is, after the first child, many items have already been purchased and can be re-used by subsequent children. This highlights the appropriateness in this modest change to the FTB part A payment structure.
Removing the large family supplement has also been supported by both the Henry tax review and the National Commission of Audit.
The Henry tax review in 2010 recommended that the large family supplement be abolished, as the policy rationale behind the payment was not strong. The National Commission of Audit reiterated this position in 2014 by stating that the basic rates of FTB part A payment were sufficient for the costs of raising children.
Ceasing the large family supplement delivers on the recommendations of both of these reviews and the change therefore achieves a legitimate objective of better targeting family payments to those most in need of assistance by removing a non-essential component of FTB part A. This again reinforces the logical and evidence based approach that the government takes to achieving policy outcomes.
Importantly, this change is also in line with the recommendations of the McClure review. As noted above, this removes a non-essential component of FTB part A. This is at the very heart of what the McClure review stated. The removal of one supplement helps to simplify what is such a complicated system for families. These families are often left confused about what social security payments they are eligible for. Whilst this is a small start, it highlights the government's commitment to undertaking meaningful welfare reform and simplifying the system in a coherent manner. This will ensure those eligible for income support payments, family assistance payments and other forms of social security will be better able to understand the system.
Despite the reduced costs associated with successive children, the government acknowledges the significant costs incurred when raising children. Therefore families affected by this change will continue to receive per-child family tax benefit part A payments. This will continue to help cover the costs associated with raising children.
These provisions ensure that fairness remains at the centre of these reforms. Fairness has always been at the heart of our social security system. This realignment of the portability rules is a logical and fair change. It ensures that portability rules for most income support payments remain consistent across the board. This is important in simplifying what is already a confusing and complicated social security system.
These two budget measures, along with the reform package introduced recently by the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015, will improve the sustainability of family payments, while providing continued support to those most in need of assistance.
In 2015-16, the government will provide around $20 billion in family tax benefit payments the second-biggest item of expenditure within the Social Services portfolio, and the fourth-biggest item of expenditure in the Commonwealth budget. A modest save of $177.3 million is a reasonable and prudent measure to help ensure family tax benefit remains affordable and the government can continue to assist families in raising their children.
These measures are sensible, practical and aimed at ensuring the sustainability of our system, and guarantee that payments are targeted to those most in need. Sustainability and fairness are at the heart of these reforms and I urge all members to vote for these measures to ensure that the government is in a position to support those most in need now and into the future.
I urge also members opposite to listen to the evidence found in the Henry tax review and National Commission of Audit report and to ensure the sustainability of our social security system. These measures will also ensure portability measures for FTB part A recipients are in line with most other income support and family assistance payments. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (10:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In conjunction with the original Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015, this bill introduces a package of new reforms that help the government support families while encouraging parents' participation in the workforce.
The new package will supersede measures stalled in the Senate, including:
maintaining FTB payment thresholds, where savings were estimated at $525 million;
maintaining FTB payment rates, where savings were estimated at $1 billion;
limiting FTB Part B to families with children under six, where savings were estimated at $1.8 billion; and
revising the FTB end of year supplements to their original value of $600 and $300 per year, where savings were estimated at $1.3 billion.
The two bills anticipate withdrawal of the measures relating to FTB from the 2014-15 budget and instead propose changes which focus squarely on the principles of structural reform of the social welfare system by simplifying the payment structure of family tax benefits. At the same time, the bills provide more assistance to families when they need it most and is, therefore, fiscally responsible.
The new package has been introduced in order to pay for the Jobs for Families package. The package contains the required savings from family payments to offset the additional investment in childcare reforms which will help families and encourage workforce participation.
The government believes that workforce participation is fundamental for creating prosperity which allows families to create a better life for themselves and their children. That is why this government places an emphasis on the importance of child care, which 165,000 Australians say is of critical importance in order for them to return to work or increase their work hours and grow their household wealth.
The Jobs for Familiespackage makes child care simpler and less inflationary— in contrast to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, which oversaw a 50 per cent increase in childcare fees during its tenure.
While the family payments structural reform in this bill will pay for the Jobs for Families package, it will also simplify the family tax benefit system and provide more money on a fortnightly basis to those families who need it the most.
The government is increasing the fortnightly payment rates of family tax benefit part A by $10.08 for each FTB child in a family aged up to 19 years. This is worth an extra $6,000 over the lifetime of a child. What this means is that around 1.2 million lower income families (including income support families) who receive family tax benefit part A for around 2.2 million children will now receive higher fortnightly payments from 1 July 2018. The increase in their fortnightly payments will help families better manage their day-to-day budgets by providing them with timely, regularised assistance when they need it the most.
We will also provide an additional $10.44 per fortnight for youth allowance recipients under the age of 18 who are living at home, bringing the payments to the same standard rate as a family tax benefit part A child aged between 13 and 19.
Aligning these two rates of payment is in itself a much needed part of the reform process to simplify payments where possible. These reforms will avoid confusion for families and make sure there are no perverse incentives for them to change payment systems. Just as workforce participation is key to growing wealth, educational attainment is key to getting a job. The government understands this, as it is increasing the fortnightly rate of these payments to encourage children to stay in school. This is fundamental to giving children a good start in life so that they become productive, contributing members of our society.
Importantly, this alignment reform will also flow on to people who are on disability support under the age of 18, special benefit and ABSTUDY. These changes will cost around $584.2 million over the forward estimates.
These changes are based squarely on the McClure reform recommendations; they simplify the system, making it easier for parents and their children to navigate the system in order to get the assistance that is appropriate to their circumstances.
This bill will also provide for the phase-out of both the family tax benefit part A supplement and the family tax benefit part B supplement.
The part A supplement will reduce to $602.25 a year from 1 July 2016 and to $302.95 a year from 1 July 2017. The part B supplement will reduce to $302.95 a year from 1 July 2016 and to $153.30 a year from 1 July 2017. Both supplements will then be withdrawn entirely from 1 July 2018.
This measure will save $4.06 billion over the forward estimates. This is again a sensible reform which saves the government money on family tax benefits in order to fund the Jobs for Familiespackage. This change will encourage workforce participation and assist in reducing deficits that we inherited from the previous government.
The family tax benefit part A and B supplements were introduced at a time when, under the Howard government, there was an anticipated surplus of $13.6 billion in 2004-05. The supplements were introduced to be used as an offset for potential family tax benefit overpayments arising from underestimation by FTB families of their annual income.
With the Australian Taxation Office introducing a single-touch payroll system, a system which will allow for accurate reporting of income by the 2018-19 financial year, the changes will significantly reduce the problem of family tax benefit debts.
In an era of responsible spending, it is also important to highlight how poorly targeted the FTB supplements actually were—much like the schoolkids bonus which Labor introduced and intended to pay for with the non-existent money collected from the mining tax. It is entirely feasible for a family on income support and a low income to receive exactly the same amount in their supplements as it would be for a family on a higher income. We have, thankfully, managed to cease the schoolkids bonus—an unfair payment and one that was not paid for fiscally. And now we want to phase out the family tax benefit A and B supplements—payments which are neither well targeted nor have a useful purpose in the foreseeable future.
While no family, whether they are higher or lower income, would be individually enthusiastic about payments ending, like the schoolkids bonus it is very difficult to justify borrowing money to pay for payments that we cannot afford. Further, the FTB supplements are meant to help pay for debt that 75 per cent of families already never accumulate.
Crucially these changes are consistent with the critical reform recommendations of the McClure review to reduce the number of ill-targeted and convoluted supplements in the system. McClure emphasised that there are far too many payments and supplements—in fact, he noted there are, remarkably, some 20 main payment types and 53 supplements (that second figure has been reduced from 55 because the government has already removed the seniors supplement and the low-income supplement). This measure will further reduce the amount of supplements in the system (as will the associated reform measures in child care).The third measure in this bill will introduce a new rate structure for family tax benefit part B and make other amendments to the rules for part B, from 1 July 2016.
Firstly, the maximum standard rate will increase by $1,000.10 per year for families with a youngest child aged under 12 months of age. This will provide more choice for families when their children are very young, because the government recognises the importance of families having choice on how they wish to spend their time when their children are very young.
A new family tax benefit part B rate of up to $1,000.10 per year will be made available for single parents under the age of 60 with a youngest child aged 13 to 16. Eligibility for single parent families under the age of 60 will cease when the youngest child turns 16. This measure will save $781.1 million over the forward estimates.
The combined effect of the two bills is to encourage greater workforce participation as children enter secondary schooling. At the same time the government recognises that sometimes it is difficult for single parents to transition into work even when their youngest children are in secondary school. This is why we are intending to apply different payment assistance for these categories once their children turn 13. We will provide them with some additional appropriate assistance as they prepare to re‑enter the workforce.
The government also recognises that grandparent carers and single parents who are 60 and over have a different family structure and several different circumstances which may act in some instances in a way that presents more constraints than otherwise regarding their ability to gain further employment. That is why a decision has been made to exempt these two small groups from these changes in these reforms.
Additionally, it can be noted that the savings achieved by the changes contained in this bill have always been earmarked by the government as the savings necessary to pay for reforms to the childcare system under the stewardship of the Minister for Employment. As it is the case that the final structure of the childcare reforms can be achieved inside a revised funding envelope, the opportunity arose in this bill to forgo some savings inside the FTB system pertaining to grandparent carers and single parents aged over 60. The government acknowledges the unique role that these individuals play in society in raising children in circumstances that none of us would count as ideal.
These reforms are a critical part of efforts to enhance the long-term sustainability of the social security system. This is a government which places fairness and equity at the centre of our social security system. That is why we are taking proactive steps to ensure that the system is affordable now and for future generations. Without sensible, measured reform, cuts would have to be made later which may be more severe. That is something this government does not want to see happen.
As a share of GDP, government spending on family assistance in Australia tripled from 0.9 per cent in in 1980 to 2.7 per cent in 2012 and is higher than the average for OECD countries.
The number of families who receive family tax benefit has declined over time, down from 1.72 million in 2010-11 to 1.62 million in 2012-13. Yet despite this decline in the number of recipients, the cost continues to rise with expenditure increasing by almost a billion dollars over the last three financial years for which full data is available, up from $18.9 billion in 2010-11 to $19.8 billion in 2012-13.
A decade ago, the Social Services portfolio had $83 billion worth of expenditure. Today, collectively, on welfare repayments, it has $154 billion worth of expenditure. In 2026, that is estimated to increase to a remarkable $277 billion worth of expenditure. Therefore, we should take very close care and attention to these types of projections. One thing historically that people in public finances will find is that these projections of expenditure are usually fairly sound. These projections of expenditure are basically showing that the welfare bill is going to grow at around about 3.4 per cent a year above the inflation rate. The rate of growth above inflation is to be taken as a sign of concern. This year we will spend around $20 billion on FTB parts A and B. This represents, as I have noted previously, the second biggest item of expenditure in the Social Services portfolio and the fourth largest in the Commonwealth budget.
That is why this government is taking proactive steps to address the sustainability, viability and longevity of the system before it becomes too difficult. The 2015 Intergenerational report identified that the number of people of traditional working age (being 16 to 64 years of age) for every person aged 65 and over has fallen from 7.3 people in 1974-75 to an estimated 4.5 people today. By 2054-2055, this is projected to nearly halve again to only 2.7 people. This means that the number of taxpayers funding FTB parts A and B is also in decline. Without any change, the cost of our social security system will continue to rise whilst the number of working-age taxpayers continues in a relative sense to decline. This coupled with the ballooning government deficits that were left by the previous government meant that this government has had to take sensible steps to address this issue. This reinforces the government's commitment to pursuing rational policy objectives aimed at ensuring the sustainability of our social security system. Again, this will ensure that Australia, in the words of the Prime Minister, can continue to provide 'a generous social welfare safety net' into the future.
In the context of the current budget position these figures highlight the need for the targeted savings proposed in this bill.
In summary, the package of family tax benefit and dependent youth measures enhances support for families with their day-to-day living expenses and so helps them support their children from birth through education and the transition to independence. This increase in day-to-day support has been achieved through reforming the supplements and increasing fortnightly payments including aligning the rates of youth payments.
Together, the revised package demonstrates the government's commitment to assisting families:
providing additional assistance to families when they need it most;
supporting family choice to spend more time with their children when they are very young if they wish to do so;
recognising that grandparent and great-grandparent carers and single parents aged 60 years or over with children in secondary schooling may have limited capacity to increase workforce participation than average recipients of FTB.
At the same time, these reforms will improve the sustainability of family payments ensuring we can achieve three very important goals:
1. continue to assist families in raising their children over the long-term;
2. fund the childcare reforms designed to enable and encourage greater workforce participation; and
3. continue a deservedly needed process of simplifying FTB, consistent with the recommendations of the McClure review which highlights the unworkability of a system that maintains 20 main payment types with in excess of 50 supplement categories.
These measures are sensible, practical and aimed at ensuring the sustainability of our system, and guarantee that payments are targeted to those most in need. Sustainability and fairness are at the heart of these reforms, and I urge all members to support these measures to ensure that the government can continue to support those most in need now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (10:15): I move:
That the bill be read a second time.
This bill introduces a number of minor 'housekeeping' amendments in the Social Services portfolio, which will contribute to general maintenance of the substantial suite of legislation administered in the portfolio.
In this case, amendments will be made to the social security law and family assistance law. The amendments will correct technical errors and clarify intended policy by removing minor ambiguities and anomalies.
The measures in this bill are technical in nature. These amendments are an important part of the ongoing management of these legislative frameworks.
One of the amendments in this bill will clarify that people serving an income maintenance period for a mainstream income support payment, such as Newstart allowance, cannot access special benefit during that period.
An income maintenance period is a period of time during which payments, for example, redundancy or leave payments, are apportioned and treated as income for certain social security payments.
The effect of the income maintenance period is to either reduce the person's payment rate, or fully preclude them from receiving a social security payment for the period that the termination or leave payment represents. During this period the person is expected to draw on the resources provided by their other payments.
A single person without children would be fully precluded from receiving Newstart allowance, for instance, if their termination payment is equivalent to at least $1,014 per fortnight. This amount is higher if the person is paying rent.
In addition to Newstart allowance, the income maintenance period applies to youth allowance, partner allowance, Austudy payment, widow allowance, parenting payment, disability support pension and sickness allowance.
A person who is required to serve an income maintenance period may have it reduced or waived if he or she is in severe financial hardship due to unavoidable or reasonable expenditure.
Unavoidable or reasonable expenditure includes, but is not limited to, things such as the reasonable costs of living such as food, rent and utilities bills, as well as school and funeral expenses, essential repairs to the home, whitegoods and car, insurance premiums, medical expenses and any other costs that are considered unavoidable or reasonable taking into account the individual circumstances of the person.
Special benefit is a discretionary income support payment available to people in severe financial hardship who are unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves, due to reasons beyond their control. Special Benefit is generally paid at the same rate as Newstart allowance but is not subject to an income maintenance period.
However, it has been longstanding policy that a person who is unable to have an income maintenance period for another income support payment waived or reduced, because the expenditure of their funds is neither unavoidable nor reasonable, that person should not be paid Special Benefit instead, as this circumvents the purpose of the income maintenance period and may encourage people to spend their termination payments too quickly.
This amendment confirms this policy position—people should in essence use their own resources before drawing on taxpayer-funded support.
A further amendment in this bill will realign the time period for income reconciliation for certain family tax benefit recipients. That is, for families who are not required to lodge a tax return, or have types of income not included in a tax return, the bill will introduce a one-year timeframe for individuals to notify their non-lodger status or provide income details. This is consistent with the equivalent timeframe currently applying to families who are required to lodge a tax return.
The reduction to the timeframe from two years to one year is also consistent with the intent of the family assistance program , which is to deliver financial assistance to families to help with the cost of raising children when it is needed.
One year is considered a reasonable amount of time for families to notify Centrelink that they are not required to lodge and/or provide details of types of income not included in a tax return in order for reconciliation of their family tax benefit entitlement to occur.
It is also important to note that this amendment will have very little practical effect on families, as the one-year timeframe to provide income details or notify of non-lodger status has been communicated to recipients since the implementation of the broader realignment of time periods amendments in 2013.
As such, these amendments will not result in any unexpected or unforeseen outcomes for families, as they have been familiar with the rules for some time. However, the amendments will ensure it is clear that all Family Tax Benefit recipients have the same time period to meet the reconciliation conditions to receive supplements and top-up payments.
This bill will also make several amendments to the administration of certain student payments.
Firstly, the student payment eligibility criteria will be changed to remove the current requirement for new apprentices to have a Commonwealth Registration Number. The amendment alters payment eligibility criteria so that the requirements for new apprentice can be determined by the Minister in a legislative instrument.
This administrative detail has proved to cause delays in accessing and calculating payments for apprentices. For example, an apprentice who is receiving Austudy payment ceases his apprenticeship and leaves his employer, but there is a delay in cancelling his Commonwealth Registration Number. This means that he would continue to be paid Austudy.
There can be delays of weeks or even months before a Commonwealth Registration Number is cancelled, which means when the Austudy payment is cancelled, the person in question may have been overpaid and thereby incur a debt. The change in definition of new apprentice removes any link to the person receiving a Commonwealth Registration Number which removes the delay in cancelling payment and avoids incurring a social security debt.
Removing the requirement is a sensible improvement. This change ensures payments are not unduly delayed to new apprentices needing financial support and that payments cease promptly when they cease to be apprentices so debts do not occur. This is expected to benefit all new apprentices seeking financial support through Youth Allowance or Austudy payments.
The change is also needed in light of Commonwealth Registration Numbers being replaced from 1 July 2016 as part of the Department of Education and Training's apprenticeship reforms.
The second student payment amendment is to clarify that only one course of education is taken into account in assessing 'undertaking full-time study' or 'undertaking qualifying study' for student payments at the same institution or across multiple institutions.
This measure aims to prevent students from being supported financially to undertake multiple unrelated courses of education that do not contribute to their employment or career prospects. It is estimated that this measure will affect only a small number of individuals.
It has always been the intention that students are only assessed against one course of education under the full-time study requirements of Youth Allowance (Student) and the qualifying study requirements of Austudy. The amendment will make the law clearer in this area, so that students are not assessed as undertaking full-time study on the basis of more than one course of education during a single study period.
The third amendment relating to student payments is to clarify exemptions from the Austudy assets test for people with a partner receiving a relevant payment.
A person is intended to be exempt from the Austudy assets test if their partner is receiving a relevant pension, benefit, allowance or compensation payment. The exemption is not intended to apply if the partner has received the relevant payment at any time in the past, unless the payment relates to lump sum compensation received as an armed services widow or widower under the Military Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2004, which has been received in the past.
This will ensure the appropriate application of the assets test to the assets of partners of individuals receiving financial support through Austudy payments.
The bill will also make a series of other minor amendments, clarifying and simplifying matters such as the indexation of pharmaceutical allowance, the allowable income limits for the Health Care Card, and certain decision-making and delegation framework provisions.
In the case of pharmaceutical allowance, the bill will make some small corrections and additions to cross-referencing in the indexation tables to ensure the legislation accurately reflects long-standing indexation policy. Pharmaceutical allowance, which is added into the rate of some social security payments, or may in some circumstances be paid as a separate payment, is indexed or adjusted each year under part 3.16 of the Social Security Act 1991. No change is proposed to current policy and practice.
The Social Security Act 1991 does not currently specify exactly what components of Newstart allowance are to be included in the calculation of allowable income limits for the health care card but current and past policy and practice is, and has been, to include only the maximum basic rate and energy supplement.
The amendment contained in this bill seeks to clarify the components of Newstart allowance to be included in the calculation of allowable income in a way which gives undoubtable legislative support to the current and past practice of calculating allowable income. That is, the amendment seeks to make it clear that the pension supplement, pharmaceutical allowance and rent assistance are all to be excluded from that calculation.
Nobody currently holding the health care card will lose it because of this amendment. This is because the amendment contained in the bill does nothing more than provide clearer legislative support for the current practice of calculating allowable income. Furthermore, nobody acquiring the card in the future will be prevented from doing so because of the same amendment. This is because in the future the law will be applied as it is currently.
The amendments regarding the delegation framework will remove the requirement for the secretary of the department to seek the agreement of the Secretary of the Department of Human Services to the delegation of the secretary's powers to officers of the 'Human Services Department' under the family assistance law. Departmental officers would continue to consult closely to ensure delegation instruments drafted are in line with the human services department requirements.
These amendments will reduce the administrative burden and the time taken in the making of instruments of delegation under the family assistance law. It will also bring the relevant delegation provisions in the family assistance law into line with those in the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Lastly, there are a small number of technical amendments.
These technical amendments include amending paragraph 8(8)(z) of the Social Security Act 1991 to change incorrect references in the note of the paragraph and repealing clause 49 of schedule 1A of the Social Security Act 1991. These technical amendments will allow for corrections to cross-references, which will make the law easier to understand for individuals, and will repeal a spent clause from the legislation which is no longer used.
While these amendments are minor in nature, they are worth bringing forward to minimise confusion for payment recipients and stakeholder groups contending with legislative provisions that are sometimes unclear.
Such amendments are also an important part of ongoing responsible management of this important core legislative framework, and within the established policy to ensure consistency and clarity. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hartsuyker.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills and Deputy Leader of the House) (10:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015 introduces major reforms under the government's landmark Jobs for Familieschildcare package. This package will provide greater choice for more than 1.2 million families by delivering a simpler, more affordable, more flexible and more accessible child care system.
A key election commitment of this government was to task the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into child care and early childhood learning. The inquiry was the largest review of child care since the 1990s and the commission did an excellent job drawing together a wide range of input from families, service providers, early childhood education professionals, businesses and other experts to identify the challenges and potential ways forward.
The commission found what many parents already know to be true—the current childcare system is unnecessarily complex, inflationary and fails to target support where it can have the biggest impact on supporting parents to be in jobs, especially mothers.
In the 2015-16 budget the government announced its Jobs for Families childcare package in response to the Productivity Commission report and the government's further consultations with the childcare sector and families. The package has been refined during an extensive regulation impact statement consultation process carried out since budget. The government's new childcare package supports parents as they balance work and family responsibilities, while protecting those most vulnerable, and continuing to ensure a high-quality learning experience in our childcare centres. The key elements of the package are:
A new, simpler child care subsidy, which will improve affordability
The child care safety net, which will improve accessibility and comprises the:
o additional child care subsidy
o Community Child Care Fund
o Inclusion Support Program
The Interim Home Based Carer Subsidy Program, also known as the nanny pilot program, which will enhance flexibility.
This bill makes significant amendments to the current Family Assistance Act 1999 and Family Assistance (Administration) Act 1999 in order to introduce the child care subsidy, additional child care subsidy, new approved service requirements and an enhanced compliance framework from July 2017. These will give effect to the majority of the government's response to the recommendations from the Productivity Commission inquiry. There will also be a number of transitional provisions that will commence in July 2016 including some elements of the enhanced compliance framework.
Our objective is to help parents who want to work, or who want to work more, while still focusing on early childhood education.
Having two parents in paid employment has become a necessity for most families because of the changes in our society and economy over many years. More affordable access to quality child care puts the opportunity of work within reach for more families.
It is important to understand that support for child care is not a welfare payment. It is a payment that makes the cost of child care more affordable for families who need or choose to be in work.
The Jobs for Families childcare package is designed to encourage more families, including jobless families, to increase their involvement in paid employment. This is a significant investment to support families and is targeted to those who need it most—low- and middle-income families.
Families using child care in 2017 on family incomes between $65,710 and $170,710 will be on average around $1,500 a year better off under this package.
The package will deliver significant reform putting downward pressure on child care costs for families and making the very significant government investment in child care more sustainable.
Child Care Subsidy
The centrepiece of the reforms is the new child care subsidy.
From July 2017, the child care subsidy will replace the current child care benefit and child c are rebate with a single, means- tested subsidy.
The child care subsidy will be better targeted than current payments, providing more assistance for low - to middle-income families.
Since the Jobs for Families ch ild c are package was announced on b udget night , the child care subsidy has been modified for two reasons. First ly , it was a respon se to feedback from stakeholders who told the government that the announced subsidy rate was too generous for high- income families. Second ly , the additional funding to support the implementation of the Jobs for Families c hild c are p ackage was to be funded by savings measures for the family tax benefit announced in the 2014-15 b udget. These savings measures have not been fully realised. Taking these circumstances into account, the rate of child care subsidy for higher income families has been reduced.
The changes to the child care subsidy since the 2015-16 b udget will only affect families with incomes of more than $250,000— around five per cent of families using subsidised child care in 2017-18.
The child care subsidy rate has been revised so that, from implementation, families earning $65,710 or less will receive a subsidy of 85 per cent of the actual fee paid (up to an hourly fee cap). For family incomes above $65,710 per annum , the subsidy tapers to 50 per cent for families earning $170,710 and remains at 50 per cent until that family income reaches $250,000 per annum . That is, for these families, their child care subsidy rates will be as per the rates announced in the b udget. For families with incomes of more than $250,000 the subsidy tapers down to 20 per cent at $340,000 and above. The p ackage is most generous to those who need the most support.
Where famil y incomes reach $185,710, an annual cap of $10,000 per child will apply. Families on incomes under $185,710 will no longer be subject to a cap on the amount of subsidy they receive whereas currently all families are subject to the child care rebate cap of $7,500 per year per child.
The new subsidy will be paid directly to the childcare service providers. It will be subject to a three-step activity test, aligning the hours of subsidised care more closely with the hours of work, training, study or other recognised activity undertaken, and providing for up to 100 hours of subsidy per fortnight. The bill provides that at least eight hours of activity per fortnight results in access to 36 hours of subsidised childcare per fortnight; it also provides that more than 16 hours of activity per fortnight results in access to 72 hours of subsidised care a fortnight . Furthermore, the bill provides that more than 48 hours of activity a fortnight results in the maximum amount of subsidised child care of 100 hours a fortnight. This childcare package is fundamentally fair . This is because it provides the greatest rate of subsidy to those earning the least and provides more hours of subsidy to those who work the most.
Families whose child is attending a preschool program in a childcare service will be exempt from the child care subsidy activity test for the period of the preschool program. Separate to this legislation, the Jobs for Families childcare p ackage also includes $843 million over the next two years to guarantee f ederal support for a maximum of 600 hours of preschool in the year before school.
Additional Child Care Subsidy
The child care subsidy will be supplemented by the additional child care subsidy, because the g overnment recognises that extra support is needed for some disadvantaged and vulnerable children . This extra support is needed whether they be children at risk of serious abuse or neglect, families experiencing temporary financial hardship or parents seeking to return to work, study or training. The child care safety net aims to give our most vulnerable children a strong start. Amongst other measures, it will provide families on incomes of less than $65,710 who do not meet the activity test of up to 24 hours per fortnight of subsidised childcare. This is equivalent to two weekly six-hour sessions. These 24 hours will be provided at the highest rate of subsidy, 85 per cent, which is an increase on the current rate of about 72 per cent.
As a result of strong feedback obtained in the regulation impact statement consultations, a new element of the additional child care subsidy will now ensure that grandparents on income support who are primary carers of their grandchildren will not have to meet any activity test. It will also ensure that they receive a subsidy equal to 100 per cent of their childcare fees (up to 120 per cent of the usual child care subsidy cap).
Getting ch ildren into quality child care maximises the early learning opportunities for children who may not be getting all the support they need at home. It also improves a family ' s ability to break the cycle of poverty and intergenerational welfare dependence by minimising barriers to participation and providing access to early learning. This is one of the most effective early - intervention strategies available.
The Productivity Commission ' s report identified that existing programs that support disadvantaged and vulnerable families are complex, inefficient, poorly targeted and often open to abuse. This is particularly the case in relation to the Community Support Program , special childc are benefit and the job s, education and training child care fee assistance payment .
These payments and programs will be wound down, along with the current Budget Based Funded Program and grandparent child care benefit. They will be replaced by the new additional child care subsidy payments and other elements of the c hild care safety net, which I will speak about in a moment. Together, these will comprise a more integrated and targeted set of funding programs that leverage the increased Commonwealth investment in child care to provide the best early- learning outcomes, particularly for those most in need .
The new payments will remain linked to immunisation requirements that will, from 1 January 2016, be strengthened under the No Jab, No Pay policy.
Elements of the Jobs for Families childcare package outside the legislation
The Jobs for Families childcare package also includes a number of other important measures that are not formally part of the bill being introduced today. These measures will be considered and/ or introduced separately over the coming months with further consultation with the sector and affected families as program guidelines and processes are developed.
Briefly, these elements include:
the childcare safety net, in which the government will invest around $860 million by 2018-19. This includes nearly $180 million for the additional childcare subsidy that I have talked about. It also includes $409 million for the Inclusion Support Program starting in July 2016 that will assist services to support children with additional needs. Furthermore, it will include more than $270 million for the Community Child Care Fund starting in July 2017 that will provide grants to services to reduce barriers to access, particularly in remote Indigenous communities and regional areas.
The Interim Home Based Carer Subsidy Program, more commonly known as the Nanny Pilot Program, will, from January 2016, support families such as shift workers and families based in regional and remote communities who find it difficult to access mainstream services.
This legislation is reinforced by strengthened compliance arrangements to ensure that this massive investment in child care — of almost $40 billion over four years including more than $3 billion in extra funding — is used as intended. Compliance measures in this legislation include the power for the minister to make legislative instru ments to place a pause on child care service applications in relation to a particular service type for a defined period. This measure will help us heed the recent lessons from family day care, where the number of services has grown rapidly from 300 in 2011 to more than 1,000 in 2015 and where fraud and non compliance are estimated to have cost the taxpayer at least $300 million per year.
Closure and tran sitional arrangements for child care payments
The bill includes consequential amendments and will provide transitional provisions to support th e replacement of existing child care payments with the child care subsidy and additional child care subsidy. The July 2017 start date for these payments has been chosen to give families and service providers time to adjust to the new model and support the seamless introduction of new systems and arrangements.
Review and e valuation
Given the significant nature of this reform, it is important that its implementation and impact is understood. To that end, there will be an ongoing monitoring review of the package. An integral part of that strategy will be a post-implementation review following 2017-18 and an impact evaluation undertaken between 2020 and 2022.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this bill, and the Jobs for Families childcare package more generally, will deliver significant and greatly needed reform through a simpler, more affordable, more flexible and more accessible childcare system. It is a fair approach that provides the greatest support to those who depend upon it in order to work, or work more hours. This package represents an important investment in Australia's future and is a key element of the government's plan to build a strong, safe and prosperous Australia for the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Keenan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (10:42): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The coalition government at the 2013 election made a commitment to the Australian people to implement tougher criminal penalties for gun related crime.
The criminal misuse and trafficking of guns is a deadly crime and an ongoing threat to the safety of our communities.
Although there is no single group which dominates the sale and supply of firearms to the illicit market, the illicit use and possession of firearms is a significant element of organised criminal activity in Australia.
We all know that money and power are key drivers for organised crime. Guns are regularly used as an enabler to protect interests and commit acts of violence.
The imperishable nature of firearms and the ongoing supply of firearms to the illicit market mean they remain a serious threat to the Australian community.
Now, more than ever, we must do everything in our power to ensure the ongoing safety and security of all Australians.
That is why the government is again introducing increased penalties to disrupt the illicit firearms market in Australia.
This bill will introduce a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for offenders convicted of trafficking firearms or firearm parts under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Mandatory minimums send a strong and clear message that gun related crime and violence will not be tolerated.
The mandatory minimums will capture all offenders who engage in the illicit firearms trade, not just those who trade in large numbers of firearms or parts.
Regardless of the number of articles that are trafficked, it is vital to put in place substantial penalties on all trafficking offenders, with the aim of preventing even one more firearm from entering the illicit market.
However, these mandatory minimum sentences are not without safeguards. They do not include specified nonparole periods, nor do they apply to minors, which means the courts will retain the discretion to set custodial periods consistent with the particular circumstances of the offender and the offence.
In addition to the mandatory minimum sentence, the government is also increasing the maximum penalties for firearms trafficking from 10 years' imprisonment and/or 2,500 penalty units to 20 years' imprisonment and/or 5,000 penalty units.
The increased maximum penalty is necessary to ensure that the serious offences of trafficking firearms within Australia, and into and out of our country, are matched by appropriate punishments.
Conclusion
This bill introduces amendments to reflect the seriousness with which the government views gun crime, and the gravity of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market.
The combination of mandatory minimum penalties and increased maximum penalties will send the strongest possible message to the community that the illegal trafficking of firearms will not be tolerated and will act as a strong disincentive for people who would seek to illegally import firearms and gun parts into Australia.
Debate adjourned.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (10:46): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government remains committed to removing outdated regulation that represents an unnecessary drag on the economy and may, in fact, hamper industry from providing more innovative and competitive products and services to consumers.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill is the latest in a series of measures introduced by the government, and is designed to increase productivity and reduce costs to the benefit of industry and consumers. The reform agenda requires continuous commitment, as small improvements over time provide a cumulative benefit. To date, this government's efforts have resulted in the removal of over 3,000 pages of redundant regulation and delivered over $300 million in estimated savings each year for industry and community stakeholders in the communications sector.
As we all know, digital disruption is transforming Australia's broadcasting and communications landscape. New and converging technologies are making traditional regulatory frameworks inefficient or even redundant. This bill addresses outdated regulatory requirements while preserving flexibility for the regulators to adapt to changing industry trends.
The bill includes measures to: streamline account-keeping and licence fee administration arrangements for commercial broadcasters and datacasting transmitter licensees; remove duplication for licensees, publishers and controllers who must notify the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) of changes in control of regulated media assets; implement a single classification scheme for all television programs, including films; and clarify the functions of the ACMA in investigating broadcasting complaints.
The bill will also reduce burden on the telecommunications industry by: removing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC's) unduly burdensome tariff-filing arrangements; reforming the statutory information collection powers of ACMA and the ACCC to ensure that the information collected from industry remains necessary and relevant; and establishing a framework to enable the telecommunications industry to develop a scheme to self-manage telephone numbering resources subject to the satisfaction of the minister .
The bill also makes various other amendments to remove redundant or otherwise unnecessary legislation.
Account - keeping and licence fee administration arrangements
The bill will streamline account-keeping and licence fee administration arrangements under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 for broadcasters and datacasters.
First, it will remove default audit requirements that apply to certain financial information provided by licensees to ACMA at the end of the financial year as part of the regulator's revenue assurance regulatory task. Instead, a new provision will enable ACMA to request the auditing of financial documents if ACMA considers it necessary. In other words, the presumption is reversed from a default auditing requirement to a risk based approach.
ACMA already has the ability to exempt a class of licensees from these auditing requirements by legislative instrument , and removing the default auditing requirement for all licensees will reduce the administrative burden on licensees.
The bill also provides greater flexibility to regulated organisations by widening the classes of office holders who can make a statutory declaration about the gross earnings of certain commercial broadcasting and datacasting licensees. The eligible classes will be extended to include directors, as well as people authorised by the chief executive officer or company secretary and with knowledge of the financial affairs of the licensee company. This measure reduces the regulatory burden on industry while still ensuring that ACMA can receive the information it needs.
The bill will also allow ACMA to waive small licence fee underpayments where, in ACMA's opinion, it would not be efficient to recover the amount unpaid.
Control notification
This bill will remove duplicative requirements for licensees, publishers and controllers to notify ACMA of certain changes in control of regulated media assets, namely commercial television broadcasting licences, commercial radio broadcasting licences, datacasting transmitter licences and 'associated' newspapers.
The Broadcasting Services Act currently requires licensees and publishers to notify ACMA of changes in the control of a licence or publication. It also requires the incoming controllers to notify ACMA of the same change. By removing the obligation on the incoming controller, the bill will reduce duplication and the administrative burden on affected parties while still allowing ACMA to maintain accurate and up-to-date control registers.
Single classification scheme for television programs
The bill will streamline film classification arrangements for commercial and community broadcasters and open narrowcasters under the Broadcasting Services Act. This will be achieved by repealing requirements for licensees to use the film classification scheme in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 when broadcasting films, rather than the code-based television classification guidelines that apply to other television programmes.
These requirements were originally enacted to ensure consistency between classification ratings applied to films screened in theatre and/or released on DVD or VHS, and when those films are broadcast on television.
Since the enactment of those provisions, the film and television classification schemes have converged to the point where they are largely the same. Accordingly, the original policy intent for the provisions is now redundant. Duplicate classification rules in industry codes of practice and the Broadcasting Services Act are inefficient for broadcasters, who must have regard to multiple classification frameworks for different kinds of content delivered over the same platform.
Repealing subsections 123(3A) to (3D), and related changes to licence conditions, will deliver a single classification scheme for all television programmes, including films.
ACMA complaints handling
The bill will also clarify ACMA's complaints handling and information gathering powers under the Broadcasting Services Act.
Part 11 of that act sets out a framework for making and investigating complaints about licensed and national broadcasters, including complaints relating to compliance with broadcasting codes of practice. In addition, part 13 of the Broadcasting Services Act provides ACMA with a general power to conduct investigations relating to broadcasting, content and datacasting functions. These functions include monitoring compliance with codes of practice and monitoring and investigating complaints concerning broadcasting services.
It is clear, therefore, that complaints of the type referred to in part 11 can also be investigated by ACMA under its broader investigation powers in part 13 and particularly section 170. This was recently confirmed by the Federal Court in Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2015] FCA 371.
Accordingly, the bill will repeal part 11 and make consequential amendments to part 13 to make it clear that people may complain to ACMA about broadcasting or datacasting services, and ACMA may investigate the complaint at its discretion.
In recognition of the co-regulatory approach to broadcasting services, the amendments make clear that ACMA may, for example, choose to investigate a complaint where the complainant is dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response to their complaint, or where the broadcaster fails to respond to a complaint in a manner consistent with the requirements of the relevant industry code of practice.
Tariff filing
The telecommunications industry has changed dramatically since significant competition reforms were introduced in the 1990s following the Hilmer competition review, and since the privatisation of the then government-owned Telstra.
Reporting requirements designed to ensure that those newly designed competition laws operated effectively have become less effective in aiding prevention of anticompetitive behaviour and disproportionately more burdensome as the telecommunications industry has changed.
The bill will repeal tariff filing arrangements applying to the telecommunications industry under part XIB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). These provisions are no longer necessary as there is no evidence that the tariff information provided has assisted in preventing anticompetitive practices. Further, there is already sufficient pricing information available in the public domain.
Information collection
The bill will also reform the statutory information collection powers of ACMA and the ACCC, which have been identified by industry stakeholders as an area of particular regulatory concern.
Section 105 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Tel Act) requires ACMA to monitor and report to the minister (and in turn for the minister to table the report in parliament) each financial year on all significant matters relating to the performance of the telecommunications industry. ACMA obtains information from industry in preparing the report. Though initially providing a high degree of oversight as part of a new regulatory framework in 1997, the policy rationale is no longer compelling close to 20 years later with a mature telecommunications sector.
Accordingly, the bill will reduce the scope of the mandatory ACMA report to focus on the operation of part 14 of the Telecommunications Act, regarding national interest matters, and part 5-1A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 regarding data retention. ACMA will be free to monitor and report on other issues, if it wishes to do so, providing it with greater flexibility to prepare targeted reports of most benefit to government and industry.
Section 151CM of the Competition and Consumer Act requires the ACCC to monitor and report to the minister each financial year on charges paid by consumers for listed carriage services, ancillary goods and services and Telstra price control arrangements.
The telecommunications market has changed significantly since these arrangements were first introduced. The monitoring and reporting obligations currently in section 151CM, which apply largely to traditional providers, may provide only a limited picture of the contemporary telecommunications market.
The bill will therefore introduce a more flexible regime allowing the ACCC to monitor and report on those services which the ACCC considers are the most commonly used consumer services supplied using a telecommunications network.
The bill will also require the ACCC to review any record keeping rules made by reference to division 12 at least every five years, having regard to whether the information is publicly available; whether consumer demand for the goods or services to which the information relates has changed; and the usefulness of the information to consumers, the minister and parliament.
The bill will substitute the requirement for the ACCC to report to the minister (and for the minister to table the report in parliament) with a requirement that the ACCC prepare and publish each report on its website within three months of financial year end.
Industry-based numbering management
The bill will also amend the Telecommunications Act to enable a transition to an industry-based scheme for the management of telephone numbering resources, provided certain safeguards are met.
The Telecommunications Act currently requires ACMA to make a plan for the numbering of carriage services and the use of numbers in connection with the supply of services to the public. The numbering plan must specify the numbers for use and may set out rules for the allocation of numbers to carriage service providers, for the transfer of numbers between carriage service providers, and the surrender of numbers by carriage service providers.
Industry stakeholders have proposed that numbering management be devolved to industry with potential benefits including faster implementation of new numbering ranges, lower charges and more efficient allocation processes.
This bill will amend the Telecommunications Act to enable the minister to appoint a 'numbering scheme manager' to manage numbering resources on behalf of the Commonwealth under a self-managed industry scheme. The scheme will need to achieve key principles specified in the legislation, including an adequate and appropriate supply of numbers, protection of the interests of consumers, the promotion of effective competition, support for the emergency call service, and the ongoing collection of numbering charges.
Any industry scheme would only commence if and when the minister was satisfied that the scheme met these and other relevant principles. Industry is expected to undertake public consultation in developing a proposed scheme. Any proposed scheme will be carefully assessed and will only be accepted if it meets the high standards implicit in the principles specified in the legislation. In addition, the minister, ACMA and the ACCC will be empowered to issue directions to the numbering scheme manager regarding the management of the numbering scheme.
As an important safeguard, the appointment of the numbering scheme manager could be revoked by the minister if the numbering scheme manager was not managing the numbering scheme in accordance with the principles, or if the minister was satisfied that the revocation was in the best interests of the telecommunications industry, users of telecommunications services, the general community, or national security.
Any industry-based numbering management scheme would be fully funded by industry, however, there are also expected to be countervailing savings for industry from the reduction in ACMA involvement in numbering activities.
The proposed arrangements would have the benefit of giving the industry an opportunity to introduce more efficient arrangements in relation to managing telephone numbering resources while ensuring the continuation of core consumer and competitive safeguards in relation to numbering.
The bill also makes minor technical amendments to the legislation governing the national broadcasters, for consistency and to reflect SBS activities in the converging digital environment.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the government remains committed to removing poorly focused and onerous regulation on Australia's broadcasting and telecommunications industries. This regulation reform process does not end today; it will be a continuing part of the government's productivity agenda.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (11:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Bill 2015 will make consequential amendments to the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Act 1997.
These amendments are necessary as a consequence of the measures included in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 to establish a framework to enable the telecommunications industry to develop a scheme to self-manage telephone numbering resources, provided certain safeguards are met. Currently, the Telecommunications Act 1997 requires that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, manage the numbering of carriage services in Australia, and the use of numbers in connection with the supply of such services.
While the proposed amendments to the numbering arrangements would enable industry to take on the day-to-day management of telephone numbering resources, it is also important to ensure that charges currently applied to carriage service providers for the holding of numbers continue to be collected. Currently these charges earn $60 million in revenue per annum. This requires an ongoing role for ACMA in the setting, levy and collection of these charges.
The consequential amendments to the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Act in the bill before the House today reflect that the holding of telephone numbers by carriage service providers, for which charges arise under the Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Amendment Act, could in future be managed by industry and require interaction between the industry administrator and ACMA.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (11:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015 will reduce the level of regulatory complexity faced by the radio broadcasting industry by implementing reform in the digital radio regulatory framework, and it will facilitate the rollout of digital radio in regional Australia.
On 8 July 2015, the then Minister for Communications tabled in the parliament the Digital radio report which was prepared by the Department of Communications and the Arts in response to two statutory reviews on the digital radio framework.
The report recommended that industry members and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) establish a Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia to focus on the rollout of digital radio to regional areas where it is commercially feasible to do so. The planning committee has now been established and includes key industry stakeholders. It is currently considering the rollout of digital radio in regional areas and is giving priority to the licensing of permanent digital radio services in Canberra and Darwin.
Another key recommendation in that report was that the government provide a simpler, more flexible process for the planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia. This move is supported by commercial, national and community radio sectors. The government considers that the commercial radio sector is best placed to determine the areas where digital radio services can be successfully rolled out and the optimal time frame for doing so. However, the government can assist by streamlining digital radio planning and licensing processes.
A licence area's 'digital radio start-up day' is the day on which the relevant licensees are authorised to commence providing digital radio services in that licence area. Currently, ACMA is required to ensure that the digital radio start-up day for a licence area is the day specified in a legislative instrument made by the minister. It is proposed to remove the requirement for a legislative instrument made by the minister—effectively removing the role of the minister and leaving the setting of commencement dates for regional digital radio services to ACMA. This simpler process is consistent with the government's regulation reform agenda. In setting the start-up day for a particular licence area, it is expected that ACMA will take account of industry willingness to invest in the required infrastructure and to provide digital radio services in that area.
The datacasting licence category was intended to encourage the development of new and innovative services which were distinct from traditional broadcasting services. In 2007, the restricted datacasting licence category was introduced to allow service providers to use the digital radio platform to provide information-only or educational programs.
To date, no restricted datacasting licences have been issued by ACMA. Removing this subcategory of licence will simplify the digital radio regulatory framework across both the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act, while not preventing service providers from continuing to offer new and innovative digital radio services to listeners.
Digital radio has been operating in the five mainland capital cities since 2009. Until 30 June 2015, there was a legislated moratorium on the issuing of any new commercial digital-only radio licences in those markets. This digital radio moratorium period was put in place to provide incumbent commercial radio broadcasters with a level of stability and certainty during the digital radio investment phase.
The six-year moratorium period in these metropolitan licence areas has now expired. However, it will commence in regional areas if and when they start digital radio services. The Digital radio report found there was not a strong argument for retaining this provision, noting that the protection from competition offered by the six-year digital radio moratorium period has not provided sufficient incentive for commercial radio broadcasters to extend digital radio services into regional licence areas. The bill therefore removes the digital radio moratorium period.
Digital radio broadcasters utilise two types of licences: the broadcasting licence, which authorises them to provide their broadcasting service, and the 'digital radio multiplex transmitter licence' which licences the shared transmission infrastructure they use. Multiplex licences are allocated in three categories, each authorising a different combination of commercial, national and community digital radio services. Category 3 multiplex licences authorise the transmission of digital national radio broadcasting services and/or national restricted datacasting services and may, essentially, only be held by either or both of the national broadcasters—the ABC and SBS.
These licences currently fall within the definition of 'non-foundation digital radio multiplex transmitter licence' in the Radiocommunications Act. A practical impact of this is that category 3 multiplex licensees (that is, the ABC and SBS) are excluded from applying for renewal of their licence. It is proposed to amend the definition of 'non-foundation digital radio multiplex transmitter licence' in the Radiocommunications Act so that it excludes category 3 multiplex licences. This is a technical amendment to address an unintended consequence of the existing drafting.
As digital radio was a developing technology when the digital radio legislative framework was being developed, statutory review provisions were included in both the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act. These reviews were aimed at monitoring the regulatory and technological developments of digital radio. As these reviews have been conducted and the report addressing both reviews was tabled in parliament in July this year, these provisions can be removed from both acts.
The government remains committed to streamlining and reforming the digital radio framework in consultation with regulatory and industry players. The Digital Radio Planning Committee may identify further elements of the digital radio regulatory framework that could be simplified to further facilitate the rollout of digital radio in regional Australia in the future.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (11:16): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015, which I am introducing today, is intended to enhance the regulatory framework for telecommunications, implementing, in part, the government's response to the Vertigan panel. Given the importance of this sector to our economy and society, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the regulatory regime operates as best as it can so that we have a competitive, innovative and responsive telecommunications market.
On 11 December 2014, the government set out a road map for reform in the telecommunications sector which will see several restrictive aspects of existing market regulation gradually replaced with enhanced, competition-friendly settings. The road map also outlined the government's response to an independent review carried out by a panel of experts chaired by Dr Michael Vertigan AC.
The panel concluded, amongst other things, that the current regulatory structure should be adjusted to better support competition and recommended changes to this effect. Specifically, the panel considered that regulatory arrangements and processes should be better focused and streamlined.
The bill contains measures that respond to recommendations made by the Vertigan panel to improve the operation of the telecommunications access regime and nbn co's line of business obligations. These measures support the government's objective of establishing a more competitive regulatory framework that will, in turn, provide greater certainty for industry and more innovative, effective and efficient service delivery for consumers.
The bill also includes amendments to provide continued certainty for nbn co during the National Broadband Network's rollout throughout Australia.
The bill better coordinates the interaction between the facilities access regime in schedule 1 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the access regime in part XIC of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010,making it clear that part XIC processes have precedence in the regulation of access to facilities. This will provide greater certainty and clarity for the telecommunications industry.
It also introduces a new obligation to make it clear that access providers need to give access to in-building cabling that they own or control, where use of that cabling is necessary for the supply of an active declared service. This will mean that competing service providers are able to supply carriage and/or content services using a declared service over that cabling, and this will provide greater certainty for access seekers.
To encourage greater service innovation on the National Broadband Network (NBN), nbn co will be given flexibility in conducting pilots and trials of new services over its network through a relaxation of its non-discrimination obligations. Specific conditions—for example, a limit on the duration of a pilot or trial and a requirement to notify the ACCC—will need to be met for a pilot or trial to take place. If, at any stage, the ACCC was to reach the view that the pilot or trial did not meet these conditions—that is, it was not 'genuine'—the ACCC would be able to take enforcement action.
The bill includes a number of finetuning changes to improve the operation of the telecommunications access regime in part XIC of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These changes will achieve greater consistency of approach in regulating access, streamline processes, and provide industry with greater certainty in relation to the operation of the regime.
The bill provides nbn co with greater flexibility in its business operations by amending its line of business restrictions to permit it to dispose of surplus assets and to allow regulations to be made to relax restrictions on nbn co supplying non-communications goods or services, or its investment activities. It does not mean that nbn co will be able to sell retail services or that its line of business will expand beyond the provision of layer 2 wholesale services.
The bill also modifies existing authorisations that allow nbn co to operate a specified number of points of interconnection and sell its key services as a bundle, ensuring that nbn co can continue these practices under a price capping regime. These changes will mean nbn co can continue to roll out the NBN according to its current design and business model with confidence, minimising delay and cost risks. As such, the bill supports the object of ensuring that superfast carriage services are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia, wherever they reside or carry on business. These authorisations will cease once the NBN is built and fully operational, having served their purpose of facilitating the rollout.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Access Regime and NBN Companies) Bill 2015 makes some minor but helpful changes to the regulatory framework. Further legislation proposed for next year will deal with some of the more significant issues set out in the government's telecommunications policy road map. This bill represents the first phase of reforms, promoting greater efficiency, transparency, competition and innovation in telecommunications services.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Special Minister of State
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (11:22): I seek the indulgence of the chair to clarify my comments of yesterday.
The SPEAKER: The Special Minister of State may proceed on indulgence.
Mr BROUGH: Yesterday, during question time, I said:
… in relation to the 60 Minutes interview, what was put to air was not the full question …
My recollection of the interview was that the question was put to me in a somewhat disjointed manner and I answered the question without clarifying precisely what part of the question I was responding to. This is confirmed by the tape by 60 Minutes, and that was the reason for my answer yesterday. I have taken the opportunity to review the tape and transcript, and I apologise to the House if my statement yesterday unwittingly added to the confusion rather than clarifying the matter.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:23): That was an extraordinary statement on indulgence! There was no apology to the House. You had a misleading of this parliament—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE: a very serious—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting, and the member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Grayndler well knows the procedures if he wishes to take certain action.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (11:23): by leave:
Progress with implementing the Australian Government ' s Response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report
December 2015
In December last year I tabled the government's response to the independent review of Australia's aviation safety regulatory system in parliament. The government commissioned the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to examine our aviation safety regulatory system. The review was conducted by an independent panel of international aviation experts led by Mr David Forsyth, formerly a senior manager with Qantas and Chair of Airservices Australia.
The review report acknowledged Australia's excellent aviation safety record but found that there were opportunities for improvements to ensure Australia remains a leading aviation state. The report also made 37 recommendations, many relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), while others had implications for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Airservices Australia (Airservices), my department and also the Department of Defence.
Australia has worked hard to develop one of the most respected aviation safety systems globally. However, given the speed with which the international and domestic aviation industry is changing, we need to look for continuous improvement in our aviation safety regulatory system to reflect the growing diversity of our aviation industry. The Australian government agreed to 32 of the report's recommendations and agreed to undertake further examination of four others. The recommendations cover a number of key areas including CASA's regulatory philosophy, processes and relationship with industry, and a future regulatory framework and reform program. Enhancements to governance arrangements, improvements to interactions between key agencies and a stronger policy role for my department were also recommended and agreed to by the government.
Earlier this year I issued Australia's three key aviation agencies—CASA, Airservices and the ATSB—with new statements of expectations. These statements outline in a clear and public way the government's expectations of these agencies, including the timely implementation of the government's response to the review report. I can advise the House that implementation of the government's response is well underway.
CASA and ATSB Governance
The government supported the ASRR report's recommendations regarding board members possessing a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds, to strengthen CASA's vital role as Australia's independent aviation safety regulator. Accordingly, the government has appointed a completely new CASA board. Mr Jeff Boyd has been appointed as the new Chairman, and new members Mr Ian Smith, Ms Anita Taylor, Mr Murray Warfield and Ms Philippa Stone bring a diversity of valuable knowledge, including experience gained in different parts of the Australian aviation industry. These appointments bring pertinent technical, operational and managerial experience to help the board play a more active role in setting and steering CASA's strategic direction. The government also welcomed the appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Mark Skidmore AM who commenced as director of aviation safety on 1 January 2015.
The report also recommended the appointment of an additional ATSB commissioner, with aviation experience. Mr Chris Manning, who commenced as commissioner in March 2015, has extensive aviation operational and safety management experience, particularly in his former positions as Qantas chief pilot and group general manager of flight operations. In its role as the aviation safety regulator, it is essential that CASA has effective and ongoing engagement and communication with the industry both at a strategic and working level.
The Aviation Safety Regulation Review recommended the creation of an 'effective collaborative relationship [between CASA and the industry] based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.' To assist with such a relationship, CASA has recently released its statement of regulatory philosophy, which sets out the principles that will guide and direct CASA's approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and exercise of its regulatory powers. It is expected that CASA's review of its capability framework and amendments to its enforcement manual to reflect this new regulatory philosophy and use of discretion procedure will also be finalised before the end of the financial year.
Whilst it is expected that most of the updated CASA documentation required to implement the government's response will be completed this financial year, the real test of the effectiveness of implementation will be the adoption of these approaches by CASA staff over the coming months and years. The CASA board has confirmed the adoption of the three-tier approach to the regulatory framework, and there has been significant progress with the outstanding parts of the regulatory reform program supported by industry
While the government is keen to see the completion of the drafting of the remaining parts of the program as soon as possible, the government recognises that the finalisation of the regulations is subject to ongoing consultation between CASA and industry. Therefore, the timing of the completion and implementation of specific regulatory changes will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Industry must also play its part by working cooperatively and constructively with government agencies to take forward regulatory reform. I welcome the initiative by CASA's Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore, to encourage industry to identify specific areas where current regulatory practices and procedures could be improved or replaced. In this regard, CASA has recently established a special task force that will work with an industry advisory panel made up of people representing a wide range of sectors across the aviation community to address outstanding issues with the flight crew licensing suite of regulations.
CASA has also reviewed and updated the terms of reference and reporting arrangements for its Industry Complaints Commissioner, including reporting arrangements to improve its independence and effectiveness.
Policy and coordination role of the department
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development chairs the Aviation Policy Group (APG) and is leading work between agencies to ensure coordinated action on a number of key aviation safety policy issues, including the State Safety Program (SSP).My department will be releasing this week a draft revised State Safety Program for industry and public consultation.In addition, my department, in close consultation with other aviation agencies, will be releasing policy papers before the end of the year for public and industry comment. These papers will be on:
aviation rescue and firefighting services regulatory policy; and
Australia's proposed approach to the implementation of Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro VNAV) procedures to improve aviation safety.
Conclusion
The Australian government is committed to ensuring that Australia continues to have one of the most respected aviation safety systems in the world. Whilst significant progress has been made in developing policies, procedures and systems to support aviation safety regulatory reform, it will take time for these to be implemented and it will take time for a change in the culture within the regulator and in the aviation industry more broadly to take effect.
The success of such reform will also depend on the active engagement and contribution of the aviation industry. I encourage industry to play a constructive role in the change process. The government will continue to work with our aviation agencies and industry to achieve continuous improvement in our aviation safety system. I present a copy of the statement to the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:33): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure for his update to the House on the government's response to the Aviation safety regulatory review report. The last ministerial statement on aviation safety was, of course, a year ago tomorrow. At that stage, the Deputy Prime Minister outlined the government's response to the regulatory review, led by David Forsythe, and the 37 recommendations that they made. At the time of the initial announcement of the review in November 2013, the release of the review report in June 2014 and the last parliamentary statement in December last year, I acknowledged that aviation safety should be subject to continuous review.
Aviation safety is not an issue of partisan debate in this parliament and nor should it be. I have taken the same constructive relationship to these issues that the now minister took when he was the shadow minister as well. We all have an interest in aviation safety—from an economic point of view because of the importance of aviation to our national economy and, primarily, because we are concerned about the safety of all those who fly, work and travel in aviation. It is a source of great national pride that Australia's aviation safety record is second to none anywhere in the world, and we need to make sure that that continues to be the case in the future.
Last December, Labor welcomed new CASA board appointments and, in particular, the appointment of former Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the Director of Aviation Safety. I took the opportunity then to express my view that CASA, as regulator, should be firm but fair, that tension was better than harmony for its own sake. This was in response to a focus in the Forsythe report that sought to foster closer relations between the regulator and the regulated. I said then, and reconfirm now, that we should never sacrifice rigour for harmony. I also referred to my concern that the quest for $12 million in savings to the aviation industry from the removal of so-called red tape should not sacrifice the core mission of our aviation regulators. These issues remain of concern to me.
The opposition welcomes the government's update to the parliament. I note that there is a full new board for CASA, although three of the four appointments were announced in last year's statement. The new chairman, Jeff Boyd, took over from Dr Alan Hawke in May, having served as vice-chairman. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr Hawke for the work that he did, not just in this position; I think his record of public service is quite extraordinary and almost without peer if you look at the decades in which he has served governments and his nation. I pay tribute to him.
I also note the appointment of Chris Manning as an additional ATSB commissioner in March. In September CASA's new leadership outlined the 10 points of its regulatory philosophy. I acknowledge Mark Skidmore's organisational leadership in setting clear expectations around its regulatory approach and how it will interact with the aviation community. I think being so clear about the philosophy moving forward allows people in the industry to have an element of certainty as to how CASA will respond to certain situations, and that can only be a good thing. The aviation sector, particularly the smaller sector of general aviation, is under real pressure. Improving outcomes for them, with the success of what can be, in many cases, very small business operations, is critical, and it is obviously harder for smaller operators to deal with regulation than it is for larger companies such as Qantas and Virgin Australia. Inviting the industry to point out existing issues in regulation that could be addressed should not supplant the fundamental responsibility of CASA to drive continuous improvement in aviation safety.
There is one matter on which the opposition has had to take a view in the past year, although not at our instigation. A disallowance motion in the Senate relating to responsibility for maintenance operations on aircraft was moved. Though the opposition favoured the precautionary approach then, I do want to indicate that I respect the assistance that Mr Skidmore and his team provided to the parliament at that time. It is difficult for non-expert politicians to weigh highly technical aviation regulatory matters—they are the subject of some disagreement from time to time—although we must.
While there are no specific announcements in this statement, the update is indeed welcome. Events overseas in the past year remind us that safety can never be taken for granted and that, in our dynamic world, the quest for aviation safety is never accomplished.
Debate adjourned.
Operation Sovereign Borders
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (11:40): by leave—Before parliament rises for the year, I want to update members on Operation Sovereign Borders and to reassure the Australian people that we are upholding our pledge to stop illegal boat arrivals. September marked the second anniversary of Operation Sovereign Borders, and this month marks two years since the turnback phase of OSB commencing.
Over 1,200 people drowned in their attempts to reach our country by boat, and many more, we feel, suffered the same fate under five years of Labor's appalling mismanagement of our borders. It is no coincidence that it is now two years since anybody died in Australian waters. Five years ago we watched in horror as a boat foundered on the cliffs of Christmas Island and at least 50 people—that we know of—drowned despite the heroism of our front-line border staff and many others who were present on that day.
Australian Border and Defence Force personnel spent five years under Labor pulling people from the sea rather than protecting our maritime borders. We intend never to allow those days—where such tragedies become commonplace—to return.
Since commencing turnbacks, more than 20 boats carrying over 650 passengers paying people smugglers to reach Australia illegally have been returned to their country of departure. The most important point to understand is that, if the 20 boats got through, people smugglers would have marketed that as being back in business and 200 or 2,000 boats would have followed.
OSB is a tough policy—the toughest on people smugglers—but it is saving lives. With the boats stopped, we are now addressing the legacy we inherited from Labor: 30,000 people who had arrived illegally by boat over the previous five years. Labor opened 17 additional detention centres; we have closed 13. Around 9,000 people who arrived illegally by boat were in detention when OSB commenced; we have reduced this to just 900.
This government has finalised 1,732 asylum claims, 80 per cent of which have been rejected, showing that most who paid people smugglers to come by boat were not refugees. And most importantly, we have reduced the number of children in detention. More than 8,600 children were detained during Labor's two terms, peaking at nearly 2,000 in July of 2013. We have reduced that number to fewer than 100 today.
But much remains to be done to clear Labor's backlog; tens of thousands in the legacy caseload have yet to be processed. Those who are found to be owed protection will be issued temporary protection or safe haven enterprise visas. Some of those visa holders will follow a rigorous pathway to remain in Australia, under the mechanisms we legislated last December and in March this year. Many will eventually have to return to their origin countries, or resettle elsewhere.
OSB's success has rebuilt public confidence in the integrity of our borders and is restoring faith in Australia's migration policy. According to the highly respected Scanlon Foundation, public support for migration is at its highest since 2007.
Our success in tackling people smuggling has also eased the pressure on Australia's humanitarian program, which means we can focus on people waiting in trying conditions overseas. This was our compact with the Australian people: we would help those who do not seek advantage by paying people smugglers to reach our country by boat.
The clearest dividend of OSB's success is the government's generosity in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Iraq by resettling 12,000 additional refugees here. These places are for the most vulnerable people—persecuted women, children, and families with the least prospect of ever returning to their homes.
Having just visited Jordan and Lebanon, I understand firsthand this desire to move. But we cannot succumb to the misguided altruism that led to the collapse of our borders—and to 50,000 people arriving here illegally by boat.
Despite our successes, people smugglers want to believe that the way to Australia is open; they try to create opportunities to persuade people to pay for boat passage. So countering people smugglers' lies and misinformation demands constant vigilance.
But we continue to stare down our adversaries: no successful people smuggling ventures in more than a year and a half vindicates our policy settings.
The situation in Europe shows exactly what can happen when border controls break down—hundreds of thousands of people flowing across land and sea borders. Some are genuine refugees, others are using the disorder and chaos to self-select a new country of choice. This uncontrolled movement weakens Europe's will and capacity to support lawful migration.
The shocking terrorist attacks in Paris are the extreme consequence of this loss of control. Australia is not immune from the terrorist threat crossing borders; however; indeed, this is as real here as it is in many countries in Europe and around the world.
The number of Australians attempting to join extremist groups has increased in recent years; more will inevitably try to join. Sympathisers and supporters of extremists here are growing in number and determination.
More than 145 Australian passports have been cancelled to prevent travel prejudicial to national security. Over 400 people are the subject of counter terrorism investigations—a doubling in the caseload since early last year. And 26 people have been charged since the National Terrorism Public Alert was raised to high in September last year.
The government's response to terror has been comprehensive and multifaceted.
We have legislated in five tranches to reduce the space available to terrorists to recruit or travel. This includes the Allegiance Bill which passed the lower House yesterday.
Funding for counter-terrorism and national security has been restored to levels commensurate to the threat after Labor's neglect—an additional $1.3 billion. And programs to counter violent extremism in partnership with communities are being rolled out to strengthen resilience in our multicultural society.
In terms of my portfolio, the stand-up of the Australian Border Force shows the government's resolve to protect our borders. This has resulted in the counter terrorism units offloading 199 passengers on national security grounds—having built upon the successes of Operation Sovereign Borders.
Our investment in Smartgates—almost $90 million—has extended biometric technology to departure as well as arrival points. Extension of advance passenger processing further pushes out the Australian border to scrutinise inbound passengers.
People smugglers, and terrorists, will continue to test our resolve; they will not succeed under this government.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (11:48): There is no question that ending the journey between Java and Christmas Island has been a critically important measure for Australia and the Australian government. It has ended a human tragedy which saw all too many people lose their lives at sea. I am sure everyone in this building and across the country hopes that that is now at an end and that the people smugglers who perpetrated their despicable trade are now out of business. We, of course, support the achievement of this and note it as a remarkable achievement and one which is very important for the future development of a bipartisan position in this country in relation to asylum seekers and immigration more generally.
I do need to say that the air of self-congratulation that we see on the part of this government in relation to this is starting to become distasteful. We, of course, all remember the billboards on this issue that surrounded polling booths and were being paraded around during the 2013 election. There is no-one in this parliament who can deny how politically the coalition regard this issue. This more than any other issue has been the one that the coalition has gone to in order to raise its banner. In doing so, and as we have just heard from the minister, there is a vigorous attempt to lay blame and credit in particular places. There is no doubt—and we have been quite up-front about it—that Labor made mistakes during the time of the last Labor government. But it is also true that the coalition in making its arrangement with the Greens party during the course of 2011 and 2012 to stop the Malaysian arrangement really spoke to the most shining example of the political expediency pursued by the coalition in respect of this issue. That measure—which could have brought an end to this journey four years ago—was not able to be implemented and as a result more than 600 people lost their lives at sea after that moment.
So, when history looks to lay the blame for what occurred in the past, it will not be nearly as simple as the minister's description just now. Equally, when history looks to ascribe credit to how we have brought an end to the journey from Java to Christmas Island, it will remember that the regional resettlement arrangement, which was put in place by the then Labor government and resulted in 90 per cent of the vessels from Java to Christmas Island stopping before the current government was ever sworn into office. Yes, there is no doubt that turning around the remaining 10 per cent of those vessels has been a critical step taken by this government, but this government has enjoyed an opposition which has supported it in its endeavours to bring an end to that journey between Java and Christmas Island—an enjoyment that was not shared by the former Labor government in respect of the former coalition opposition.
All of that said, there remain very significant issues which are outstanding and need to be addressed. Offshore processing is a critically important step in bringing an end to this journey, but it is not being run in anything like the efficient or humane way that we ought to see happening in this country today. We saw, months after the regional resettlement arrangement was reached by the former Labor government, the new conservative government not even have a conversation with its counterpart in Papua New Guinea about the resettlement of those people who were in offshore detention in PNG. As a result, we are more than two years down the track and we are only just starting to see the beginnings of resettlement occur in that country. We have seen appalling decisions made in relation to the conditions that have persisted in offshore processing—decisions such as keeping people living in tents on Nauru; an active decision by the Turnbull government to keep people living in conditions which are worse than what the former Labor government had planned to construct. That really stands out when it comes to the treatment of refugees, and it is an appalling decision that was made by this government.
We have seen for most of the last 2½ years a substandard medical facility existing on Manus—which, to be fair, has now been replaced by a very good facility, but that was not until Mr Hamid Kehazaei died from preventable septicaemia in that substandard medical facility that existed. There has been no attempt, no serious effort, to engage in third-country resettlement, which is ultimately at the heart of what needs to be done if we are to see the near 2,000 people on Manus and Nauru ultimately resettled somewhere else in the world. The attempt to go to Cambodia, spending something like $55 million on resettling three or four people, has turned out to be an expensive joke. We saw the announcement of an agreement with the Philippines to pursue some kind of option there, but within weeks of that agreement being announced the Philippines government made it clear that there would be no permanent resettlement occurring in their country. Then we saw run up the pole the bizarre flag of some kind of arrangement with Kyrgyzstan. What we now have remaining unresolved is the fate of those 2,000 people on Manus and Nauru. That continues to be a real sore in this country's handling of this issue.
What oversees all of that is a total failure in terms of transparency. Onshore something like 30,000 people have been kept in limbo for years, to start with because this government stubbornly refused to process people until it had achieved its temporary protection visa policy but then it has also sought to put in place the fast-tracked Immigration Assessment Authority—but it was not really that fast-tracked because in seeking to get that infrastructure up and running people have been kept in limbo and their situation has been essentially set in cement. None of these are issues which are resolved today. While I do absolutely agree with the achievement of the government in having 12,000 Syrian refugees come to this country, it only happened after Labor put out there the need for this to occur—this was the government being dragged kicking and screaming—but it does shine a light on the way in which future immigration policy should happen: it should be based on bipartisanship and generosity. That is how Australia should proceed on this, not on the basis of the old partisan rhetoric much of which we have heard from the minister today.
Road Pricing
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (11:56): by leave—Last week the government announced that it will accelerate work with states and territories on heavy vehicle road reform and investigate the benefits, costs and potential next steps of options to introduce cost-reflective road pricing for all vehicles. This formed part of the government's response to the Harper Competition Policy Review and particularly its recommendation 3, that:
Governments should introduce cost-reflective road pricing with the aid of new technologies, with pricing subject to independent oversight and revenues used for road construction, maintenance and safety … indirect charges and taxes on road users should be reduced as direct pricing is increased.
At the outset I want to highlight an important aspect of this recommendation: it does not involve a call for higher overall charges on road users. On the contrary, the recommendation is that any introduction of direct road pricing should be accompanied by reductions of indirect charges and taxes on road users.
The principle of moving towards cost-reflective road pricing is an important one—offering the promise over time of roads which flow more freely and better meet the needs of road users. There has been growing debate in recent years about the need to charge for road use in a fairer, more consistent, logical and efficient fashion than occurs today.
A number of participants in that debate expressed their support, last week, for the direction the Turnbull government has signalled on this issue. Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Jennifer Westacott said that the Business Council welcomes the government's intention to pursue much-needed reform in areas essential for business competitiveness, such as road pricing.
Australian Automobile Association Chief Executive Michael Bradley said that the package of economic reforms would provide increased choice and competition for Australian motorists. In particular, he said that the AAA was pleased that the government supported a number of recommendations including those related to cost-reflective road pricing.
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia Chief Executive Brendan Lyon said that the commitment to a process to reform road user charging is welcome and is in the national interest. Mr Lyon also called for Labor to also welcome this recommendation in due course, to allow this issue to move forward.
In this regard it is noteworthy that in a recent article in the Sunday Times the member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan expressed a strong view in favour of the user pays principle for road infrastructure.
The policy direction recommended by the Harper review is broadly consistent with other policy reviews over the last few years. In 2010 the then Treasurer received the report of a comprehensive study into Australia's future tax system, known as the Henry review. This contained a recommendation that in time fuel and vehicle registration charges should be abolished, on the basis that they were replaced by 'more efficient road user charges.' Last year the Productivity Commission reported on its study into the funding and financing of public infrastructure, and recommended:
Well-designed user charges should be used to the fullest extent that can be economically justified.
The Commission argued that:
Significant institutional and longer-term road pricing arrangements will create more direct links to road users, taking advantage of advances in vehicle technology.
Infrastructure Australia commented on this issue when it released its Infrastructure Audit earlier this year:
Over recent years rates of public and private investment in infrastructure have been higher than the long-term average.
The current level of funding is unsustainable in the face of increasing budget pressure.
Current arrangements represent the most significant opportunity for public policy reform in Australia's infrastructure sectors.
The country needs to consider a broader system of transport pricing for both road and public transport.
It is useful to briefly review some of the main arguments that are put for a transition to a road pricing approach. The first is that our current system for funding roads is under growing pressure. Roads are funded out of general government revenue, by all three levels of government, and the total amount spent each year nationally happens to be broadly in line with what governments receive each year through registration and other charges at the state level and fuel excise tax at the federal level. However, the required amount of road spending is likely to rise—and at the same time longer-term trends such as more fuel efficient vehicles and the rise of electric vehicles means that the fuel excise revenue stream may not be sufficient to meet the required amount of spending.
A second argument is that a well-designed road pricing system has the potential to make the provision of roads more responsive to what road users want, because the supply of new road capacity would be responsive to market signals. In addition, there would likely be new options for financing new roads out of the revenue stream that the new road would generate. A third factor is that, until relatively recently, it was a complex task to determine the number of kilometres a vehicle had travelled and to levy a suitable charge. Advances in technology now make it much easier and cheaper to determine this—for example, through the use of GPS based telematics devices in a vehicle which capture data and report it over a network. This can be data about not just the distance travelled but also variables such as fuel usage, the vehicle's weight, the particular route travelled and so on—which, for example, could potentially allow for different rates to be charged for roads of different quality standards. Of course, it will be important to maintain confidentiality and privacy safeguards and this is an issue that will need to be worked through very carefully.
The Turnbull government will work closely with state and territory governments to progress work on fairer, more efficient pricing that is cost reflective. We are also willing to consider payments to states and territories for reforms that improve productivity and lead to economic growth in order to encourage action. A principle of these payments is that they should be made on the basis of actual implementation of reforms. In progressing our response to this recommendation of the Harper review, the government will build on significant work underway around Australia. For example, there is work being done on heavy vehicle pricing under the oversight of the Transport and Infrastructure Council of federal, state and territory transport ministers. We will continue consultations with the states and territories on ways to promote efficient investment in and usage of roads in line with other infrastructure sectors, focusing on ensuring road infrastructure services best and most effectively meet the needs of users.
The next step will be to report to COAG, including on steps to transition to independent heavy vehicle price regulation by 2017-18. This independent and transparent pricing will be a key component of the reforms in order to provide the fairness sought by industry. Australian Trucking Association Chief Executive Christopher Melham said last week:
The introduction of cost-reflective road pricing must include the establishment of an independent economic regulator to set fair, enforceable prices for road users.
We are already taking tangible steps on heavy vehicle pricing. In South Australia, the Commonwealth and South Australian governments have agreed to establish a joint working group to oversee a simulation charge trial that will test the logic, fairness and structure of alternative road user charging. The trial will go some way towards collecting the necessary data to consider how existing truck revenue can be collected more fairly and invested more efficiently in our transport network.
The Turnbull government is also working with the Western Australian government in relation to the proposed Perth freight link, which will deliver cost savings for the freight industry through time savings and reduced vehicle operating costs. The project would represent the first time a heavy vehicle charge would be applied on a specific route in Western Australia to assist in building a road and the first time GPs based technology would be adopted for distance based user charging purposes.
There are going to be a number of complex issues government will need to work through. One, as I mentioned earlier, is confidentiality and privacy issues. The second issue is getting a better understanding of the way that road users—in both heavy vehicles and other vehicles such as cars—would change their road user behaviour, if at all, in the face of a move to distance based pricing. The proposed heavy vehicle trial in South Australia, which I mentioned earlier, is expected to generate useful data in this regard. Another trial is being conducted by motorway company Transurban in Melbourne. The Transurban road usage study involves a significant number of volunteer road users and covers the Melbourne metro road network. The trial will provide valuable insights into how road users change their behaviour under three charging scenarios: a per kilometre charge; a one-off charge based on anticipated travel; and a per-trip or access charge.
A third issue is addressing the specific needs of the trucking industry, particularly as we have identified heavy vehicle road reform as an initial priority. The government understands that there are a range of views held in the trucking industry, and we will certainly be consulting closely with the industry. A fourth important issue is the equity implications of the greater use of road pricing. In considering this issue, the Australian government expects to give careful thought to community service obligations, service level standards and how best to structure charges across road networks.
There is still a lot of work to do on understanding what impacts road pricing would have on all users of the road system and the broader economy. We will need to be satisfied that there is a reasonable degree of community acceptance and understanding. In turn, this will require a demonstration that the benefits from a broader use of road pricing would exceed the costs. Any change to the current system of road funding must improve transparency—and deliver clear community benefits. We will continue to work with the states and territories through the COAG process, and with industry and the community, to ensure we get this right. There is a considerable amount of work in front of the Australian government, and state and territory governments, on this important issue. But it is a reform direction which holds significant promise—and that is why the Turnbull government has clearly indicated the path we intend to pursue on this issue.
I present the following document:
The Australian government’s response to the Harper Review’s recommendations on road pricing—Statement by the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government, Mr Paul Fletcher MP, 2 December 2015.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:07): I rise to respond to the ministerial statement that you make when you are not really making a ministerial statement, because there are no real initiatives in the ministerial statement on the government's response to the Harper review's recommendations on road pricing. There is nothing additional and there is no new, specific action outlined in that statement. We have a number of ministerial statements this morning, essentially because the government appear to have run out of business! Indeed, for this afternoon they have listed 'annual ministerial infrastructure statement' but no speakers in case the bills are all concluded, because the bills that are there on the program are not particularly controversial.
It says something about this government—that it has run out of steam after just two years and that it does not have a sense of purpose, apart from members' individual advancement over each other, and we are seeing that played out in the civil war that is going on between the Abbott supporters and the Turnbull supporters in the government. The junior minister, the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects, who presented this ministerial statement is one of the people who were promoted recently with the change of leadership.
The road user charge debate is not new. Like the minister's recent discovery of smart infrastructure, there have been projects like Labor's managed motorways program that were put in place and provided with funding. That program was then cut by the coalition government, but it has been 'rediscovered', with some funding reinstated to pretend that it is new. This debate is not new either.
The issue is a serious one. It has been canvassed in earlier reviews, including the Henry tax review in 2010 and the Productivity Commission report into public infrastructure of 2014. Many of these official reports have noted the widening deficit gap between revenue and expenditure on our national road network, which is approximately 800,000 kilometres in length. In the latest available figures from BITRE, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, spending by all governments on roads in 2012-13 was just under $24 billion. BITRE estimated that federally, mainly via excise, and in the states and territories—mainly via registration, stamp duty and tolls—combined revenue was about $18.4 billion. However, that should not be used as an excuse to not fund projects that have merit and that will actually help economic growth after proper cost-benefit analysis.
I am concerned that since the change of government, if you compare the September 2013 quarter, the last quarter under the former government, and June 2015, the latest quarter available, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show public sector infrastructure investment has fallen by more than 20 per cent. That is of real concern.
Consideration of how to address the road deficit was part of the former government's microeconomic reform agenda, and it was being progressed at COAG. The Heavy Vehicle Charging and Investment reform project looked to migrate from a fuel based road user charge system established in 1992 to a commercial, more directly user based system, rather than relying on fuel excise and registration charges. It was reporting through the transport ministerial council. I note that last month, at the ministerial council, ministers agreed to further work to develop asset registers and expenditure plans for key freight routes as a significant step towards developing a model for our road system.
I think it is also significant that Jay Weatherill, the very innovative Premier of South Australia, when he spoke in Canberra in July, offered to host a trial of mass-distance-location charging for heavy vehicles in South Australia. I understand that the Commonwealth has agreed to work with South Australia to keep momentum around this project. South Australia, in consultation with industry, has identified two heavily used road networks that also form part of the national network. Participants in the trial will be direct-charged based on their actual use of the network and will be eligible for rebates on the tax paid for the fuel used. Work is now starting on developing a direct-charging model for the trial.
Separately, Transurban, the operator of the majority of our nation's toll ways, is trialling different charging methods for volunteer users on the Melbourne road network. This work will, hopefully, provide new insights into the costs and benefits of different charging methods. I know that Victoria and New South Wales were keen to have a trial based on heavy vehicle user charging as well. In particular, the New South Wales roads minister in my time as minister, Duncan Gay, was very keen to provide leadership on this issue.
The decision at the 6 November 2015 ministerial council meeting was to freeze rather than reduce the current road user charge for heavy vehicles. I note that the trucking industry, through the ATA, have expressed concern that this decision will result in an overcharging of the heavy vehicle sector for their use of public roads, by some $500 million over two years. We do need to make sure that the pricing mechanisms are appropriate if there is to be that ongoing support.
I want to raise the issue of the Bingara Accord that was promoted under the leadership of Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia released a report under the then Infrastructure Australia coordinator, Michael Deegan, called Spend more, waste more, which was highly critical of how roads are funded in Australia. Under Mr Deegan, Infrastructure Australia took a very assertive approach, which was often an approach that I did not agree with, but that is precisely the role that an independent body like Infrastructure Australia should be able to play. For example, on one occasion, Infrastructure Australia advocated a toll on the Pacific Highway, something that I certainly did not support. But it is up to a body like that to put forward ideas and to ensure that there has been proper scrutiny of government decision making. The Bingara Accord, also known as the national road asset reporting pilot, was, I think, quite extraordinary. The pilot involved eight local governments spanning the New South Wales-Queensland border, working with Infrastructure Australia. Seven of the eight local governments produced condition reports for every road in their jurisdictions. Individual condition reports for those jurisdictions are included in annexes to the report, which the interim Infrastructure Australia chief, John Fitzgerald, told Senate estimates he had not bothered to read. Indeed, the report was never released publicly, unfortunately, and it should be. The pilot showed that, with access to accurate condition reports such as these, rigorous business cases can be produced for the road funding proposals. This was very much a local community initiative working with the private sector and business, particularly in agriculture, trying to work out how you could actually secure funding, particularly private sector investment, based upon usage of roads across those local government areas. This was an innovative initiative which, unfortunately, seems to have been shelved. I would say to the minister that this sort of initiative from the ground up, supported by Infrastructure Australia, is worthy of further consideration.
I will conclude with this: my concern about these issues is that we need to take equity into account. Poor people do drive cars, contrary to what Joe Hockey told the parliament. The fact is that people in our regional areas and in the outer suburbs have less income than many in the inner areas of our cities, and we need to make sure that there is equity in terms of not placing an increased burden on those people who can least afford to pay. That has to be part of any analysis if a shift in road pricing is going to occur.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Report
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (12:18): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the following reports: Principles and practice—Australian defence industry and exports and the Review of the Defence annual report 2013-14.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Ms GAMBARO: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have the great pleasure of presenting two reports:
The report into the inquiry of the Australian government support for Australian defence industry exports, entitled Principles and practice: Australian defence industry and exports; and
The Review of the Defence annual report 2013-14.
I will give an overview of each report, beginning with the report on the inquiry into Australian defence exports.
The committee accepts evidence presented—and validated by the recommendation of the first principles review—that there are elements of defence industry essential to the Australian Defence Force capability. Defence therefore has an obligation to identify elements within the defence industry that constitute fundamental inputs to capabilities, known as FICs.
In the committee's view, Defence must use available means to enhance and sustain FIC related elements of the defence industry that affect ADF capability, including through domestic procurement programs and enhanced support for exports.
Where exporting would assist to sustain or develop industry elements that are identified as FICs, support for defence exports should be viewed as a core Defence responsibility, in the same way as service chiefs manage other FIC elements.
This would fundamentally change how the assessment for value for money should be approached within the Defence procurement process, particularly by establishing long-term partnerships with industry, rather than trying to achieve value for money through open competition as a default position. Many projects would deliver better value for money with long-term partnering agreements, such as those that have been shown by the UK experience.
The report contains 19 detailed recommendations. The committee recommended providing assistance for Australian defence exports based on a distinction between core and secondary export focus:
The core export focus should apply to elements of industry output recognised as a fundamental input to capability, where defence exports can help sustain or spread production costs. This support should extend to funding for research and development that supports exports that will have an impact on the associated FICs. Secondary export focus would apply to those elements of industry output not recognised as a fundamental input to capability. In such cases, Defence and other related agencies should provide assistance, wherever practicable.
Lastly, subject to acceptance of the committee's core proposals, the committee has recommended that Defence discontinue the Priority Industry Capability and Strategic Industry Capability programs, retain the Australian Industry Capability targets for procurement activity that do not involve an identified fundamental input to capability, and continue to promote the Global Supply Chain scheme wherever possible.
Today I also present the committee's report on the Review of the Defence Annual Report 2013-14. I will mention in turn the key issues that arose during the committee's review.
The committee considered personnel matters, including Defence's critical categories of employment, Project Suakin and Reserve Policy.
Defence needs to ensure that employees have task-specific competence for their role and the relevant experience. The Job Families Project, an approach used to monitor APS gaps in critical capabilities, needs to be further developed. The committee has recommended that Defence collate and, in particular, publish figures on Project Suakin.
The committee also examined a range of mental health issues in the ADF. The committee recommends the departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs report on the progress and the results of their mental health programs.
The committee is concerned about the extent of unfunded liabilities in Defence estate and infrastructure and believes it is important to have visibility on the cumulative effects. Although the committee does not expect Defence to include unfunded liabilities in its annual financial statements, the committee recommends that Defence report more details of its unfunded liabilities.
The committee is pleased by Defence's efforts on fuel farms and fuel management. To further this progress, the committee believes Defence should actively explore options to engage and collaborate much more with industry. In addition, the committee recommends enhanced reporting in future Defence annual reports on the Fuel Services Branch.
The committee is also pleased with the long-term improvements to Defence Housing and the quality of housing options available to ADF families. However, the committee recommends Defence, in partnership with Defence Housing, prepare a much more effective community consultation and communication framework for future housing redevelopments.
More generally, the committee found that reporting of performance should be much more transparent. For example, reporting to parliament on the Joint Strike Fighter needs to be much more comprehensive and similar to that made to the US congress.
In conclusion, the committee acknowledges the dedication and commitment of the men and women of the ADF and commends them on the outstanding service they provide to the nation. The committee also recognises the work of the APS in supporting ADF personnel on operations. It should also be recognised that ADF personnel are supported by a strong network of family and friends, and the committee expresses its appreciation for their sacrifice.
I would like to thank the committee members. I note the member opposite, Mr Feeney, and thank him so much for his efforts and his work in this area. I would like to thank the many witnesses who gave their time to appear at the hearings and those who made submissions to the inquiries. I would like to also express my sincere thanks to the secretariat for the fine work that they do to assist all members and senators on the committee. I commend the reports to the House.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (12:26): by leave—I rise to speak to one report in particular, that being the government support for Australian defence industry exports. There are two aspects in particular of this report upon which I want to dwell. I commend the report to the House. While defence procurement and defence industry generally is often regarded as a particularly arcane field of public policy, it is a profoundly important area of public policy. In this report, the parliament is well served and the debate is well served by a committee serviced by a secretariat that took to the task with great passion.
There are two aspects of this arcane field, if I can perhaps put it in those terms, upon which I want to draw the House's attention. For the committee members—and, I might say, for the Labor Party—a longstanding value is that, in defence policy, a preeminent notion is self-reliance—self-reliance insofar as possible Australia and the operations of the ADF should be able to undertake their work without relying on the capabilities of an external partner or, for that matter, the capabilities found resident in defence industries overseas. Australia does sit at the end of a very long supply chain and, as a consequence, in pursuing the objective of self-reliance, we must have particular regard to the capabilities found in Australian defence industries. That is why one of the central findings of this report and something that shaped the whole of its approach was the view that Australian defence industry needs to be regarded at the most senior levels of defence as a capability, and that needs to be more than just rhetoric. That needs to be vested in the fact that, henceforth, Australian defence industries will be regarded as a fundamental input to capability.
There are presently defined eight fundamental inputs to capability, and they are defined as personnel, organisation, collective training, major systems supplies, facilities and training areas, support, command and management. The fact that industry is not currently regarded as a fundamental input to capability is a flaw, and this report highlights the fact. By making sure that defence industry is regarded as a fundamental input to capability, that would mean that henceforth, in major procurement undertakings, it would be at the very earliest moments in defence planning that the capability of the Australian defence industry to contribute to that acquisition and sustainment program would be contemplated, and there would be a far more holistic sense inside the department and our acquisition processes about the real cost of the sustainment, the risks to sustaining that capability in Australia, and the risks to Australian defence industry ensuring that the ADF can use that capability in a proper operational sense. This is a transformative notion, and it is one that I strongly endorse and that I think is a keystone of this report.
When we talk about Australian defence industries, it is worth considering for a moment the state of Australian defence industries, and some of the unique challenges that the arms trade faces in Australia and beyond. As I said: Australia is an island at the end of a very long supply chain. A long-term defence industry is a national asset and it is vital to us achieving our goal of self-reliance. There is not a clear picture of how large the defence industry is in this country, but it is very significant. In 2010, it was estimated that there were some 3,000 small-to-medium companies engaged in the defence sector, employing something in the order of between 29,000 and 37,000 Australians. It has been true since the end of the Cold War that North American and European defence budgets have declined and, as a consequence, multinational defence prime contractors have been consolidating and reducing in numbers. As a consequence, they are more active in the pursuit of export markets, and Australia today sits very high indeed on their list of targets as a significant defence equipment importer. It must be recognised by this place that we are a very significant importer. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranks Australia as the fourth-largest defence importer in the world, after India, China and South Korea.
However, when one looks at the AusTender site, trends in contracting reveal that there is a decreasing amount of DMO contracts—that is the Defence Materiel Organisation, now known as CASG—being awarded to Australian companies, and a corresponding increase in contracts being placed with offshore entities, particularly the US government, through foreign military sales. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that Australia was the recipient of 10 per cent of all US military deliveries from 2009 to 2013; again, a remarkable statistic. It is not surprising that the trends reveal that the current acquisition and sustainment activities and patterns of defence have helped foster a climate where there is declining industrial capability within Australia, and increasing reliance on offshore industry and, as a consequence, increasing risk in the area of industry capability and self-reliance. Defence requirements may dominate some spheres of endeavour—shipbuilding and ship repair being obvious ones—but it makes a smaller contribution to the overall Australian markets in electronics, vehicles and other products. And, if the pattern established at this time continues, then Australian defence industries will continue to shrink, our capacity to sustain ADF capabilities will continue to be at risk, and we will continue to see our goal of self-reliance undermined. This report is timely and it is timely to a very important debate that should and does enjoy, I think, a strong bipartisan spirit.
When talking about the Australian defence industries, we often use terminologies and assumptions that are found in the broader economic debate and do not belong in this debate. Let me explain why it is that, when people in this House rise to their feet and demand that Australian defence industries be globally competitive, they may very well be using terminology that is misapplied to this industry. Let me quote Anne Markusen from her study, 'The Arms Trade as Illiberal Trade', where she says:
While free trade quickens the pace of world economic integration, the arms trade remains an anomaly. Protected from the rules and enforcement of new institutional regimes, arms sellers are free to refuse transfers to any party while arms buyers may extract commitments of 100% or more in countertrade or buy only from indigenous industry. Yet the world arms market and the defense industries that supply it are markedly more international today than they were a decade ago. Illiberal trade practices in this unique market have created a complex web of state-to-state, firm-to-state and firm-to-firm relationships that make it difficult to analyze the overall security and economic consequences of the arms trade in the post Cold War era.
The fact of the matter is that there is no open or transparent defence and security market in the contemporary world—not in the United States, not in Europe, the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific, let alone in the Russian and Chinese supply chains. Defence and related industries are excluded from multilateral and bilateral free trade instruments. The most comprehensive of these, the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Government Procurement, makes this very plain in article 3.
Defence and related industries are not only exempted from international trade agreements but their performance is further distorted by the necessity for secrecy and by geostrategic considerations—obviously some customers will not buy from some suppliers—together with widespread government protection. An outstanding example of this is in the United States with the Buy American Act, which of course means that the largest defence market in the world enjoys extremely high levels of protection. Regulatory support subsidies and other forms of support by nations throughout the world mean that this is not a trade where it is easy to speak of firms and businesses being internationally competitive, and defence industry is often difficult to assess or define. Yet, while all this is the case, Australia continues to adopt an open-market approach with no hurdles for foreign suppliers to compete for its defence projects. And so while governments around the world are using many policies and programs to preference and guard their Australian defence industries, we are not.
So this report is timely. It is timely because it deals not only with the challenges that confront Australian defence industries—the fact that they are shrinking and the risks that poses for our broader strategy—but also of course with the fact that the Australian defence industries—while needing to operate successfully in a global marketplace; while needing to find export markets so as to properly supplement their work here in Australia and as a consequence perform better in Australian strategic interests—and in the conversation that we have we must remember this—are operating in one of the most—if not the most—regulated and distorted markets in the world. They are operating in a marketplace where national interest and exemptions from free trade instruments mean that these markets are difficult to measure and impossible to conceive as being operated by traditional economic concepts of supply and demand.
This is a report that finds itself with added importance at the moment because it has arrived in something of a vacuum. The 2013 Defence white paper remains the extant strategic guidance for Defence. We are now told that the much-awaited Defence white paper 2015 will be the Defence white paper of 2016.
One of the key aspects of this report and the evidence given to the committee is that the Australian Defence industry has now for a very long time endured an uncertain investment plan. That is why Labor welcomed the notion of a 10-year Defence investment plan. The next trick is for such a plan to arrive. The defence capability plan of some years ago has not been replaced or updated. This contributes to the difficulties the Australian Defence industry has when it seeks to gain capital, build investment and build capability in this country.
This is a fine report and I commend it to the House. I conclude by thanking very much the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, Senator Fawcett, for whom this report was a labour of love. I very much thank all of the members of the committee for their work. I thank, too, Mr Jerome Brown and Wing Commander Joanna Elkington and their team of research officers for their work and the passion they brought to this task. I also thank the secretariat. This is a fine contribution and I commend it to the House.
Procedure Committee
Report
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:38): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report, entitled Provisions for a more family-friendly chamber, together with the minutes and proceedings of evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Dr SOUTHCOTT: by leave—I am very pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report into provisions for a more family-friendly chamber.
More than ever before, members of the House are joined in Canberra by young children in their care. Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard the particular challenges faced by members caring for infants. These include regular travel, working long hours and being a long way from their support network at home.
While the inquiry was initially focused on options for nursing mothers, particularly allowing breastfeeding in the chamber, it became clear that members of the House want to offer broader support to colleagues caring for young children.
The House has provided for mothers feeding their infant to give their vote by proxy since 2008. This is a practical measure to ensure that members unable to attend the House due to caring responsibilities can still have their vote counted.
Feedback on the proxy vote has been positive and the committee strongly supports its ongoing use. While the proxy vote is an important provision, the committee believe that we can do more to ensure that members with infants are able to fully participate in the work of the House.
Following wide consultation, the committee has formed the view that members should be allowed to bring their infants into this chamber and the Federation Chamber to breastfeed and bottle feed and at other times when under the care of a member. To implement this change the report recommends that the House amend the standing orders to simply exclude infants under the care of a member from the prohibition of visitors in the chamber and the Federation Chamber.
Feedback to the committee was that most members prefer the option of the proxy vote. However, specifically allowing for infants in the chamber offers an additional choice for members with infants in their care. Under the current rules, members have been left unsure of whether or not they could bring their infant into the chamber.
For example, the committee was told of an occasion where a member was taking her infant to child care when the division bells started ringing. She was left with no choice but to miss the division or breach standing orders.
While members can watch proceedings on television from their offices, there are often debates of national or personal significance that we wish to personally attend. The fact that a member is caring for their infant during a debate should not preclude their attendance in the chamber.
There may be some concern that allowing 'little visitors' into the House could disrupt proceedings. The committee is confident, however, that any disruption would be minimal and that members would avail themselves of this new provision with the same respect that they have shown the proxy vote.
The practices and procedures of the House should reflect changing community values. There is now an expectation in the community that workplaces support parents of young children to balance their work and family responsibilities.
Allowing members to bring their infants into the chamber when it is necessary for their care, in addition to retaining the proxy vote provisions in their current form, would make the House of Representatives the most family-friendly parliamentary chamber in Australia with regard to supporting members with young children.
By encouraging a more family-friendly environment, we remove some of the traditional barriers to the participation of women and foster a more diverse and inclusive House of Representatives.
I would like to thank all members of the committee, all members of the House of Representatives who spoke to the committee and members of the secretariat for the preparation of this report.
I commend the report to the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:43): by leave—I rise to support the recommendations in the report on provisions for a more family-friendly chamber. I stand here today as the mother of three adult sons and a member of this parliament. Long days in Parliament House are tough on families. I have heard that since arriving here and have witnessed it myself. My observations of my younger peers, those members of parliament who are parents of young children, have led me to reflect often. I could not really imagine being a new member of parliament and a new mother.
Thanks to women such as Jenny Macklin, Tanya Plibersek and Catherine King, who paved the way, taking the risks and challenging the dominant narrative of their time, change has come to this place. The proxy vote referenced earlier demonstrates that. This inquiry into the adequacy of provisions for a more family-friendly House of Representatives was prompted, really, by the year of many births—by our own local baby boom in members' ranks in 2015, with more than 10 members having babies this year alone. Some of them include my good mate Jim Chalmers, the member for Rankin, Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, Pat Conroy, the member for Charlton, Kelly O'Dwyer, the member for Higgins, and Matt Thistlethwaite, the member for Kingsford Smith.
The inquiry has handed down a report that recommends that the parliament allow members to bring their infants into the parliament in order to have the opportunity to participate fully in the work of the House. Critically, the amendment is gender neutral. It is important that as a federal parliament we lead the way on this issue—we should be an example of the best so that every member can benefit. Modern parliament needs modern fathers and modern mothers. I am proud to see the federal parliament taking the lead by ensuring that the floor of the parliament is a family-friendly workplace. This report, and the recommendation, will do that.
As a new mum or dad and as an MP, it will make a significant difference to be able to take an infant into the chamber. If it is late at night or if there is important legislation being debated that directly relates to the member's community and the member has no other option at the time, it makes sense for that member to be able to bring their infant into the chamber. The recommended change to standing orders reflects modern community expectations. It should not matter if it is John or Betty holding the baby; they should be able to be present in the House when required.
The inquiry heard from members who had recently become parents. One particularly compelling story was from the member for Hotham, Clare O'Neil, about her first few months in the parliament back in 2013, when she arrived not just as a new member but also as a new mother. The existing proxy arrangements served Clare well in most instances, in that she could miss a division when her child could not be left, but they did not suit her at all times, and I can only reflect on the demands on new parents or parents of young children and the demands of this place. This recommendation gives members another option—to bring their infant into the parliament. Last month, when this issue arose, the member for Hotham tweeted that, as a mother and an MP, it would make a huge difference for her to be able take her baby into the chamber. I, with other members, was shocked by the lack of understanding from some that subsequently ensued. One comment stands out. The tweet read: 'Politicians get paid enough for child care. Get on with the job.' This reflects a clear lack of understanding of the work of the parliament and of members.
This recommendation shows family-friendly leadership that supports members and ensures that being a modern parent does not preclude or deter parents from running for parliament and representing their communities. The hours that people work here are long. On any morning, arriving before 7 am, I can pass members with their infants also arriving and see members and infants across the day and well into the night. Child care may be an option at some stages and for some parts of the day, but not from 7 am to 11 pm or later.
Every family of young children understands how difficult it can be to travel with children, and this is no less difficult for parliamentarians. Although in the recommendations of this report we are making a change that will assist parliamentarians, there is more that we can do as a parliament about the practical support needed for members and children—things like the provision of cars with appropriate child seats and restraints. This is a small, practical thing, but it can be an extraordinary burden for young parents. Provisions to allow members to have a second adult travel with them to support them in childcare arrangements was also something that the committee heard about during the inquiry but is not within its remit. There is more we can do, but this is a great start.
I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure, many of whom are grandparents and have raised their children while being members of this place. Their understanding and their experience means that they have lived with the difficulties and the demands that we are talking about. It was a pleasure to be involved in a process that was not controversial where we all worked together for the betterment of parents. I thank all those who made submissions and spoke to the committee, and I commend the committee and the recommendations of this report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Does the member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:49): I thank the member for Lalor for her great contribution. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:50): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Report
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:50): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present report 10 of 2015 of the committee, relating to referrals made in August and September 2015.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Dr SOUTHCOTT: by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's 10th and final report for 2015. This report deals with three projects for the Department of Defence, referred to the committee in August and September. The first project concerns facilities required to support 10 new C27J battlefield airlifter aircraft at RAAF Base Amberley. The proposed works will include training system facilities such as classrooms and a flight simulator, and operational facilities including hangars, workshops and an aircraft apron. In order to construct the new facilities, some existing facilities will be removed or relocated, including the fire station, court house, transit accommodation and Air Force cadet buildings. The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that it proceed.
The next project concerns facilities to support 12 new Growler aircraft, to be operated from RAAF Base Amberley. Works will include an aircraft apron, storage and refuelling facilities, as well as a flight simulator. Upgrades to base services and infrastructure are also proposed, along with constructing a multistorey car park. Facilities to support a mobile threat training emitter system are also required at the Army Aviation Centre in Oakey, Queensland and the Delamere Air Weapons Range in the Northern Territory. Due to the scale and phased approach of the project, the committee requires that Defence provide it with a status report, on completion of the design phase. The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that it proceed.
The final project concerns redevelopment works at Delamere Air Weapons Range. A review in 2012 identified major deficiencies in the site's boundary fences, infrastructure and roads. It also noted that existing facilities are located within weapons danger areas, thus limiting the space available for training activities. Therefore, the proposed works will include improving boundary security, upgrading infrastructure and relocating facilities to increase space for target and weapons training. The committee is, again, satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost and recommends that it proceed. I commend this report to the House.
In concluding, I note that 2015 has been an extremely busy year for the Public Works Committee. During the year, the committee has reported on 22 separate projects and tabled 10 reports and an annual report. Eleven of the projects, with a combined value of over $2.6 billion, have been for Defence involving works at various Defence bases across the country. I note that at RAAF Base Amberley we looked at three separate projects over the course of the last two years. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Brigadier Noel Beutel and Mrs Andrea Barrett from Defence's Capital Facilities and Infrastructure division for their cooperation and efforts to facilitate the work of the committee. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat and other members of the committee on behalf of the chair, Senator Dean Smith.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): That concludes committee reports.
BILLS
Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015
Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015
Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:54): There is nothing inherently wrong, in principle, with the bills before the House and those that have preceded it in the government's declaration of so-called repeal days. I suppose it gives this House something to do, because it does not seem to have much else to do. Under the tutelage of this government, certainly the Federation Chamber is not operating because it has nothing to do. We seem to spend all of our time these days in this place dealing with bills that are pretty mundane, like these ones, and condolence motions, for example, which are very important but which are usually sent to the Federation Chamber after the first half-dozen speakers or so, but they have been kept here because the government has no legislative program. It is just extraordinary. You wonder what the Australian people are thinking. We are all here, and they are paying for our flights, subsidising our accommodation and paying for the costs of running this building, and yet the House has nothing to do. So I suppose these repeal bills do give the House something to do.
The other question is: what does removing most of these redundant bills mean for business? I ask that question because the government keeps saying that this is about the reduction of red tape or regulation. I ask myself whether it costs the government more in administrative terms to remove the bills than it costs to leave them there. I certainly do not see how business benefits from the repeal of most of the measures contained within the bills we are debating today—for example, repeal of the Wool International Privatisation Act 1999, which privatised one entity to create a new private entity, which itself no longer exists? There can be no better example to demonstrate that that does not help business. That makes no difference to business, and that is true of just about every provision in the bills before us today.
The real crime here is the spin and the attempt to perpetuate the myth that somehow these repeal days benefit Australian business. Of course, we are not opposing the repeal of these redundant statutes on the statute books, but I challenge the government to outline exactly how businesses benefit. The other crime of the government is that they suggest that these bills do no harm and that they are all good news for the parliament and the administration of government and for business, but that is not really true. Many of the measures in these bills highlight the failure of the government to keep election promises and, indeed, the promise to be a government of 'no surprises'. For example, some of the provisions take us to drought measures.
It is very nice to have the minister for agriculture at the table. There is the minister's attempt to move the APVMA out of Canberra to his own electorate, which is always an interesting proposition, notwithstanding the fact that the professionals in the APVMA do not want to move out of Canberra and will not move out of Canberra, I am reliably advised. Those who need to consult with and visit the APVMA are not people on the land or farmers or anyone pursuing those interests; it is the big multinational companies, typically, that market chemicals in this country. They like to come to Canberra. When I am dealing with representations from a farm group or a chemicals company, I like to get the APVMA up the hill and into this place to brief me so I can better understand. I appreciate that the minister is always willing to provide me with that briefing, as I would if I were the minister for him. It is a long way from Armadale when I want a briefing or, indeed, the minister needs a briefing, although he can go home and get his briefing, of course. It is an extraordinary imposition for the chemical companies to have to go to Armidale, in the minister's electorate, when they need to consult and meet with the regulatory body, which is so important to them.
Mr Joyce: It's along the freeway!
Mr FITZGIBBON: The minister's interjecting. He is saying it is not very far. I know this part of the world very well and, I can tell you, no matter how you get there it is going to take you at least a few hours to get to Armidale from Canberra, from Sydney or from Melbourne, if your company is based in that capital city.
The greater point, in addition to the minister giving himself a big leg-up with his electorate by claiming all these jobs are now coming to Armidale, is that the jobs are not going to come—because the people are not going to move. These highly trained and skilled professionals live in Canberra, have kids in school in Canberra, are more than capable of securing another job and they will not go. This is one of the most important regulatory bodies in this city and it is going to fall apart.
The same can be said for our research and development corporations, which the minister is also insisting leave Canberra. These are bodies that collect money, and make decisions about where research money should be spent, and contract the money out, contract that job out, to another body. It might be a university, for example. This idea that they have to be out there in rural areas contains no logic whatsoever. The minister's proposition that they need to be close to a university is even worse. What we want is contestability. We want those RDCs to have a few choices about who they farm that work out to so that you have contestability and they get value for money. This minister wants to be parked in UNE, for example, so all the work is done at UNE. It is not a very bright idea. But it is great for the minister—all in his own electorate. He has also moved his ministerial office, by the way, from Sydney to Armidale. That gives him two electorate offices: one in Tamworth and one in Armidale. Bingo! Chi-ching! Fantastic!
Mr Joyce: Tamworth? I'm going. I've had it!
Mr FITZGIBBON: You have to give him points for initiative; politically, he is doing okay. With drought measures, this government's draft policy has been a complete failure. Drought continues to wreak havoc in parts of New South Wales and Queensland—in fact, right across the nation—yet this minister gives them nothing but spin, nothing but false hope, a policy that is having no effect for anything. They either cannot access it or it is no good to them whatsoever—as the minister exits the chamber in disgrace and out of embarrassment. I would be embarrassed too, Minister, if I were you.
You are slowly creeping towards being the worst agriculture minister in this country's history. You have a think about it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister stands at this dispatch box on a daily basis claiming credit for all manner of things. There was something that happened 20 years ago, I remember, he was claiming credit for this week in the parliament. But what has he done? The big initiative was this white paper—another broken promise because it came so late—completely lacking any narrative or strategic direction, with no goals or objectives. It was just a cobbled together hotchpotch of ideas with a bit of money here and a bit of money there, which is a matter for other portfolio responsibilities. He claims the free trade agreements. It is not his work. If anyone's, it is the trade minister's work—but a culmination of the former Labor government's work. It has nothing to do with the minister for agriculture.
What has he done but attempt to deliver all these riches to his electorate by moving these RDCs and the APVMA to his electorate? What has this minister done? I cannot think of any initiative. He claims credit for commodity prices. He never mentions the commodities that are going down in price, only those going up. The great tragedy of this is that he likes, most often, to talk about cattle prices. We are all happy. The cattle producers are getting a better price. That is a good thing. But he cannot take any credit for it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Order! I would remind the member that this debate is on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 and I am struggling to find a connection between the issues that the member is raising and the issues in the bill. The member has the call and I would ask him to be relevant to the bill.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I appreciate your intervention. I will not do it, because I want to save you time, but I can promise you that everything I have made reference to is contained within this bill. Drought is the most perfect example, because it is repealing a provision on drought. They are all there, Mr Deputy Speaker; trust me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have great faith in the member for Hunter.
Mr FITZGIBBON: Out of deference and respect for you, I will return to something very specific. That is the abolition of the National Rural Advisory Council. It is in here, Mr Deputy Speaker. The National Rural Advisory Council is a statutory body. On that basis, it has all those things you associate with statutory bodies. It has tenure for its members, an annual report, plenty of transparency and accountability. It is chaired by none other than Mick Keogh, a highly regarded agricultural professional in this country. It is gone. I do not recall the minister promising that pre-election. It has been replaced, I concede, by something the minister promised he would do before the election. So I will qualify something I said earlier. He has done something: he got rid of one body and put in another body. That is a big achievement by the minister.
The problem is that the new body, the Agricultural Industry Advisory Council, is not a statutory authority. There is no annual report. There is no tenure for its members. They are there at the minister's whim, hand-picked by the minister and there at his pleasure, and it has no transparency. We asked at Senate estimates, recently, what this body does. The officials did not seem to know very much. I challenge the minister to come back into the House and tell me which things he has done—it is going to be pretty hard because he has not done much—off the advice of this advisory council. He said that is what it was going to do. They were going to consult around the country and advise the minister. As a result, he was going to come up with these new ingenious ideas for the agriculture sector.
There is another interesting thing about the advisory council—and, again, this new body has some very good people on it, many of whom I know personally, and they are very good people, but we need to know, given the expenses involved, what the advisory council is doing. For example, this is very important because in August 2014 they had dinner in Darwin, to do some consultations, apparently; it was $3,042. In April 2015 in Devonport in Tasmania there was dinner and networking; it was $3,916. These may be legitimate expenses. I was not there; I do not know how many people were there. But they are pretty pricey dinners. If the taxpayer is going to be investing that sort of money in an advisory group completely chosen by the minister, made up of members who only serve at the pleasure of the minister—and you know what that implies: it means, 'Don't come to me with ideas I don't like or you might not be on the advisory panel much longer,' and I do not think there is anyone in this House who would deny that the minister is capable of that, having gone through two secretaries or departmental heads, by the way, during his tenure; no-one is going to doubt that the minister would not hesitate to act if he was given advice he did not like—then taxpayers are entitled to know what the advisory council is doing, what advice it is giving and what the bases of these expenses are and so on.
This repeal bill does serve to highlight many of the failings and broken promises of this government. It is a government that has done nothing in agriculture except to claim credit for things it has had no responsibility for and can therefore claim no credit for.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (13:09): I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. It is not a fancy or glamorous bill—in fact, some might consider it to be quite boring. But the member for Hunter's contribution certainly was not boring! Seriously, though, when it comes to taking action on the reduction of red tape, excitement is not the priority—making life easier for people is. That is what this bill, just like the other three omnibus repeal bills preceding it, is all about. This bill is a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation across 14 portfolios.
The bill, as with the intent of the previous omnibus repeal bills, introduces measures to reduce the regulatory burden for businesses, families, individuals and the community sector that are not the subject of individual stand-alone bills. For example, this bill amends the requirement in the Aged Care Act 1997 for approved providers to notify the department within 28 days of any changes to key personnel in circumstances that do not materially affect the approved provider's suitability to be a provider of aged care.
The bill also includes measures that repeal redundant and spent acts and provisions in Commonwealth acts—for example, the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Act 1999 which validated decisions that relied on 40 delegations made in relation to tariff concession orders; this act has no operation in relation to decisions made after June 1999 and, therefore, is obsolete. Then there are provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which are redundant now that the Special Broadcasting Service, the SBS, has assumed television production and supply activities previously undertaken by National Indigenous Television Limited.
In total, this bill will repeal 905 Commonwealth acts. Unnecessary regulatory burden is a dead weight on small businesses, and, as a government, it is imperative that we support the local businesses that are essential to the Australian way of life. When our local businesses are free to thrive without worrying about unnecessary regulation and compliance, they have a direct positive impact on their local community. Investing in small business, whether as a consumer or as a government, is proven to boost local economies, support local jobs, encourage a sense of community ownership, utilise local knowledge, embrace regional individuality and uniqueness, and promote the community as a destination. We cannot afford to see small business people swallowed up in red tape, spending more time complying and less time operating their business and spending time with their families. This is why this government is committed to repealing unnecessary and cumbersome regulations and requirements that are nothing but a hindrance to innovation and productivity. Inefficient and unnecessary regulatory compliance depletes business resources, drives down the bottom line and is a dead weight on the Australian economy.
The Assistant Minister for Productivity, the Hon. Dr Peter Hendy, announced, at the introduction of this bill, that the government has achieved double the targeted savings derived from red-tape-reduction announcements, saving $4.5 billion annually in the first two years. This is an enormous achievement and a massive saving. For one dollar added to the cost of regulation, the government's implementation of regulatory reform has cut over $11.
We are committed to streamlining or simplifying operations where Australians interact with the government to help them spend less time filling out forms and standing in queues. The government has continued to investigate how and why we impose regulations, and we take a genuine look at how they directly impact Australians as they go about life and conduct business. By taking a thoughtful, consultative and innovative approach to red tape, we are chipping away at cumbersome, outdated and time-consuming regulations where we can achieve the same outcomes through easier, more convenient means. In our digitally-driven age, we recognise that it is far more convenient for Australians to submit information online or via their smartphones than by filling out endless paper forms and standing in line. By embracing digital technology we are not only helping Australians to have more time for other tasks and activities but also reducing the administrative burden on business owners, professionals and the public who need to interact with government departments and also on the departments themselves. A simple example of this is the new tax tool included with the ATO app called myDeductions, which means that Australians can now get rid of their old shoeboxes because they will not need to fill them with receipts for tax time. Yes, we can now say, 'Tax receipts—well, there is an app for that.'
The great thing about deregulation is that it has a genuine effect on our local businesses. One such business that has noticed a reduction in red tape for its operations is SpotGo, which is a family owned and operated business in Dobell that manufactures and distributes premium cleaning products. Brendan Small has been operating this family business, which was first established and had a presence in the commercial cleaning industry in 1996, since 2000. The Small family have a long and distinguished Australian heritage all the way back to their arrival in Australia on the Charlotte, one of the ships of the First Fleet. Mr Small has founded a successful commercial cleaning company, followed by a carpet-cleaning business. He worked alongside his father until he took over the reins as sole manager and operator. He was often asked about high-quality carpet spot treatments, and after a number of years he engaged an industrial chemist and began researching and testing, and they developed a premium product. It took around five years, but SpotGo perfected the formula and, since then, has expanded to a five-product-strong range of complementary products. The company is continuing research and development to further expand its range. In fact, its range is now sold at Woolworths and IGA stores throughout New South Wales. SpotGo has developed its products to an outstanding standard and fundamentally believes that Australian manufacturers can be world leaders in quality, and in environmental and safety responsibility. As manufacturers who specialise in creating cleaning products, they are familiar with adhering to regulations and standards. Further deregulation will provide them with more time and more freedom to focus on fostering the successful business they have built and to continue their research and development.
In Dobell, small business is our greatest and strongest employment sector, with over 8,000 small businesses within the electorate. I strongly support small business and the individuals and families who give everything they have to make a go of it. For many, their small business is an all-in investment that determines their ability to pay the mortgage, put their kids through school and enrol them in sport, pay the bills and put food on the table. They understand the pressure of paying wages and taxes and, of course, the cost of adhering to regulations. Through deregulation, the government is actively working to reduce these burdens and create a marketplace that supports small business and encourages growth.
We have seen growth in Australia in the past two decades with extraordinary economic expansion. In many respects, our regulatory systems and checks have not kept pace with this growth. This has, unfortunately, resulted in some regulatory frameworks becoming cumbersome and inhibitive. We want to ensure that we do not stunt the growth of Australian industries and business. This portion of repeals is not only beneficial to small businesses, however; it also removes redundant legislation and reduces red tape across the delivery of social services—taxation, the environment, education and training, health and aged care.
As our population ages, the government is removing administrative and compliance regulations that are unnecessary and simply inhibit the delivery of aged-care services by abolishing the requirement to use administrator adviser panels. These panels provide a list of consultants approved by the Department of Social Services to assist sanctioned providers to return to and maintain compliance with their responsibilities under aged-care legislation. The government recognises and acknowledges that aged-care providers have the knowledge and experience to make certain determinations based on what they need. So not only are they now going to be able to reduce time and costs expended; they will also benefit by having the autonomy to meet their specific needs. The Department of Health estimates that this will lead to annual savings of $5 million in compliance costs—funds that are better directed to patient care. Dobell has a high demand for aged care, with the number of residents over the age of 65 projected to grown by 32 per cent over the next 10 years. I am pleased that the government is taking steps to alleviate compliance and regulatory burdens on our aged-care providers.
This bill, being the fourth omnibus repeal day bill, is evidence of this government's commitment to simplify life for Australian individuals, businesses, and government departments and agencies. This government has a proven record in supporting the delivery of goods and services, entrepreneurship, innovation and market trade, and it will continue to do so. I thank the Assistant Minister for Productivity for his work on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:20): I have listened to much of the debate in respect of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. I have noted the comments of members opposite, most of whom come into the chamber and claim that this legislation is going to save the community and, in particular, small business substantial amounts of money because it will remove red tape that business and others have to jump over every time they want to do business out there in the community.
The fact of the matter is that there has been no evidence whatsoever brought in by the government to substantiate the claims that this will make life for the community and small business, or any sized business, any better at all. What we are dealing with is legislation that is part of normal government function, whereby legislation is reviewed, its relevance is reconsidered and, if it is considered to be not relevant, it is made obsolete. We go through the same process to ensure that the words used in legislation are still current, bearing in mind that, over time, the interpretation and meaning of words also change, and sometimes that comes about because of court judgements. So it is a function of government across the country at every level to, from time to time, review the legislation that is currently in place and ensure that it remains relevant to the day.
What is also clear from the comments made by those opposite is that, if it were true that this legislation is making a huge difference to the small businesses in Australia, we not seeing that reflected in the economic activity of the country and in economic confidence in particular. I note that only yesterday there was some research out there suggesting that economic confidence, if anything, is actually declining.
Whilst I also note the government comes into the chamber from time to time and tries to jump on any glimmer of economic good news that is out there, the truth of the matter is that most of the economic indicators would suggest that the economy has in fact stalled and has become stagnant. When I talk to business people across the country and in particular in my home state, which I do on a regular basis, I get the same feedback—that is, that the economy is not going so strong.
But if you want to have a really good indicator of how good the economy is going, just have a look at what the Reserve Bank announced yesterday. They announced that the cash rate will be left unchanged at two per cent. My general rule of thumb is this: if the cash rate remains constant, it means the economy is pretty stagnant—that is, it has flat-lined and is not moving, particularly in one direction or another. If the interest rate goes down, the economy is in trouble, and if the interest rate goes up generally it is a sign that things are on the rebound.
I say to members opposite that you have had two years and three months in government and you have come into the chamber on many occasions with these repeal day legislation issues, every time claiming that this is good for the economy and for the country. Where is the evidence to support those claims? The truth of the matter is that the evidence is simply not there. Indeed, the economy is probably going in the opposite direction. Only this week we had the announcement that the budget deficit over coming years will increase by a further $38 billion.
The government's economic strategy is not working, and, contrary to their claims that it is all the fault of the previous government, I put it to members opposite that, firstly, they have not only been in government for 2¼ years, but it is their policies in particular that are causing the economy to go in the direction it is. I can well recall some very good presentations by global experts on this issue. They made the point very clearly and very strongly, based on evidence of what has occurred in other countries, that, where austerity measures are brought in by governments to try to fix up their taxation problems, the truth is that the opposite happens. When you start cutting payments to people, as this government is doing by trying to cut payments to families across the country, when you make employment conditions more difficult and try to push down wages, and when you cut government expenditure in research and development, the ultimate impact of it all is that it affects jobs across the country. When it affects jobs across the country it will also affect the income tax that comes back to government.
In the same vein, in adding 50 per cent to the GST, which this government is obviously considering at the moment, the same applies. All the government will be doing is reducing the disposable funds that families have when they go out to do their shopping and buy products. Again, that in turn means that the government might be picking up tax in the one hand but it will be losing it out of the other. As Labor has made absolutely clear, we will not be supporting that, not only because it is not good economic policy but because it also affects the people at the lower income end within society.
I have seen this done time and time again by this government with all the cuts they have made, right through from health, to education, to industry assistance and the like. I make a point that has been made time and time again: when governments decide they will turn their back on industry, as this government has done, and industry in turn lays off employees, the government loses from both sides. It loses the income tax it would otherwise have retained, had those people kept their jobs, but it will also then adds to the social welfare bill of the nation, so the government is paying out to those very same people money it claims it does not have and that it needs to withdraw from industry assistance funding that had been previously proposed.
I want to bring to the attention of the House some ways in which the House could make some real savings. I will refer to a couple of matters that have been brought to my attention in recent times by constituents in my electorate. The first relates to a matter whereby a person was trying to get their passport and, because of the misspelling of the person's name on their birth certificate, the hoops that the person had to go through in order to get a passport were, quite frankly, extraordinary. It not only took months and months to get the whole process resolved, but it was also costly both to the person and to the government, which was constantly having to correspond backwards and forwards. It seems to me that perhaps the first thing the government should do if it wants to reduce its costs is look at some of the processes that are required of people when they are dealing with government in the first place. To me, that would be a good start as to where you could save a lot of money.
I had a similar case with respect to a person who was born overseas of Australian parents and came to Australia and has lived her whole life in this country. Again, when it was time for her to apply for a passport, because the birth certificate had not been issued in Australia, and there was difficulty in getting the original birth certificate—it was from an Asian country—the hoops this person had to jump through in order to get the birth certificate, and then the passport, would have been far more costly to the government than to the person involved.
The last example concerns a person who also wanted to apply for a passport. The person had misplaced, lost or had never received the citizenship certificate they had been granted several years ago. Because the person had migrated to Australia from another country she required her Australian citizenship documents to be produced in order to get the passport. With assistance from my office, it took the best part of six months or maybe even nine months for the person to jump over all of the required hurdles before finally getting an Australian passport, which would enable them to leave the country and then come back into Australia. Those are some of the examples that the government should really be looking at if it wants to save money, not the pretentious example of what is in this legislation. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Multiculturalism
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:29): On Monday night I joined with my caucus colleagues and a group of inspiring Australian Muslim women to discuss a range of issues that we are facing in our communities. The overwhelming message was clear: we need to better understand and appreciate the multiplicity of cultures, faiths and communities in Australia, celebrating both our differences and our common humanity, and we need to speak out against both deliberate and unwitting misinformation and intolerance. The negative impact this unthinking behaviour is having on the Australian Muslim community and our national psyche is disturbing.
Division helps no one, and the comments made by the member for Paterson and others opposite in recent days are particularly unhelpful. To hear that there are children of Muslim faith being impacted by intolerance and racism and questioning their self-worth and identity saddens and disappoints me. But it also inspires me to speak out and call out those who fail to understand the breadth of human experience or to show respect.
In Newcastle, we are lucky to live in a community that is welcoming and diverse, and as the federal member for Newcastle that is something that I am incredibly proud of. I believe it is the responsibility of all parliamentarians to put their time and energy towards building relationships with all members of our community and to show political leadership on tolerance and cultural diversity.
One of the marks of a free and democratic society is tolerance, understanding and acceptance of one another. We will not overcome hatred with hatred. (Time expired)
Western Australia: Bushfires
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (13:31): Last week I had the melancholy task of updating the House on the catastrophic bushfires that ravaged the regions of Scaddan, Grass Patch, Salmon Gums and Merivale near Esperance in my electorate of O'Connor. Those fires destroyed almost 200,000 hectares of prime agricultural land, but the real tragedy was the loss of four lives.
Esperance Shire President Victoria Brown was right when she said, 'Our geographic isolation is actually our greatest strength.' Now, as the shire consolidates its recovery process, the resilience and generosity of country communities is plain to see. The helping hand is never far away. Local volunteer fire brigades who valiantly battled the blaze were joined by more than 200 firefighters from surrounding districts to help bring the fire under control. Co-operative Bulk Handling donated $250,000 towards the recovery phase. The region's major newspaper, the Kalgoorlie Miner, immediately launched an appeal that has raised $75,000 so far. In just four hours at a shopping centre last Saturday morning, the Albany fire crews raised $11,000. The Rotary Club of Boulder has donated $10,000. The generosity of businesses and community groups in our region is truly amazing.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull plans to visit the town next week to meet with the community, see firsthand the devastation the fires wrought and be briefed by fire controllers on the difficulties the Esperance fire and rescue service faced during the height of the blaze. I thank the Prime Minister for making time to visit Esperance, and I know that the community will welcome his support during this difficult period.
Asbestos
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:33): Last Friday the member for Gorton and I attended the annual service in memory of people who have died from asbestos-related illnesses. The service was held at Pitman Park in Salisbury where, 10 years ago, a memorial to asbestos victims was established. Every year, white wooden crosses with the names of people who have died from asbestos-related diseases are placed in the ground next to the memorial. Sadly, the number of crosses increases each year, and this year they numbered in the hundreds.
Around 700 Australians die each year from asbestos-related illnesses, and thousands of Australians are likely to be diagnosed with these diseases over coming decades. Regrettably, asbestos products are still being manufactured and sold around the world, putting more people at risk. It is a practice that needs to stop. Australia needs to play its part in preventing the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos products, regardless of where they are being sold.
In South Australia, the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia provides moral and practical support to victims of asbestos and their families. I commend the volunteers, led by President Terry Miller, for all they do for those families at a very difficult time in their lives. Being a volunteer organisation, they have no paid staff and provide their services through the generosity of their volunteers. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the federal government because any financial assistance that could be provided to the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia would be very well used in supporting those families.
La Trobe Electorate: Community Awards
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:34): Recently I had the great honour to host the La Trobe community awards. It was fantastic to see so many people in my seat of La Trobe and to recognise the great work that they have done for the local community. It was staggering to realise how many years people have been helping out other people to make La Trobe a better place.
I would first of all like to acknowledge the awardees: Sue Bottel, John Byron JP, Lawrie Canning, Cherry Chan, Brenda and Peter Chessum, Emily Chugg, Judith De Bruyn, John Di Carlo, Charles Doro, Geoffrey McGowan JP, Kevin Fewster, Bernard Harris, Sharon Heffernan, Roy Kendall, Colleen Marke, Trish Nicholson, Russell Nielsen, James Sharp, Anne Simpson, Peter Smith, Murray Snell, Berwick Obedience Dog Club and, finally, Connor Beattie. There were also two medallions awarded—one to Peter Smith and the other to Brenda Chessum. I again congratulate all those involved. I also thank all the family members who allowed their loved ones to help our community for so many years. It is a great credit to everyone involved.
Cunningham Electorate: Employment
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:36): As we go into the Christmas season, it is going to be quite a tough time for hundreds of people in the Illawarra because of the loss of a significant number of jobs at BlueScope Steel. The reason I want to talk to the House today is that Minister Macfarlane, the minister at the time, came to our region and held a round table, at which many leaders across industry, community and the unions came together to put proposals before the minister about ways in which this government could support our region. Then he was no longer the minister, and a new minister, Minister Pyne, came in. He called us up to Sydney for a round table so we could all sit around and put proposals forward again.
We have seen nothing from this government in terms of a program of support for our region, despite the fact that they raised expectations by saying that they had some huge proposal that they were going to announce that would transform our region. Then, on Monday, the minister stood at that dispatch box and not only boasted about an innovation fund rolling out in Geelong, when he has done nothing for the Illawarra, but then quite extraordinarily said that the Port Kembla plant was in the seat of Gilmore! So it should be no surprise that today the Illawarra Mercury has run this front page, asking:
Where's Pyney?
Does he even know where the Illawarra is? It is about time this government stepped in and gave the support that it promised.
Bennelong Electorate: Armenian Community
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:37): Culturally diverse, Bennelong is the proud home of our nation's largest community of Armenian-Australians. This community may be comparatively small, but the positive contribution that they make is significant. From political representation—such as the New South Wales Treasurer, Gladys Berejiklian, and Ryde councillors Artin Etmekdjian and Sarkis Yedelian—through to local restaurant owners, accountants, lawyers and even my excellent car mechanic, the gentle, smart and honest character traits shared by so many Armenian-Australians pervades the Bennelong community.
Earlier today, I was fortunate to meet with a delegation including representatives from the Armenian National Committee and Mr Kaylar Michaelian, a former principal of Galstaun College, who has recently been appointed as the new permanent representative of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh to Australia. With them was Mr Davit Ishkhanyan, a member of the parliament from Nagorno-Karabakh, which is also known as Artsakh.
This republic recently celebrated 24 years of independence. With its significant majority of ethnic Armenians, it enjoys a democratic system of government and a commitment to human rights and free press that lies in stark contrast to its closest neighbour, Azerbaijan. I join many in hoping that a peaceful resolution can be found to the conflict in that region, and, on behalf of my constituents in Bennelong, I welcome Mr Ishkhanyan to our parliament. Welcome.
Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:39): The people of the Illawarra are frustrated with the smug indifference of the coalition government. This frustration was reflected on the front page of the Illawarra Mercury today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Order! The member knows he should not use props.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: You will see, Deputy Speaker, that there is only one 'Wally' in this photo. On 26 October this year, over 20 people travelled from Wollongong to Sydney to talk to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Christopher Pyne, about the state of crisis in the Australian steel industry. Many were very curious about why we were making the trip from Wollongong to Sydney, but we played along with it because the issue was too important to quibble over. We now know why the meeting was held in Sydney—because he has not got a clue where the Illawarra is! I brought along a map today to help the minister find out where the Illawarra is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will put the prop down.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: In his travels, he might like to come to Wollongong to do something for the state of the industry in the Illawarra.
I have some facts for the minister. The Illawarra is home to the biggest steel producer in Australia, and we are very proud of it. It is home to a fantastic university, which this minister cut millions of dollars out of in his last round of budget cuts. It is a place full of honest, hardworking people who just want a fair go from this government. On behalf of the thousands of people who are today looking for a job in the Illawarra, we are calling on this minister to do his job.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The dress of the member for Berowra has been drawn to my attention. I note page 158 of House of Representatives Practice, which states in reference to a 1977 ruling:
… it was acceptable for Members to wear tailored 'safari' suits without a tie.
Menzies Electorate: Heatherwood School
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:41): I recently visited Heatherwood School at Donvale, in my electorate of Menzies. Heatherwood is a secondary school for 273 students with mild intellectual disabilities. The goal of the school is to promote academic, personal, social and community growth. It also recognises the great contribution that parents and carers make, and their involvement is highly valued. This is a vital aspect of the school's culture. It recognises the importance of having a strong partnership between the school and its community to ensure the best outcomes for the students.
I was there to present the students with a well-deserved Anzac Day award for outstanding achievement in commemorating the service and sacrifice of Australia's service men and women. The 2015-16 school captains, Kyle Horne, Maddison Rippon, Benjamin Cathery, Molly Drummond and Darion Foster, were on hand to accept the award and show me some of what they did, including their creation of a native garden in honour of their Anzac commemorations. Students also produced a book and wrote heartfelt letters to current service personnel in Iraq. I would like to particularly thank the commander of the joint task force in the Middle East, Rear Admiral Trevor Jones, for his very inspiring reply to the students at Heatherwood.
I was also able to meet the staff, tour the school, with its colourful splashes of student artwork, and witness the innovative driver education program, complete with buggies. I thank the assistant principal, Lesley Foster, for facilitating the visit. I am looking forward to the visit by students to parliament next year.
Education
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:42): This morning, I woke to see a press release from the Victoria Labor government stating that there will be extra learning support for children with special needs in Victoria next year. It is about supporting students in their transition and getting assessments appropriate to ensure that, when students with special needs reach school, the right things are there to support them. It got me thinking about this place and the commitments that this place has made to students with a disability—students with special needs. It got me thinking, 'What has this government said of late about students with disability?' It also got me thinking about all of those families who have made submissions to the Senate inquiry about the impacts of this government's cuts to education, the real impacts on families supporting students with special learning needs. The bottom line is that the $100 million per year for more support for students with a disability was terminated under this government.
Then I had to stop and think, 'I know that the former Minister for Education has moved on to fix other things, but who is the Minister for Education?' I had to look it up. Apparently, it is someone called Senator Birmingham. I have not heard him make an announcement. I have not heard him say a thing about education. He is another one who needs to get down and do his job. You can change your Prime Minister and change your minister— (Time expired)
Dunkley Electorate: National Stronger Regions Fund
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (13:44): I am led to believe we are days away from big announcements about a fantastic program that this coalition government has instigated, the National Stronger Regions Fund. I know that many in this chamber would share my optimism that projects that we have supported in our local area may be able to be supported through this very important funding program.
I have been a very strong advocate of the Frankston Basketball Stadium redevelopment and upgrade to take it from being a real focal point for sporting effort and participation to being a community hub that is able to support job creation, larger events and bringing some of the big stars to that great 'Southern Hemisphere capital' known as Frankston. It would bring better educational outcomes by having a sports focused curriculum that engages students so that they stay involved with their education. It would promote active lifestyle participation and reach out to and support communities for whom sporting participation is very difficult.
This is what this project is about: a youth expo hub, a pop-up youth services centre, somewhere to extend the studies that the Australian Research Council has funded through Monash University and the Chisholm Institute to look at how sports and leisure participation and recreation deliver great benefits for the community more broadly. I am hopeful we can come to the table. They are looking for just under $5 million from the Commonwealth; all we have had from the state Labor government is press releases—not a penny. The state Liberal government has made a contribution, and I am hoping we can do likewise at a national level.
AC/DC
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:45): Many of Australia's cultural icons get a guernsey in these 90-second statements, and I want to make sure that AC/DC, a band that has rocked three generations of Australians, is included in this pantheon. On the weekend, I headed down to Subiaco Oval with tens of thousands of my fellow Western Australians to engage in some 'Angus mania' and to be 'shook all night long' by this brilliant music. I never miss an 'Acca Dacca' gig. Not only does the sacred music go right to the core, but the crowds are brilliant. They are like footy crowds used to be before we had corporate boxes—from eight to 80, male and female, rich dudes and working people, all getting together to share this great music. It is a great social connector—and no-one goes to an AC/DC gig to be pretentious.
Perth has a special connection with Acca Dacca. Bon Scott grew up and started his career in Perth. Earlier this year, my son and my grandson did the great pilgrimage to Bon's grave site in the Fremantle cemetery to celebrate the life of this fabulous character. Australia should properly recognise this band and its Australian origins—Acca Dacca forever!
Motor Neurone Disease
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (13:47): Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, thank you very much for your ruling that I am not disorderly! Today I am dressed in a suit that I brought into this chamber some 40 years or more ago. I was challenged by some to do so today—and I will outline the reason—and I was told by the member for Werriwa and by my daughter that I should not. Many colleagues on this side of the House and on that side of the House—Mr Deputy Speaker included—have sponsored me because, by wearing this suit, I am raising money for sufferers of motor neurone disease. We are raising money for Macquarie University, which conducts research into the disease. We have been able to raise in excess of $1,500 already and I am sure there will be more.
Motor neurone disease is a progressive terminal neurological disease for which there is no known cure. Each day, two people die from it; each day in Australia, two people are diagnosed with it. People with it progressively lose the use of their limbs and their ability to speak, swallow and breathe, and their life expectancy is 27 months. An estimated 1,900 people have it in Australia today. This is an important cause and I hope people will contribute generously.
Indi Electorate: Community Radio
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:49): Community radio is an important part of the media landscape in Indi and we are blessed with seven community stations covering much of the electorate. Today I would like to acknowledge Yvonne and Bill Sutton, who have been stalwarts of Alpine Radio; Scott Landells at Indigo FM; Peter Weeks at UGFM; OAKFM, which is renowned for its footy coverage by David Johnston and Des Lonergan; Radio Mansfield, which is led by president John Coffey and secretary Marg Seeber; and president Trevor Jones and vice-president Sue Maw at Upper Murray Radio.
The volunteers who run these stations enrich our lives with their sense of humour, local knowledge and unique perspectives on politics and community life. These volunteers make the community programs unique and listeners have a strong connection to their radio stations. Today I would particularly like to acknowledge Upper Goulburn FM, which broadcasts to Lake Eildon, Alexandra, Marysville, Flowerdale and Hazeldene. On Saturday it will be my privilege to join them in Yea to celebrate their 21st birthday and open the new station in town. I am sure it will receive a rousing reception. I thank the Commonwealth government for the $10,000 to fund the studio; this will give Yea listeners an even closer connection to the opportunity. So I say: go local, go community and go radio.
Mackellar Electorate: Reserve Forces Day
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (13:50): On Saturday, 14 November I had the great privilege of launching the 2016 Reserve Forces Day and representing the Prime Minister as well. The Reserve Forces Day parade aims to raise awareness of the vital work of Army, Navy and Air Force current and former reservists and thank partners, families and employers for their support. The inaugural Reserve Forces Day, and the parades, began with my support when I served as Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel and I have continued to support it every year since. The event has grown significantly, with 15 cities throughout Australia conducting parades and celebrations in 2015.
The driving force is Lieutenant Colonel John Moore OAM RFD ED (Ret'd), National Executive Officer, and his very professional volunteers, together with the Hon. Tim Fischer AC, National Chairman, who took over from the inaugural Chairman, Sir Laurence Street. The launch was held at the Royal Automobile Club in Sydney with tri-service representatives and current serving and former reservists. Tim Fischer gave an excellent address on General Sir John Monash, highlighting his immeasurable contribution to the nation as a citizen-soldier and as an innovating and successful Lieutenant General during World War I, and advocated for his posthumous promotion to the rank of Field Marshal, a cause I have also advocated for in this place.
The launch of the 2016 theme is to commemorate the role of the three services in 1916 and the battles of the Western Front and the desert campaign. As we commemorate 100 years since the brutal and bloody conflict of the Western Front, we pay tribute to all who served.
Canberra Electorate Office Staff
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:52): After safari suits and ACDC, my statement is going to be relatively subdued, but it is no less sincere in its sentiments. Everyone in this place knows the importance of having a good team, and everyone in this place knows the importance of great of teamwork. Without the people who work with us, we would not be able to serve our communities, we would not be able to serve the parliament and we would not be able to engage in public policy debates.
I am fortunate to be surrounded by a great team—a team that works hard, that works passionately and that works overtime. They are an extraordinary group of women and men. Thank you to my paid staff—Madeleine Firth, John Hannoush, Alicia Turner, Jill Peterson, Claire Wheaton and Victoria Robertson—for the work they have done this year. I thank the interns and work experience students: Andrew Beveridge, Duc Dao, Dan Hanrahan and Ika Fitriyana. And I want to thank my volunteers and those who have helped me hold mobile offices and community forums and been doorknocking with me throughout the year: Stephy and Karen, Aimee Kable, Hugh McGrath, Tom Lindenmayer, Margaret Watts, Helen De Landre, Llois Cutts, Emily McIntosh, Mitchell Jones, Eric Topp, Karl Maftoum, Julian Anczewski, Jen Newman, Chris Steel, Mark Kulasingham, Shane Carter, Lucky Prasad, Amelia Tyler-Skinner, Susan Marshall, Manuel Redondo, Karan Puri, Sandipan Mitra and Brianna Heseltine.
Australian Paper Industry
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:53): Is it just that it is Christmas? Is it just Christmas that would see Penny Wong and Eric Abetz waltzing down the corridors of power in hilarious comradery—or is it something else? Is it just Christmas that would see Dennis Jensen arm in arm with Malcolm Turnbull, rollicking together as one over climate change—or is it something else? Is it just Christmas that would see the clerks and the stewards of the House lined up in the Speaker's corridor, arms over shoulders in the throes of Zorba the Greek—or is it something else? Is it just Christmas that would see Tania Plibersek and Julie Bishop in lock-step, kicking their heels high to the chorus of New York, New York—or is it something else? It is just Christmas that would see Clive Palmer, Adam Bandt and Cory Bernardi in three-part harmony singing We Three Kings of Orient Are—or is it something else?
No, it is not Christmas. Of course, of course—they have all just opened a ream of Australian-made paper! Merry Christmas to everyone who makes Australian paper, and a special Christmas thankyou to all the parliamentary support staff, without whom we could not do our job.
Tibet
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:55): Today at midday, 2,110 prayer flags fluttered in front of Parliament House. This symbolic action by the Australia Tibet Council and the Tibetan Community of Australia ahead of International Human Rights Day on 10 December is dedicated to the 2,110 known political prisoners in Tibet. Each flag represents a Tibetan unjustly imprisoned by the Chinese government for 'crimes' ranging from praying for their spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to flying a Tibetan national flag to sending information about the situation in Tibet to friends overseas.
Tibetan prisoners are subjected to torture and are denied proper medical care, according to the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. In July, we heard of the tragic death of prominent Tibetan lama Tenzin Delek Rinpoche in Chinese custody while serving a 20-year sentence. Yet, while facing a review of its human rights record at the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva last week, the Chinese government said 'there are no political prisoners in China'. When grilled about the use of electric shocks and the notorious rigid interrogation chairs, also known as tiger chairs, the Chinese officials said these chairs are for the safety and comfort of the detainees.
Australia is home to around 2,000 Tibetans, many of whom are former political prisoners, and a number of them were part of the gathering in front of Parliament House today, sending prayers to their fellow Tibetans languishing in Chinese jails.
For China to gain genuine respect in the international community, it must start respecting the basic human rights of the Tibetan people and its own citizens. As a country that enjoys a strong relationship with China, Australia is in a good position to encourage China to do the right thing.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:56): As this year's parliamentary sitting calendar comes to a close, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all good members of this House a very merry Christmas and encourage them, when they return to their electorates, to remind their constituents of the devastating road rolls. In Australia in 2015 no fewer than 1,020 lives have been lost on Australian roads. As your families and constituents travel and as my constituents in the elctorate of Wright travel throughout Queensland and Australia to get to their destinations, I would encourage each of them to be road-wise and conscious of making sure they get home safely to their families.
My message today is to every single member of the community of Wright: please be safe on the roads. In Queensland this week alone we have seen several fatalities on our roads; we do not need to see more. In Queensland our road toll stands at 221 deaths. Regretfully, this is already 11 more than in December last year. So I send a challenge out to everyone in my electorate: be safe on the road, do not speed, do not drink and drive, do not drive tired and do not let the screaming kids in the back seat distract you.
To all members of the House: drive safely, enjoy the festive spirit and spend as much time as you can with your loved ones, because it is our families that make an enormous sacrifice due to our time spent away from them so that we can be great members to our communities.
Islamic Community
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:58): As members of parliament, what we say matters. It carries consequences. This was brought home to me when I read an article in The Age today entitled 'Abuse a fact of life for many Muslims'. It highlights the pervasive impact of Islamophobia in recent months on members of the Islamic community and confirms what members of the Islamic community in Scullin have been saying to me: they feel under pressure, they feel under siege and they feel that comments made about the Australian way of life belittle them and exclude them from full participation.
It is in that light that I reflect on the contributions in recent days of many government members. I think of the member for Bass, the member for Canning, the member for Paterson and the member for Kooyong—the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. I ask them to reflect on their responsibilities—on all of our responsibilities—to all Australians.
I am so proud of the multiculturalism of Melbourne's north, but I do not take it for granted. We cannot. We must stand against Islamophobia. We must respect the Islamic faith and indeed all faiths. We have a choice in this place at this critical time—to foster division or to build cohesion and unity. For Labor, it is an easy choice. We stand for respect and we stand for inclusion. The onus is now on the Prime Minister to do the same—to show leadership for all Australians, to stand up for unity, to stand against division and to condemn these comments.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Small Business will be away from question time today, as she is unwell. The Treasurer will answer questions on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:00): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's statements in the house. Channel 9's 60 Minutes has released the full transcript and vision of the ministers interview:
Hayes: Um why then also did you um assist, seek well, did you ask James Ashby to procure um copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you?
Brough: Yes, I did.
Isn't it clear that there was only one question to answer? What part of the question does the minister maintain he was answering when he said, 'Yes, I did'?
The SPEAKER: Just before the Special Minister of State answers the question, I remind members of what I said yesterday—I will not tolerate interjections when I am trying to hear the minister's answer.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:01): I refer the honourable member to my statement earlier today. I apologise to the House again for unwittingly adding to the confusion, rather than clarifying the matter.
Renewable Energy
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how innovation and technology will then able Australia to achieve both stronger growth and a cleaner environment?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the member for his question. As honourable members know, I returned this morning from the Paris COP 21, the big climate change conference there. I have to say there was a feeling of real optimism at the COP. There is recognition there and a recognition certainly—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: that Australia brought to COP that technology and innovation are the keys to a cleaner environment and, of course, a stronger economy. We came to the COP, the climate change conference, with a commitment to producing the innovation that we need to ensure that we move over time to a net zero emissions world. I emphasised that by referring to the extraordinary work done by Australian scientists and in particular I cited the work of the University of New South Wales on solar panels. They have developed the most efficient solar panels in 30 out of the last 32 years. Within a few years 60 per cent, it is estimated, of the world's solar panels—photovoltaic panels—will be using technology developed at the University of New South Wales. This is something that Australians can be very proud of.
I was honoured to be in the company of Bill Gates, one of the handful of people who, you can say without any doubt, have created digital world of today and one of the greatest philanthropists of our times—apart from being a great technologist—with an initiative of his, Mission Innovation, supported by many countries, including Australia, which has undertaken to double our investment in clean technology over the next five years. More importantly—or I should say just as importantly—he is mobilising billions of additional dollars to invest in clean technology. Mr Gates recognises that no-one can be sure what new technological avenue will produce the breakthrough. So there needs to be investment right across the board, and that is exactly what our government is doing. We are committed to innovation; we are committed to clean technology; we are leading the way on that. We will next week be presenting an innovation statement that will demonstrate to all Australians our commitment to a 21st century economy built on innovation, driving better jobs and stronger growth.
Ms Owens interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta, the member for Grayndler and the member for Perth will cease interjecting. I will not allow them to interject continuously through question time. I have given them fair warning.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:04): My question is again to the Special Minister for State. Today, when speaking about his admission on 60 Minutes, the Special Minister for State told the House:
My recollection of the interview was that the question was put to me in a somewhat disjointed manner and I answered the question without clarifying precisely what part of the question I was responding to. This is confirmed by the tape.
Isn't it clear from the tape that there was only one question to answer? What question did the minister think he was answering when he said, 'Yes I did'?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: the Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:05): I again refer the honourable member to my statement earlier today.
Mr Albanese: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question was about his statement to parliament.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister has answered the question. He is entitled to answer it in any way did he sees fit.
Economy
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (14:06): my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the house on the transition that is underway in the economy? What is the government doing to ensure that Australia remains a high-waged, advanced economy with a fair social welfare net?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the honourable member for her question. Today's national accounts show an economy in transition from the construction phase of the mining boom and heading in the right direction with strong growth in export markets, service industries and jobs. GDP growth for the September quarter was 0.9 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms and 2.5 per cent over the year to September.
Australia is entering a time of new opportunities in a global economy that, as we know, is more dynamic and rapidly evolving, changing and disrupting than at any other time in human history. That is why the opportunities for Australians have never been greater. There has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. There have never been greater opportunities for Australians, for Australian businesses, for Australian jobs.
We have gone through our largest ever investment boom. Mining investment rose from less than two per cent of GDP in the early 2000s to a peak of over seven per cent a decade later. From 2000 the lift in the terms of trade, driven by strong commodity prices, added 1.2 percentage points per year to growth in average incomes. In the future, growth in our national income, growth in our prosperity, growth in jobs, growth in our standard of living is going to depend on productivity and innovation. We have had the great stimulus from the terms of trade, and the mining industry will continue to be strong and productive, but that big investment hit has come and it has gone—it will perhaps come again but right now, here and now, for the next period ahead of us, we have to drive innovation and productivity. We do that by being more agile, challenging the way things have always been done, opening ourselves to the world, investing in infrastructure, making sure that Australians have the skills and incentives to thrive in the global economy. Above all, you need confidence and optimism. Confidence is something the opposition lacks. I have never seen a gloomier bunch over there—they are so filled with gloom, so unhappy. They are laughing now—they love to laugh at themselves. Here we are with the greatest opportunity, a transition from a mining construction boom, and we have had strong growth, growth in jobs, growth right across the board despite this huge transition, yet all we have from the Labor Party is gloom and misery. They do not have the confidence for a 21st century economy.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:09): My question is again to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the response the minister just gave. Given that this issue is not clarified by his statement, what question did the minister think he was answering when he said on 60 Minutes, 'Yes I did'?
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:10): I again direct the member to my earlier statements.
Foreign Investment
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Van Diemen's Land Company, started in 1824, is the largest dairy asset in Australia. It is owned by New Zealanders and it is up for sale. The owners accepted a bid by a majority Australian consortium committed to producing premium branded dairy products, but that consortium been gazumped by a Chinese bulk commodity enterprise. Prime Minister, will you intervene to ensure this iconic and economically strategic holding is returned to Australian ownership?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:11): I thank the honourable member for his question. Given that foreign investment falls within the Treasury portfolio, I will invite the Treasurer to respond.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:11): I thank the member for Denison for his question. It has been reported that a Supreme Court judge in Victoria has upheld an injunction temporarily halting the sale of Tasmanian dairy business Van Diemen's Land to a foreign buyer. The injunction was brought by an Australian company, TasFoods Ltd, which has reported to the Australian Stock Exchange that a further court hearing will be held on 3 December. Van Diemen's Land has always been in foreign ownership, I am advised, and there are appropriate processes for Australia's foreign investment laws to be upheld and appropriate scrutiny to be applied. The foreign investment rules do provide for Australia's national interest to be protected, and most acquisitions by foreign buyers of agricultural land valued at $15 million or more have to be screened by the Foreign Investment Review Board with the decision ultimately to be taken by the government. In particular, foreign persons must get approval for a proposed acquisition of an interest in agricultural land where the cumulative value of that land owned by the foreign person, including the proposed purchase, is more than $15 million.
In recent days we have seen the passage of further tightenings and appropriate restrictions being placed on how foreign investment is viewed by this government. We take these issues very seriously. We know that Australians put great trust in the Australian government to make decisions about foreign investment and what is allowed and what is not allowed. That is one of the reasons why we have reduced the screening thresholds, particularly as they apply to agricultural land but agribusinesses as well. These changes were opposed by those opposite. I do not know why the changes were opposed; I do not know why those opposite think the Australian people do not want their government to take a close interest in these issues and assess the matters of national interest that apply to them. They had the same view about residential real estate—they were happy for foreign investors to come and buy up residential real estate across the country and have that unchecked. They were happy when they were in government not to put the resources into those issues as well.
Mr Wilkie: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question goes to government intervention above and beyond the Foreign Investment Review Board.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned. The Treasurer is in order. The question was in a number of parts.
Mr MORRISON: The government has its processes, we have tightened those processes, the Foreign Investment Review Board reviews these matters when they come before it and it makes recommendations to the government, to me as Treasurer, and then there is further consideration. As the Treasurer I recently made a decision in relation to S. Kidman and Co., which gives an indication of the diligence we apply to these matters, but we also made decisions in relation to TransGrid, where we imposed the tightest conditions on that sale in New South Wales to ensure that the national interest was protected. This government will always ensure the national interest is protected. (Time expired)
Economy
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:14): My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest September quarter national accounts? How is Australia transitioning from the mining boom to a more diversified economy?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:14): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. Coming from Western Sydney, she comes from a place which strongly believes in growth and jobs. Western Sydney has been one of the great success stories of the Australian economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: Those opposite are a bit gloomy about these things, but Western Sydney is full of optimism about the great representation they get from the member for Lindsay. Those opposite are a little worried that the member for Fowler might be overrun by the member for McMahon. Hands up those who like the member for Fowler? He is a great man!
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right. The Treasurer will bring himself back to the substance of the question.
Mr MORRISON: Our economy is making the positive transition from the investment phase of the mining boom. We are heading in the right direction as today's national accounts figures show. Growth is up, as the Prime Minister said, 0.9 per cent this quarter and 2½ per cent through the year. That is twice what we saw in Canada with their figures released just last night. They are a similar type of economy—a resources and commodities based economy. That is higher than the growth across the G7 and it is higher than the average growth in the OECD. Consumption is up and demand is up. Export growth is up 4.6 per cent this quarter and 6½ per cent through the year. What this shows is the emerging growth in demand for what Australia is doing.
As you transition from the high investment levels in the mining sector —as the Australian people know we are—you see a decline in business investment as we have seen in these figures. And we will call that as we see it, we will call it as it is—that is true. And we will see a growth in the non-mining sector investment as these increased demand figures flow through the economy. Australians are out there everyday working, saving and are investing through the transition in this economy—and the Australian government is backing them. We are working with them by supporting growth oriented policies. You need a growth-friendly tax system. You need a growth-friendly competition policy. You need a growth-friendly innovation policy. You need a growth-friendly environment policy and growth-friendly targets—but not those offered by those opposite. A 45 per cent reduction in emissions is not growth friendly and it is not jobs friendly. On this side of the House we are focused on growth and jobs. That is what our economic policy is about. The economic policies of those opposite are all about chasing Greens votes. Our economic policies on this side of the House are focused on growth and jobs in the economy. Our economy is transitioning. We will continue to do that and we will back Australians through that transition. These figures today show that that transition is taking place in a positive way and is being supported by good strong growth-orientated policies.
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith interjected continuously during that answer. She is warned.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:18): My question again is to the Special Minister of State. In the minister's statement earlier today, he claimed that he could have been answering a different part of the question when he answered on 60 Minutes: 'Yes, I did.' Given that it is obvious from the tapes that there is only one question which was asked, isn't it clear that the minister misled the House again this morning?
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:18): I confirm that I did not mislead the House. I refer you to my earlier answers.
Innovation
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:18): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. I remind the minister of the digital transformation work in regional and rural Australia being driven by the National Farmers' Federation. Will the minister outline some of the ways digital innovation will help rural and regional communities to meet the increasing demand for Australian produce in overseas markets?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:19): I thank the member for Hume for his question. I can confirm that the National Farmers' Federation are very optimistic about the opportunities in rural and regional Australia from digital transformation. I met with them yesterday, and they will be having their own announcements to make over the coming week or two about the role that the NFF intends to play in the digital transformation that is going on in rural and regional Australia. They have already done a great deal. Even in the member for Hume's own electorate, there are great examples of businesses that are using technologies to change the way that they improve productivity and profits. Delta Automated Weather Network, DAWN—which is in the member's electorate and I am sure he is familiar with it—has a network of weather stations and soil moisture probes that offers unparalleled technology that provides accurate and local weather data in real time to support farm management decisions. More than 95,000 pieces of data are captured and interpreted everyday. It is a great example of how businesses can use technology to improve their productivity and increase their profits to create jobs, new markets and growth in the economy.
Early next year the new nbn satellite broadband services will come on-stream, servicing rural and remote Australia—which I know the Minister for Major Projects is very much looking forward. That will mean that every farmer across Australia has access to fast broadband. One of the other aspects of our rural and regional industries is our reputation for clean and green food products that we sell overseas. Through digital technologies, we are making it easier than ever to increase the traceability of food right through all of our supply chains, which only improves our attractiveness as a market for exports of food products overseas.
Through all these measures, rural and regional Australia will be great partners with the government in the national innovation in science agenda that will be released next week. It will drive jobs and it will growth right across the economy and also in rural Australia. The National Farmers' Federation believes that they can grow this part of the economy to a $100 billion sector by 2030. So lots of other businesses will be beneficiaries. MANDRA's iHerd, in the member for Flynn's electorate, is a mobile record-keeping business that allows producers immediate access to data on stock numbers, sales information and animal health treatments. This is being used by some 40,000 primary producers in 120 countries. Started in the member for Flynn's electorate, it is just another great example of innovative businesses in rural and regional Australia that will be getting on board with the government's national innovation and science agenda next week. I would urge the Labor Party and the Greens to seriously consider their support for this agenda, because it is about jobs and it is about growth.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:22): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon mayors and general managers from the Canberra Region Joint Organisation. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to them.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:22): My question is again to the Special Minister of State. In the minister's statement earlier today, he claimed that he could have been answering a different part of the question when he answered, on 60 Minutes:
Yes, I did.
Given it is obvious from the tapes that there is only one question which was asked, hasn't the minister not only misled the parliament again but breached clause 5.1 of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards?
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:23): I refer the honourable member to my earlier answers.
Agriculture
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the coalition government's commitment to research and development is supporting growth and innovation in Australian agriculture?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that he has a strong interest in innovation in agriculture because as a former president of the Victorian Farmers Federation he wants to make sure that our nation is at the forefront—and we are at the forefront in so many of the things we are doing. There are so many issues right now that are taking the innovation in agriculture and pushing it further still so that we can continue to benefit from the incredible growth we have had and the incredible turnaround in the soft commodities market: in the most recent quarter, we had a 12 per cent increase on the corresponding quarter last year.
We have things such as adaptive area-wide management of Qfly, using sterilised male fruit flies. What is important about this is that it helps us move Queensland fruit fly, and later will help us move Medfly, out of areas. That is vitally important so that we can move these products into new markets, which we are also developing—new markets which we have developed through our three free trade agreements and also through the protocol settings that the department of agriculture and corresponding departments of agriculture around the world work with. At Mataranka, up in the Northern Territory, we have the use of a laser called a refractometer to determine the solids in mangoes so that we know exactly the right time to pick the mangoes. This is also allowing a huge reduction in labour costs and making sure that that product is absolutely suited to the market that we are delivering to. In my own seat of New England we now have BASF, one of the biggest research companies in the world, doing projects to make sure that we are at the forefront of disease resistance and chemical development for farms so that we can get better yields.
Lately, and I know that the member for Mallee will be interested in this, with dairy in his area, Dairy Australia have put some of their levy money—which, of course, we support through a quarter of a billion dollars a year from the department of agriculture alone and $700 million a year across all departments—to develop robotics in dairying. That is absolutely fascinating to see. We have the capacity now for robots to basically go through the sterilisation and the application of the milking cups, and this allows farmers in these areas to go out and do more work on the farm. Who would have thought that we would live in a time when robotics were part of dairying in this nation? People who have to milk those two times a day have that alleviated by the assistance of this innovation. This is assisted by a government with a vision, with a plan, that is delivering.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:26): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister's statement in the House about his role in the Ashby affair. I ask the same question that was asked by Channel 9's Liz Hayes on 60 Minutes. Did you ask James Ashby to procure copies of Peter Slipper's diary for you?
The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Isaacs to refer to ministers by their correct titles.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:27): No.
Trade
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister update the House on the impact that the government's free trade agreements have had on confidence among Australian exporters? What effect have the agreements with Japan and Korea had on our exports since they came into force?
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:27): I thank the member for Lyons and acknowledge the success of Tasmanian Quality Meats, in the member's electorate, who won Regional Australian Exporter of the Year at last Friday night's Export Awards.
The conclusion of our landmark free trade agreements with Korea and Japan—and soon China—is generating great enthusiasm and new levels of confidence. As The Weekly Times reports today, a new survey by the National Australia Bank has found export confidence has been boosted by the lower Australian dollar and the free trade agreements. In fact, 'more than 40 per cent of exporting farmers expect their businesses to grow' significantly in the next three years.
Our exporters' confidence is well founded, with the latest figures showing that Australian exporters have been quick to capitalise on our free trade agreements with Korea and Japan. The reduction and elimination of tariffs have opened up a whole host of new doors and increased our competitiveness. For example, exports to Korea like cabbages and cauliflowers; grapes and other fruits; fish; and bread, cakes and biscuits are up by between 1,000 and 8,000 per cent on last year—between 1,000 and 8,000 per cent. It is true that, with many of those horticultural products, huge percentage increases off a low base do not often translate into huge dollar terms. But what it does tell us is that opportunities are emerging in areas where we previously had no opportunities, we had no market share and we were not competitive until those very high tariffs were removed, as they have been over the last 12 months. In areas where trade was already strong, we are seeing that tariff relief has made it even stronger. Beef exports to Korea have increased by over 30 per cent over the past 12 months and are now worth about $1 billion. Wine is up 39 per cent to $7.5 million, cheese is up 23 per cent to $30 million and lamb is up 34 per cent to $49 million. We have also seen some wonderful export growth in Japan, with fresh beef up 25 per cent to $778 million, frozen beef up 18 per cent to $600 million, shrimps and prawns up 91 per cent, abalone up 94 per cent, wine up 13 per cent and other things up by at least 1,000 per cent. These increases across the board in so many areas of agricultural exports to Japan and Korea show that Australia is starting to see serious growth, serious confidence and serious numbers of new jobs as a result. They prove why the government has pursued such an aggressive trade agreement.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:31): My question is again to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the answer the minister just gave. After the minister answered the now infamous question on 60 Minutes, Liz Hayes asked a further question, 'Why did you do that?' The minister answered, 'Because I believed that Peter Slipper had committed a crime.' If the minister was not admitting to procuring the former Speaker's diary, why did he then try to justify it on national television?
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned!
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:31): I refer the honourable member to my answers throughout the last two weeks.
Ryan Electorate: New Colombo Plan
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ryan will resume her seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is warned!
Mrs PRENTICE: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, your announcement of the 2016 New Colombo Plan scholars included several from my electorate of Ryan. Minister, will you please update the House on the success of the New Colombo Plan and its broader foreign policy benefits?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:32): I thank the member for Ryan for her question. In fact, I thank both sides of the House for their enthusiastic support of the New Colombo Plan. This is an opportunity provided by the Australian government for young Australian undergraduates at our universities to undertake study—short courses, semester-long courses or year-long courses—in our region. There are 38 countries that are now partners with the Australian government under the New Colombo Plan, which is available to undergraduates across all of our universities. The scheme has been in place for just two years. By the end of 2016, over 10,000 Australian undergraduates will have taken part in the opportunity not only to study in our region—the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region—but also to live there and to undertake internships, practicums and work experience. This is what makes the New Colombo Plan so special. We are partnering with other governments, NGOs, businesses and the private sector to give these students real-life experience in the region.
The member referred to her electorate. I can confirm that on Monday evening we announced the 100 scholars—that is, students who will be undertaking courses of about 12 months—and they will come from about 20 universities across Australia and are going to about 20 different countries. This is in addition to the 5,450 students who, next year, will be undertaking the shorter courses. Of those 100 scholarships, seven constituents from the member for Ryan's electorate were there to be presented with a scholarship by the patron of the New Colombo Plan, the Governor-General. I also thank the member for Kingsford Smith for being there and representing the opposition. I know the young people were buoyed by the fact that this is a bipartisan program with support from the opposition.
Those seven constituents from the electorate of Ryan all went to the University of Queensland. Chloe Yap, for example, is going to the University of Singapore to undertake study in life sciences, and she has an internship in computational and statistical genomics at the Genome Institute of Singapore within the Agency for Science, Technology and Research. What a fabulous, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Talia Rose is undertaking biomedical engineering in Singapore; Carmen Garratt is going to Korea University to study Korean language and politics; Lachlan Kenway is going to Japan to study international relations; Patrick Walsh is going to Fiji to study society, culture and history; Isaac Bennett is going to Indonesia to study society and culture; and Samuel Bullen is going to study international law at the National University of Singapore and has an internship with the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Other students will be going to India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Myanmar and the Solomons. This is a program that is so well received by people in our region. It is an example of Australia's deeper engagement in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region. (Time expired)
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:35): My question is again to the Special Minister of State. Today, Channel 9's respected journalist Liz Hayes tweeted:
I don’t think @MalBrough_MP had any doubt about the question I was asking. And I don’t think his explanation/clarification fools anyone.
Why is the minister persisting in misleading this House? Aren't his answers today showing contempt for this House and, through this House, contempt for the people of Australia?
The SPEAKER: The Special Minister of State can address the final part of the question. He does not need to address the first part of the question.
Mr BROUGH (Fisher—Minister for Defence Materiel and Science and Special Minister of State) (14:36): I did not quite get the last part of the member's question. What I would say to the honourable member is that I have not misled the House. I treat every question seriously, and I answer honestly.
Solomon Electorate: Volunteers
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Given my electorate of Solomon has one of Australia's largest concentrations of registered returned volunteers, can the minister please outline how volunteers from Solomon are helping to improve the lives of people in developing countries?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (14:37): I am very pleased to take this question from the member for Solomon, who I know has a very strong interest in the Returned Australian Volunteers Network and, indeed, those Australians that participate as Australian volunteers for international development. I am pleased to advise the member that there are more than 100 members of her electorate that have participated as part of Australian Volunteers. It is opportune that she should ask this question, because this Saturday happens to be International Volunteer Day. So, taking that into account, I think it is important that we reflect on what it is that Australians actually do in helping to build capacity not only across the Pacific but indeed throughout the Indo-Pacific region, because that is where the majority of Australians give of their time, give of their effort and help to train and build capacity in different countries. I am pleased to say that the member for Solomon's volunteers are part of the 540 volunteers that joined AVID—that is, Australian Volunteers for International Development. In fact, there are some 1,400 Australians that are giving of their time and that are giving of their intellectual property and their knowledge in their participation in international volunteering. Indeed, more than 90 per cent of those 1,400 Australians work in the Indo-Pacific region.
I am pleased to say that I have had the unique privilege, as I have moved through the Pacific, of meeting with a number of these shining examples of what I call 'Aussie ambassadors'. These are people who are helping to train people throughout our region. In particular, I think of the example of Lyn. Lyn is a lady from the New South Wales Central Coast who is working in Fiji. She is working alongside the disabled in Fiji, helping to provide them more capacity in the future to secure well-paid jobs and helping them to build their abilities and focus on the work that they do. In that respect, an example of someone like Lyn—someone who gives of their time voluntarily to make a difference—really does set the benchmark for all of us about what we can do as Australians. Likewise, I think of Sharon. Sharon is a midwife who is volunteering her time at the National Referral Hospital in the Solomon Islands. She works as a midwife in helping to train midwives in the Solomon Islands—another example of an Aussie who is giving of their time in literally saving lives through her work in the Solomon Islands.
So I say to the member for Solomon and, indeed, I say to all of the colleagues on my side of the House and the opposition members: take the time this Saturday to celebrate the great, outstanding work that Australian volunteers do. They really are shining lights when it comes to our capacity building in the region, and they deserve to be applauded.
Special Minister of State
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Special Minister of State misled the parliament yesterday and has misled the parliament again today, why hasn't the Prime Minister sacked the Special Minister of State?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for her question. She would be very well aware, as indeed would the shadow Attorney-General be very well aware, that guilt or innocence is not determined by public denunciation, here or anywhere else. The minister has answered the questions put to him. I thank the opposition for their interest in this matter. They should understand that the facts relating to the Ashby affair occurred some years ago. The evidence, the facts of the matter and the circumstances—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Charlton and the member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). I have warned as much as I possibly can about interjecting during these answers that I am trying to listen to. The Prime Minister has the call.
The member s for Charlton and Griffith then left the chamber.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will leave under 94(a).
The member for Melbourne Ports then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: The facts and the circumstances relating to these events, as you know, have been very well known for some years. The evidence or the information about them has been in the public domain for some time. There have been no new developments—
Ms Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chisholm is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: no changes or additions to that material. If there are new developments—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Mr TURNBULL: I have, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Queensland: Drought
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert—Government Whip) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Minister, Townsville is the latest part of Queensland to be drought declared. While the federal government cannot make it rain, can the minister advise what our government is doing about water security for Northern Queensland and planning for the future?
Ms King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will cease interjecting.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member was born in Quilpie. He understands the auctioneering game very well and obviously had a lot of experience before he started moving up to Townsville, where he has obviously had a great influence on the political delivery for that city. A part of the delivery for that city, of course, comes from its water infrastructure. Obviously, in the north of Australia, we are very excited about being part of a government that actually believes we have the capacity to build dams again, that believes our future is just as strong as it was for Curtin, Chifley and Menzies, who built the Snowy Mountains Scheme, and that believes the water infrastructure that we will deliver for this nation is not only going to assist in mitigating the effects of drought but is also going to assist in the industrial development of great cities such as Townsville.
That is why, through the agricultural white paper, we have put $500 million, half a billion dollars, towards feasibility studies on the construction of dams. That is why we have a $5 billion facility for Northern Australia to assist with further development. That is why we have currently released to the states—and we will hear back from them by January—projects that they wish to go forward with. That is why I have been in negotiations with state ministers in Queensland on how we can improve and build new water infrastructure so that not only can we create the mechanism for great wealth for the northern part of Australia but we can alleviate some of the issues that are happening now, with people coming out of the mining industry and obviously looking for a job. They are coming out of the mining industry, with an idle plant that is ideally suited to be in the earth moving business, which is absolutely fundamental to the construction of dams.
I fervently believe that, in the term of this government, we will be progressing the process of the construction of new water infrastructure, just like we are constructing dams at Chaffey near Tamworth, just like we are constructing water infrastructure in Tasmania right now and just like we do spend $2½ million a day in assistance in the construction of water infrastructure in the Murray-Darling Basin, as part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I look forward to working with the honourable member as we deliver more water infrastructure, as we see that we are the exciting sort of government with the vision, with the plan, and that will deliver more dams.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. In June 2009, the Prime Minister said:
He’s the one that has misled the Parliament. That is an offence that should result in the dismissal or resignation of a Minister. It is perfectly clear.
Prime Minister, isn't it perfectly clear, because the Special Minister Of State misled the parliament yesterday and again this morning, he should be sacked immediately?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:45): While I know that the shadow Attorney-General has a very high opinion of his own powers and judgements, his simply asserting that somebody has misled the parliament does not make it so.
Family Payments
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:46): My constituency question is to the Minister for Social Services. Minister, there are more than 36,000 families in my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast. Many parents are among the 30,000 commuters on the Central Coast who leave home early in the morning for Sydney or Newcastle for work and return home late at night to their families. These parents need to rely on flexible, affordable child care. Will the minister update the House on the government's progress in funding improved child care through the Jobs for Families package?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:46): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. As she would be aware, this morning we introduced a bill on family tax benefits that will provide the funds to pay for the Minister for Education's very broad, very impressive and much-needed reforms to child care. And as the member for Robertson noted, there are many families in her electorate, and of course child care is never more acutely needed than for those families who do spend time commuting to and from work. There are 9,500 families receiving family tax benefits in the member for Robertson's electorate, and 6,130 families who are presently using approved child care. And there are no doubt—in Robertson as in other electorates—many more who would wish to access approved child care but find that difficult to do. And in fact the Productivity Commission noted that there are 165,000 Australians who want to use child care more, who want to work more, but find the present system untenable.
Perhaps, for the member for Robertson, the two examples that I can give to her would be very relevant to her electorate. Now that we have the childcare reforms before the parliament—and the family tax benefit reforms before the parliament that will pay for them—it is quite easy to look at individual families in individual circumstances and work out how they will benefit from these reforms. And so, for the member for Robertson's benefit, I can give the example of a mum-and-dad family with two children, a one-year-old child and a three-year-old child. And if in that family the father works full-time and the mother works two days a week and their combined family income in 2018-19 is around about $119,000, then under the new Child Care Subsidy and taking into account the savings that are engaged in reforms to family tax benefits, that family will be $1,087 better off—and that is taking into account the great benefit they get from the reform of the childcare system, plus the savings measures that are exacted inside the family tax benefit system. That is $1,087 better off for that family who are using child care two days a week.
I can give the member for Robertson a further example, and that is with respect to a single mother with one child. A single mother with one child will find herself even better off again than the couple family. A single mother with one child in the Robertson electorate who has a child that is three years old, if that child attends long day care for four days a week while the mother is at work and the single mother's income is about $68,000, then under the new Child Care Subsidy—taking into account the decisions we have made to pay for that subsidy system inside family tax benefits—that mother would be $2,845 better off under the reforms that we are suggesting. Members opposite presided over a childcare system that was inflationary during the term of their government to the tune of 53 per cent, which would have, on yearly averages, meant $3.500 more expense in child care. This is an excellent suite of measures for the families in Robertson. We commend it to the House.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. On 19 November, the Prime Minister said:
The answer is yes, I do have confidence in Mr Brough.
Why is it that, while the Prime Minister has been away, no government member has been willing to speak in the parliament in defence of his minister? Is the Prime Minister the only member of his government to have any confidence in the Special Minister of State?
The SPEAKER: The question is out of order. I call the member for Lindsay.
Second Sydney Airport
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Minister, many constituents in my electorate are concerned about the impact of the proposed flight paths for Western Sydney Airport that are outlined in the environmental impact statement. Minister, can you please outline how these flight paths are determined, what scope exists to alter these flight paths, and also what insulation and other sound mitigation measures will be provided to residents who may be affected?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:51): I thank the honourable member for Lindsay for her question, and acknowledge that I had the opportunity to meet with her and the Penrith City Council earlier in the week. Also this week, I have met with the member for Macquarie and the Blue Mountains City Council, and indeed also some members opposite—I won't mention their names to protect their reputations! It was good to have the opportunity to talk to local communities about their concerns about the environment impact assessment for the Badgerys Creek airport, and to talk particularly about noise issues and how they can be addressed.
I can certainly confirm to the honourable member that the flight paths that have been included in the draft environmental impact assessment are indicative only. They are a proof of concept. They demonstrate that it is possible to manage aircraft movements around the Sydney Basin and accommodate the arrivals and departures from the Badgerys Creek airport.
The flight paths themselves will only be determined as part of a new environmental impact assessment much closer to the time when the airport begins operation—probably around 2022 or 2023. It is in that context that the issues associated with management of noise and the routes that aircraft might take will effectively be considered. For instance, it is a part of this plan that all the aircraft will converge over the community of Blaxland. But the EIS itself acknowledges that that is merely indicative and that that convergence path could be moved up to five kilometres in a different direction. Indeed, there may not be a convergence point at all. There are all sorts of options available in relation to noise management, and they will be considered in detail and in consultation with the local communities at the time that those flight paths are determined.
So I can give an assurance to the people of Blaxland, in the hills of the Blue Mountains and in the honourable member's electorate that there will be—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is warned.
Mr TRUSS: consideration and consultations with the local communities—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley has been warned; he will cease interjecting.
Mr TRUSS: at the time that those flight paths are being developed. That will provide an opportunity for everyone to have their say on where those flight paths should operate.
Finally, in response to the member's question, if there are places in the surrounds of the Badgerys Creek airport that are subject to levels of noise above the trigger points that have been applied in other airports, such as the Kingsford Smith airport, that led to insulation being installed, those same kinds of standards will apply to residents in the Badgerys Creek area. If there are noise affected houses—and we do not believe there will be—then they will be entitled to the same conditions as apply— (Time expired)
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister's judgement so bad, or did he owe the member for Fisher so much, that he gave him responsibility for government integrity?
The SPEAKER: The question is out of order.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I have ruled the question out of order.
Law Enforcement
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Justice.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. She has been extended tolerance for being acting leader, but it has expired.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lingiari then left the chamber.
Mr IRONS: In 2013 the coalition committed $100,000 towards installation of four CCTV cameras around the perimeter of Belmont Forum and Belmont Village in my electorate of Swan. We made the commitment as the coalition recognised the need to boost security for my Belmont constituents and businesses. I might add that there was no commitment by Labor. Can the minister provide my constituents with an update on the status of this commitment?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism) (14:56): I thank the member for Swan for that question. I acknowledge the deep interest that he takes in the security of his constituents. The several times that I have been able to go to his electorate he has explained to me the priorities that he has for making sure that his constituents are as safe as possible.
Those on this side of the House are deeply committed to doing all we can to assist with local policing and making sure that our streets are secure. That is why since we have arrived in government we have allocated $50 million from the proceeds of crime for upgrades of local security infrastructure, such as the CCTV cameras that we promised prior to the last election in the member's electorate.
I am very pleased to be able to update him that, even though we promised four cameras, as a result of our $100,000 commitment, we will be able to install a further 12 cameras for a total of 16 for the same amount of money. This means that his constituents, particularly around the Belmont city centre, will have the benefit of a very significant investment from the federal government. I know that the member for Swan has discussed these issues with local police within his electorate. Of course, the Western Australian police are very supportive of this investment that we at a federal level are making to assist them to do this job.
The $50 million we have allocated from proceeds of crime would never have happened had the government not changed, because the previous administration refused to spend proceeds-of-crime money. They took that money and they allocated it towards their dodgy budget bottom line and refused to invest it in crime prevention programs in the way we have done since coming to office.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: That isn't true.
Mr KEENAN: I can hear the former minister yelling, 'That is totally untrue.' That is completely and utterly correct.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned.
Mr KEENAN: Proceeds of crime were not used to fund crime-fighting projects under the previous government. That money has only been unlocked since we arrived in office. We will continue to make sure that we make that investment.
If we had not done that, there would currently be over $100 billion from proceeds of crime locked up. We have been investing that in making sure that local communities, such as Belmont in the member's electorate, are as secure as they possibly can be. Those 16 cameras will go a long way to making sure that remains the case. I thank the member for Swan for his continued interest in protecting his constituents.
MOTIONS
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:58): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Special Minister of State has admitted on 60 Minutes that he procured a Commonwealth officer to obtain unauthorised copies of the former Speaker's diary;
(b) the Special Minister of State has repeatedly misled the parliament and breached the Prime Minister's statement of ministerial standards; and
(c) the Special Minister of State still has questions to answer about his role in the Ashby affair;
(2) censures the Prime Minister:
(a) for leading a government in which ministers are permitted to breach the Prime Minister's own statement of ministerial standards by misleading the parliament without any repercussions or sanctions;
(b) for awarding the member for Fisher with a job on the front bench for his role as a key henchman in the overthrow of the former Prime Minister;
(c) for his atrocious judgement in appointing the member for Fisher as the minister with responsibility for government integrity; and
(d) for his complete and utter failure to show any leadership and sack the Special Minister of State.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek your guidance on this matter. My understanding of the standing orders is that a motion that was moved this morning at nine o'clock is largely the same—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will not interject when I am endeavouring to listen.
Mr Pyne: The motion that is being moved now is almost precisely the same as the motion that was moved at nine o'clock this morning. My understanding of the standing orders is that such a motion cannot be debated or moved twice in the same sitting day. Therefore, might I suggest that, potentially, it could be out of order for it to be moved at this time, and I ask for your ruling on that.
The SPEAKER: I am going to rule that the motions are sufficiently different, so I will ask whether leave is granted or not.
Leave not granted.
Mr DREYFUS: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Isaacs from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Special Minister of State has admitted on 60 Minutes that he procured a Commonwealth officer to obtain unauthorised copies of the former Speaker's diary;
(b) the Special Minister of State has repeatedly misled the parliament and breached the Prime Minister's statement of ministerial standards; and
(c) the Special Minister of State still has questions to answer about his role in the Ashby affair;
(2) censures the Prime Minister:
(a) for leading a government in which ministers are permitted to breach the Prime Minister's own statement of ministerial standards by misleading the parliament without any repercussions or sanctions;
(b) for awarding the member for Fisher with a job on the front bench for his role as a key henchman in the overthrow of the former Prime Minister;
(c) for his atrocious judgement in appointing the member for Fisher as the minister with responsibility for government integrity; and
(d) for his complete and utter failure to show any leadership and sack the Special Minister of State.
I said yesterday that it was past time for this Special Minister of State to go. It has been time for him to go for days now. It is not clear why this Prime Minister has not put an end to this state of affairs yet. Perhaps he has had his hands full explaining to the world why he is pressing on with the—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:02): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Isaacs be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (15:10): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:10): I second it. The Prime Minister's standards now are even lower than what he advocated during—
The SPEAKER: The member for Watson will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:10): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Watson be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (15:12): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:12): I move:
That the motion be put.
The House divided. [15:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (15:16): The question is that the motion moved by the member for Isaacs be agreed to.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The House divided [15:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (15:18): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Bass claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr NIKOLIC: I do indeed.
The SPEAKER: The member for Bass may proceed.
Mr NIKOLIC: During a speech in the Senate on Monday, 30 November, Greens Senator Nick McKim referred to me and those who voted for the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 as 'extremists'. He said:
They are extremists, Senator Rice; I could not agree more.
He went on to criticise the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and he called Labor's bipartisan support for this bill:
… a disgraceful abuse … outrageous collusion between the government and … the Labor Party.
Senator McKim is wrong to refer to his parliamentary colleagues, including me, as extremists—the very threat our national security laws seek to address. He is wrong to question the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has produced 136 bipartisan recommendations, and I call on him to unconditionally withdraw his ill-considered remarks.
Motor Neurone Disease
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:19): You would have noticed, along with other members, the sartorial elegance of the member for Berowra in the chamber today—and earlier today I had a photograph with the member for Berowra. Whilst we have many differences—indeed, on just about everything—it is important to note that we agree on one thing: it is a great thing that he is raising money for the motor neurone disease foundation at Macquarie University. On that, I commend him. And, in a bipartisan way, I would ask people to contribute to that research at Macquarie University.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:20): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Goods and Services Tax
The SPEAKER (15:20): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government’s plan to harm household budgets and the Australian economy with a 15 per cent GST.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:20): The mendacity of the Turnbull government has been on display for the Australian people in the question time which we just witnessed. The trickiness, the willingness to engage in the lowest of standards that the Turnbull government is prepared to engage in was on display for the Australian people over the last hour.
But it is not just the saga of the Special Minister of State. It is not just the saga of the Ashby affair in which we see those low standards and that mendacity. It goes to the living standards of the Australian people as well. It goes to this government's plan to hit the living standards and the cost of living of the Australian people. There is one thing that is clear about this government's approach: they want to increase the GST. They want put it on fresh food, health and education and they are going to be mean and tricky about it as they go.
The term 'mean and tricky' was coined for a former Treasurer, but it should, perhaps, have been kept for this Treasurer because it is even more applicable to him. He has been at the dispatch box over the last 48 hours, Inspector Clouseau-like, saying he knows that the previous government had modelling on increasing the GST. Maybe he knows that because we told him! Maybe he knows that because the previous government had an inkling that the Liberal Party would propose increasing the GST and said to the Australian people, 'Here are some of the impacts.' Maybe that is how he worked it out!
What he did not tell the Australian people is that he has modelled it as well. He said, 'The only people who've modelled the GST are the Labor Party—nothing to see here.' It turns out there is something to see here. You can see that in The Sydney Morning Herald, which says not only that the former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, had modelling done of an increase in the GST but that it is 'now with his successor, Treasurer Scott Morrison'. It is a cracker of a read, if you have not seen it so far, Mr Speaker. I would recommend to you the entire edition of today's The Sydney Morning Herald.
It is not just that, because the Treasurer has now provided us with an alibi. He says, 'Well, maybe I did get it modelled, but the states made me do it.' It is all at the request of Mike Baird. 'I didn't really want to do it,' said the Treasurer. 'The states made me do it.' That is all very convenient. He has not released his modelling, he has not released his plans, and I suspect I know the reason—because it is not pretty reading, because we know enough from what is on the public record of the modelling of an increase in the GST what impacts it would have. Somebody on an average income would lose $3,100 a year or $60 a week, and somebody on an income of $50,000 would lose $2,100 or $40 a week. These are people who cannot afford this loss. We know that is the case under this government, which, as recently as today, is threatening to cut family tax benefits. We know that is the case under this government, which has seen lower wages growth and which has seen living standards fall.
We also know that people will lose not just from an increase in the GST but from it being applied to more things. A very big proportion of the household budget, of the weekly shop, is fresh food—and so it should be, because it is very important to our nation's health. A big proportion of the budget of many families is health—large families dealing with health issues. We know that if the GST is applied to these things, people whose income is in the lowest 20 per cent will pay seven per cent more but those whose income is in the top 20 per cent will pay just three per cent more. We know that is a fact. I suspect the Treasurer's modelling tells us that as well—or tells him that, at least.
We know the Treasurer's other alibi. He says, 'Don't worry that. There is nothing to see here, because we're going to cut taxes as well.' But we know from the NATSEM modelling that if a five per cent tax cut is provided across every tax bracket then that is going to make the package even more regressive; it will hit low-income earners even more compared with just increasing the GST. So it is time for the Treasurer to come clean, to lay out not only his modelling but his plans—his plans to hit the Australian people and their cost of living. We know that this is not just about the hip pocket; this is also about the health of the Australian people—something the member for Ballarat has been particularly active in pointing out and particularly effective in doing so. The President of the AMA said:
A GST on health would penalise the poorest and the sickest in the community when they are ill.
… … …
Ensuring that the Australian people have affordable access to high quality health and medical services is a core function of responsible governments.
The Government must rule out introducing a new regressive tax on health, and instead concentrate on increasing its investment in the high quality health services and hospitals that are needed to meet growing demand.
So we know what the AMA think of putting a GST on health. The Rural Doctors Association has said:
To add a GST of 10% or 15% onto the cost of a consult at the local doctor's would literally be too taxing for many rural and remote patients, with the danger being that many may decide not to seek treatment from their local GP.
We heard a lot from the National Party in yesterday's MPI, because they were sent out as the alibi because no Liberal wanted to do it. Let us hear from the National Party on this MPI as well, saying that a GST should be put on health in rural and regional areas. Let us hear the National Party disagree with the Rural Doctors Association. It is not just about a GST on health; it is also about a GST on fresh food. The President of the Public Health Association, Professor Heather Yeatman, put it well when she said:
Now is definitely not the time to be considering a GST on basic healthy foods. Diet-sensitive chronic disease due to unhealthy eating is now the greatest factor affecting overall burden of disease in Australia, even greater than tobacco. With funding already cut to many of our preventive health programs, it is not the time to add further to the burden of disease. The GST exemption for healthy foods in Australia must be retained.
So we know this to be the case. We know the impacts of an increase in the GST on family budgets and on family health, yet this Treasurer and this Prime Minister seem determined to do it and not to be honest about it, not to be up-front with the Australian people, not to be clear about their plans to engage in a mendacious campaign at this dispatch box. That is what this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are determined to do.
Then there is the impact on the economy. We saw in the national accounts today growth of 0.9 per cent. That is better than last quarter; that is welcome. It was a terrible quarter last quarter. We are glad that it is better than 0.2 per cent. We are concerned that net exports contributed 1.5 per cent to growth, so it would have been a very bad set of figures indeed without net exports. Domestic activity is very troubled under this Treasurer's watch. We know what a GST would do to the economy as well, because we have the lived history.
In the year 2000, when the GST was introduced, the wholesale sales tax was abolished, so taxes came off as a new tax came on. So its inflationary impact was less than putting a GST of 15 per cent on fresh food. This would be more inflationary than the GST itself was 15 years ago. We know that when that happened 15 years ago the Australian economy went through its worst six-monthly performance in 24 years—worse than the global financial crisis. Following the introduction of the GST there was a miserly 0.1 per cent growth in the September quarter and a negative quarter of 0.4 per cent in December. We saw the then Treasurer rush to stimulate the economy, as he was desperately concerned he would have a recession on his watch. We saw unemployment grow from about six per cent in June 2000 to about seven per cent in June 2001, as the GST was being introduced.
The Treasurer has the gall to stand there and lecture us about jobs and growth when we know the impact of his policies on both jobs and growth. That is the impact that we have seen before—90,000 people added to the unemployed list. So many times we have seen the Turnbull government trying to say, 'Yes, but the last two years is all in the past. Don't worry about the patchy economic performance of the last two years—it is all in the past. It was not us.' 'It wasn't me, Guv,' says the Prime Minister. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not a very good golfer—I don't actually play golf any more. The member for Watson is a good golfer—
Mr Burke: No, I'm not. Where did you get that from?
Mr BOWEN: The member for Corio is an excellent golfer. Senator Conroy is not a bad golfer. The member for Hunter I understand is pretty handy—he has never invited me to a game—but he is pretty handy. I am a very bad golfer—I don't play any more—but I do know one thing about golf. There is a process we used to engage in when I played golf, called 'the mulligan', where you have another go if you do not get it right the first time. We have the Prime Minister engaged in one big national mulligan—'Have another go, don't worry about the first time. We didn't mean that. We might see economic growth going backwards.' Is it any wonder that this government, the new Prime Minister and Treasurer are struggling with this set of figures? They are struggling with the circumstances that they will make worse by increasing the GST. They will make them worse by putting the GST on fresh food and putting the GST on health and education. They will make them worse through their actions and their rhetoric. Is it any wonder that this Treasurer is universally known as WTH—'worse than Hockey'?
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (15:30): We are really going through the motions now, at this time of the year, with the shadow Treasurer coming in here again and again with the same tired old rhetoric about a GST plan which the government does not have and which the government has not announced. He is telling old golfing stories—he is now at the level of telling his golfing war stories of how good his handicap is. I am not sure that the constituents of McMahon or even Fowler, to name another electorate that the shadow Treasurer might be interested in, would be so interested in his golfing analogies. The constituents out in Western Sydney might prefer to hear about the NRL or they might want to a story about the Wanderers, but I am not sure the golfing analogy is going to go down all that well in Fowler. I am not sure that you want to go doorknocking to tell your golfing buddies how you do the mulligan. I would invite the whole Labor Party to come doorknocking with me to tell them what avid golfers they are. They have time to play golf. The rest of the country, of course, has to get on with the job of building growth and investment and providing the savings this country needs to run a stronger economy.
On a day when we see the national accounts showing that economic growth strengthened in the September quarter and that we are making a positive transition from the end of the mining boom into new areas of the economy—the broad based growth that we will need to function—it is ironic that the Labor Party is coming in here to sell their doom and gloom, their scare story or their 'not so scary scare campaign', as the Prime Minister says, against a goods and services tax.
It is ironic, too, when you consider Labor history. It does seem that the shadow Treasurer is stuck in 1998. Let's listen to some of the people who have supported GST—the attitudes of some Labor figures to the GST, Labor luminaries that people used to vote for. Let's start with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who said, 'Labor has always believed in broadening the base and trying to lower the tax rates.' He also said, 'This government doesn't have the courage to argue for a GST.' Or let's go to Geoff Gallop, a distinguished former leader, who said, 'I have been on the record for some time talking about the need to increase the GST. I think the time has come to take that step.' No-one in the government has made that assertion that it is time to lift the GST, but Geoff Gallop said that.
We could move on to John Brumby, another distinguished former premier, who said, 'If you look at all of the arguments and all of the facts, it is inevitable that we need to increase the GST.' That is not a member of the government's economic team or a minister in this government or a member of the backbench—that is John Brumby, former Premier of Victoria. We can go then to the Premier Jay Weatherill, the current Labor Premier of South Australia. We are going pretty well—we've been to Western Australia, Victoria and so now let's go to South Australian Labor. Jay Weatherill has said, 'We do need all of these things'—referring to a goods and services tax in, increasing the rate, increasing the base; that is the context of his remarks—'on the table.'
Would you think that the ACT Labor Party would be a little different on this? Would you think they would have a different view? On the question of raising the rate and of increasing the base of the goods and services tax, Chief Minister Andrew Barr said, 'We are open to the proposal.' We know that the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dr Andrew Leigh—a member of your own shadow economics team— is certainly open to the proposal. Just read his books—I encourage the shadow Treasurer to get a copy. I have signed copy in my office in pride of place on my desk.
If that is not enough, we can go to former Labor premiers in New South Wales, the biggest state and the biggest part of this country's economy. We have the shadow Treasurer completely out of step with almost every Labor leader or former leader of the past decade. Former Premier Christina Keneally said, 'The GST is obviously part of the mix.' Then let's go back to Victoria, where Labor Premier Daniel Andrews has said: 'We would not support any changes to the GST but in the event that a federal government were elected on a platform and had a mandate to do it—well that is a different issue.'
The shadow Treasurer is stuck back in 1998 and he seems to continue to litigate an argument not against an increase in the rate or against an extension of the base of the GST now—he is arguing against the original goods and services tax every time he makes an argument in this House. This week he asked a series of inspired questions about what happened to growth in Australia, following the introduction of the original goods and services tax—as if the goods and services tax is bad for the economy in general. He was saying that there was a six-month period where growth suffered, but then he conveniently neglected to examine the next decade, where we removed dozens and dozens of taxes, including the wholesale sales tax and many other inefficient taxes that were holding our economy back. You do not just look at the next quarter or the quarter after that to say what happened after the goods and services tax. Have a look at the next decade, have a look at the efficiency that was created in the economy with those consummate income tax cuts and the entire package that was presented to the Australian people.
The shadow Treasurer has mounted the most bizarre argument in Australian economic history, that we should somehow replace the goods and services tax because we had some negative growth following its original introduction. That is the argument he has mounted. He is not arguing against a contemporary increase in the GST, he is mounting no case against that—he is saying look at the original GST. He is saying the original GST was a bad idea. How would you replace the revenue that is raised from the GST that goes to the states, shadow Treasurer? This is the question you need to answer. You cannot continue to stand there at the dispatch box day in, day out, month in, month out, every question time, asking absurd questions—it is like it is from the school of absurdism—and litigating an argument against a goods and services tax; not just some increase, not just an extension of the base, but arguing against the original goods and services tax. The original goods and services tax is what you have been arguing against in question time this week. You have to answer a question: what would you do differently in government?
Mr Sukkar: Roll it back.
Mr HAWKE: Would you roll back the GST? My colleagues quite rightly refer to rollback. Where have we heard rollback before? We have heard rollback before. You did have a plan to roll it back but then you had six years in office when, if you wanted to roll back the GST, you could have taken that action. You could have continued to litigate this argument. But the argument against the GST vanished as soon as you secured office in 2007. From 2007 to 2013 the Labor government made no argument against the GST. In fact, there was action taken on the GST that we know about—just like Paul Keating's option C, the then Treasurer had three scenarios modelled on increasing the rate and expanding the base of the GST. We still do not know what is in those scenarios. The Australian public do not know what was in the modelling or the directions that the then Treasurer gave for the modelling, for the extension of the rate and the increase of the base. What were they? We have part of scenario three, which was increasing the GST rate to 12.5 per cent and broadening the base. It is the estimated weekly price impact on households in 2014-15. This is actual Labor Party modelling that was done at the direction of the former Treasurer, who is now the shadow Treasurer. He says that we are modelling something, but he is the only one who has received modelling.
Mr Bowen: You've got a copy of it.
Mr HAWKE: We have a copy of it. There is no other modelling. But we do not know what was in scenario two and we do not know what was in scenario one. Tell us—you are here now. You have just spoken on a matter of public importance on the GST so why did you not tell us what was in scenario two or scenario one? Was scenario one extending the GST to health and education? Was scenario two extending the base of the GST to fresh food? Was scenario two an increase in the rate to 15 per cent, or was it 20 per cent? We know scenario three was an increase in the GST rate to 12.5 per cent. It is this government that is getting on with national growth and that has a plan for economic growth and jobs, and the national accounts figures today bear that out. We are going to continue to pursue that plan.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:40): That was spectacular—absolutely spectacular!
Mr Hawke: Hear, hear! Stop there!
Mr BURKE: He wants me to stop there; that will do! I love it when the member for Mitchell stands up and says 'What Labor has to do is tell the parliament how they will respond to get rid of the policy that we will not tell you we have.' That is his argument. There is a demand for Labor to say how they would subsequently respond without the government saying what they would do. The other thing that I love is when he refers to modelling that was done. There is something in common between the modelling he referred to and the modelling that is in the paper today. The modelling that he referred to was Labor wanting to model a Liberal Party proposal, and what is in the paper today is the Liberal Party wanting to model a Liberal Party proposal. That is what is in the paper today. All the times we have had Treasurers stand there looking back at Labor and saying, 'Oh, the only modelling that was ever done was when you were in government and you were trying to cost what we were talking about,' they were holding modelling of their own to prepare for their own proposal and not letting the Australian people know.
It is no surprise that they did not want the Australian people to know, because if you expand the base and increase the rate of the GST you end up with something that households cannot afford, the budget cannot afford and the economy cannot afford. On household considerations, NATSEM modelling shows that people in the lowest 20 per cent of income brackets pay seven per cent more. People in the highest 20 per cent of income brackets pay just three per cent more. That is why they support it. It is right in line with the economics that the member for Mitchell has believed in all his political life—the magic of trickle-down economics, the whole concept that the more you earn the lower the percentage of your income you should pay in taxation. That is exactly what is delivered by the GST being expanded in its base and being increased in its rate.
Mr Sukkar: Would you roll it back?
Mr Burke: Here we go again—'Would you roll back what we won't tell you we'll do?' Genius! Modelling shows a typical Australian family will be up to $5,000 worse off as a result of an increase to and broadening of the base of the GST. It hits those who can afford it least. They then talk about being able to fix it with compensation. People who are outside of the payment system are unable to receive compensation in that form. It is one thing if you have kids under 13 and you are still within the family tax benefit system, but if you have teenage kids and you are outside the payment system, how do you then get compensated? The member for Mitchell says that you do it with income tax, forgetting that Labor took a million people out of the income tax system. We tripled the tax-free threshold, taking it from $6,000 to $18,200 before you pay a dollar in tax. For people on modest incomes, whatever shifts they might think they are going to do, the capacity to deliver for lower and middle income families has largely been taken away by the shifts in the income tax scales. I do not doubt for one minute they would be able to find a way to compensate people at the top end, but for everybody else, particularly people under mortgage stress, people who would seemingly have high incomes but have very little disposable income, for them no compensation package will change the fact that every time they do the grocery shopping the bill is higher
Who would ever think that it was smart to put a price on fresh food? What are you trying to discourage? If you are going to put a price on carbon, you are trying to discourage pollution. If you are going to put a price on tobacco, you are trying to discourage the use of cigarettes. What sort of policy genius would think that was a good idea to increase the price of fresh food and, indeed, to do it by the full 15 per cent? Let's not forget that there is no longer a wholesale sales tax to remove, which, as the shadow Treasurer said, was there when John Howard introduced the 10 per cent GST. You removed the wholesale sales tax and, while we still opposed the GST at the time as regressive, you did not have the inflationary impact of the full 10 per cent. But when you do not have that to get rid of any more, the inflationary impact is the full increase. (Time expired)
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (15:45): Here we are again. I am here to talk about one of my favourite topics: Labor's lies. Just when you think the scaremongering campaign cannot get any lower, it does. But honestly, I am not at all surprised. Why, you ask? Let me give you just some examples of the lies that are happening on the Central Coast at the moment. Last week, Labor and the union bullies turned up outside my office to protest. They took their photo outside the sign and then they berated me for not being there—I was here in parliament representing the people of Dobell. Local unions and Labor members like to turn up in places where they know I am not going to be. Then they complain about me not being there. Last week I was in parliament. When I was at a community event they decided to hold the debate that never happened. On a weekend, when I am out and about in my community and not sitting in my office, they are out there scaremongering to local retailers about penalty rates—another union and Labor lie.
Last week, when they were on their national tour of marginal seats, they dropped into Dobell. After taking their photo, they decided to pack up all their stuff and then they plastered it all over social media saying that I was not there. Then they went into a coffee shop, where they were seen stocking up on their coffee, water and supplies for their day. Guess what? They paid for it—one person used a union credit card. They cannot even put their hands in their pocket to buy their own water! There are no rules when it comes to the union credit card. Then, on Sunday, they decided to turn up outside a Mariners versus Wanderers game and they red-carded me for not being there—I was on my way down here to Canberra. No doubt, they paid their admittance fee to get into the soccer using the union credit card.
We go back to the debate that never was—we know that Australian electorates are being subjected to an expensive $30 million campaign of deceitful and pathetic lies in an attempt to embarrass the government and marginal coalition members in electorates such as Dobell. In my electorate the deceitful and misleading campaign was orchestrated by the ACTU, the CFMEU and the Central Coast Community Union Alliance. Despite their pathetic attempts and considerable monetary investment—we estimate that they would have spent $20,000 of union membership money on that night—it did not work. After they made all their robocalls, four people called the office asking—
Dr Leigh: Relevance?
Mrs McNAMARA: It is relevant because it is all about Labor lies and union lies. It is about your 'BFF's the unions—sending them out there to spread all your lies—and all the money that is wasted. Four people contacted my office to ask where I was—and, of the 101,000 people in Dobell who are enrolled voters, 227 contacted me to complain about the union. So thanks for getting my name out there, unions, I appreciate it! For the Labor Party it is all about getting noticed. When I stand here and talk about the scaremongering campaigns, I speak firsthand from what they are doing out there. There are lies about the GST. The GST will be the unions' next campaign in all the marginal seats. Those opposite prey on the weak and vulnerable in our community. We know that when Chris Bowen was Treasurer he secretly modelled an increase to the GST and a broadening of the base. Any changes to the GST would only be considered if put by the states and territories—we all know that—because it is the states and territories who receive the revenue from the GST. Such a proposal would also have to reduce taxes such as personal income tax and increase income support payments to ensure that vulnerable Australians are not adversely affected, as occurred when the GST was first introduced. But all we get from those opposite is more taxes—and now this other lie about the GST. We are not raising the GST. And where did you get the magic number of 15 per cent from? Mr 15 per cent himself. We have not seen him for a couple of days. Where is Mr 15 per cent? (Time expired)
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (15:51): When government members of parliament come in here and say words like 'not so scary scare campaign' then you know they really are scared. When they have a contribution that does not even talk to the actual motion before us until a minute to go, they are doing everything but facing the reality of what people in their electorate are saying about the GST. Who is not in this place ready to debate this motion? None of the Nationals MPs are here today. None of the Victorian Liberal MPs are here. Perhaps that is because last week in The Weekly Times no fewer than five Victorian regional MPs told us the truth about what they think about this government's plan to increase the GST. Let us count them off. We had the member for Mallee, the member for Murray, the member for Wannon, the member for Gippsland and the member for McMillan all telling the paper about their fears and anxieties if this government increases the GST and if this government put it on fresh food. Those opposite cannot even get their own to be on the same page when talking about their GST campaign.
Guys, just be honest. Come out and tell the Australian people. They expect it from you; you're Liberals. You are Liberal members, who look after the big end of town and not the other end of town—working people, people in regional electorates, people who are telling us loud and clear that this will be the tax that breaks the bank, that hurts these households.
And country people are not alone. The National Farmers Federation have come out and said that they disagree with this government's plans. The National Farmers Federation said:
From our viewpoint, it makes no sense to increase the cost of fresh food. After all, Australians need greater incentives to eat healthily, not disincentives …
The National Farmers Federation is correct. Maybe that is the reason why the Nationals MPs are not in here—because the NFF have been on the phone and said, 'You'd better vote against this one.'
We have also had the Rural Doctors Association saying that adding a GST of 10 to 15 per cent to the cost of health care will hurt regional communities. It will hurt them the most, because, to put it simply, people in the regions will just not go to the doctor. They will not seek the preventative health care that they need.
This is what the Liberals seem to do. This is what this government seems to do. They try and push through a GP tax; it gets rejected. They try and push through a petrol tax; it gets rejected. So, now it is: 'Let's just be lazy and put a straight-out tax on everything, broaden the GST and increase it for everybody.'
What else is under attack with this broadening of the GST? Petrol. Petrol is a classic one. Remember, the petrol tax was originally frozen when they introduced the GST. John Howard said, 'Don't worry; I'll freeze the fuel excise tax.' Then, in its very first budget, this government sought to increase the petrol tax again. Now that they have succeeded in increasing the petrol tax, they want to increase the GST and whack another five per cent on petrol. For people in regional areas, this stinks, because they literally have further to go. It is understandable that the Prime Minister is not upset about this; his electorate is only 11 kilometres wide. Try being a regional MP. For people who live in Heathcote, it takes them 45 minutes to get to Bendigo, where their regional health services are and where their high school is. People in country areas, because they are regional areas, drive further. Broadening the GST to 15 per cent and including petrol will hurt people in regional areas.
Let us talk about rates. This government will not rule out increasing the GST on council rates. Our council areas in regional Victoria pay more in rates than in our cities. In the Macedon Ranges, the City of Greater Bendigo, Loddon Shire and Mount Alexander, people have already had 18 to 20 per cent rate increases over the last three to four years. The state government there is going to cap rates because that is just too much for those households to bear. Now, to rub salt into the wound, these people are going to have to pay extra anyway because the federal government will not rule out increasing the GST on rates.
Be honest with the Australian people. When you are back in your electorates, be honest and tell the truth. Tell the truth about what your plans are—that is, to increase the GST. It will hurt the economy and it will hurt regional communities the most.
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (15:56): I start today by taking to task the premise of this MPI, and that is 'the government's plan to harm household budgets with a 15 per cent GST'. The government does not have a plan to introduce a 15 per cent GST. We are having a debate about the best tax system for our country, going forward—a mature debate, one would hope. But I lost count of the number of times the member for Bendigo used the words 'rule in' and 'rule out'.
Some members on the opposite side would remember Mr Ken Henry, who was the Secretary of the Treasury, who produced a report about our tax system which he gave to the then Labor government, and the government sat on for some three months and, in that period of three months, ruled out just about every tax measure in that report, bar one. That was the mining tax, which I will come back to in a little while.
This GST debate, this tax debate, seems to have been going on just about all my adult life. In 1985, we had the then Labor Treasurer Paul Keating promoting option C of his taxation paper, which he was rolled on by his own party. We then had John Hewson in 1993 bring forward a comprehensive reform package and—perhaps a tactical mistake—release it a little bit too early. After some initial very strong support, Mr Keating, then the Prime Minister, managed to politically destroy that package. Then, in 1998, we had John Howard and Peter Costello. Mr Howard had the political skills and the political courage, along with the Treasurer of the day, to introduce this comprehensive and probably most significant reform of our tax system, and we are still benefiting from that today.
What did the Labor Party do in response to that tax reform? They had a campaign called 'roll-back', which was the backbone of the ALP tax policy for many years. It was simply: 'We'll just roll it back.' After a certain period of time, that became unsustainable, but I am still not sure that they have moved on. Perhaps they have moved on, because we know that the then Treasurer and now opposition Treasury spokesman did commission some research on a 12.5 per cent GST. It is a shame that he has not released that research to the rest of the parliament so we could all have a good look at it.
So, what is Labor offering in terms of the tax debate? We know that they want to reintroduce a carbon tax. With their inflated targets, we are talking about a hit of around $600 billion to the economy and a hit of around $6,000 per family.
We had the mining tax, which as I mentioned was the only tax initiative that came out of the Henry review. While it did not raise any revenue, it damaged the investment environment and drove investment capital away from the Australian mining industry. Certainly, people in my electorate will take a long time to forget the mining tax. There is the multinational tax policy that they have brought forward which many people in the business community know will just drive away investment again.
And while we are crying crocodile tears about low-income families, a packet of cigarettes under the Labor proposal will cost people $40, and many of them are on low incomes. That equates to a lot of money per week. If we are talking about damage or impact on low-income families, a $40-a-day cigarette habit is pretty damaging. What are we really trying to achieve at the end of this debate? We are looking for a better tax system, a more efficient tax system and a fairer tax system which will allow the country to grow, will grow our economy, will grow the number of jobs and will grow the number of people in work—people who have the dignity of work and who are earning good incomes.
I want to close by noting that any GST changes will need the agreement of all the states. As a very proud Western Australian, I know that the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, will not agree to any change to the GST base or level without a fundamental change to the way the GST is distributed. As you would know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, WA is currently receiving around 30c in the dollar per dollar of GST that we pay, and that system is unsustainable. I know that any change to the GST will see WA receive a much fairer share.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:01): Every so often the debate in this House amongst the political class in Australia becomes a little bit disconnected from reality, a little bit disconnected from what is actually going on in the community. It is hard to believe, I know, but it is true. At the moment, something of a collective swoon seems to have taken over the political class and some of the members of the press gallery, love them as I do. Everyone is swooning for this new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. I can understand it. He is speaking in full sentences, and that is a welcome relief; it is a welcome change from his predecessor. The number of sentences is less appealing. It is even less appealing that many of those sentences are about himself. But we will adjust to that. What this swoon hides is a real anxiety in the Australian community, the Australian public. We are in the lead-up to Christmas at the moment, and, in the lead-up to Christmas, Australian families do their Christmas shopping, plan for the school holidays and plan what they are going to do for Christmas lunch. Those cost-of-living pressures are really front of mind around the kitchen table, around the dinner table, when we are planning for these things. This anxiety is being fuelled by the actions of the new, Turnbull-led coalition government, by the constant attacks on weekend rates and by the secret plan being pursued by those opposite to increase the GST by 50 per cent, revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald this week after being denied by the Treasurer recently.
I have a message for the Australian public. I have a message for the people in this building. I will do something that I do not believe has been done before in this chamber: I will quote Flavor Flav. I will say, 'Don't believe the hype,' because when Malcolm Turnbull tells you that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, I can tell you the Australian public are not excited about the prospect of a GST. Some may be resigned. There might be a bit of a feeling that this is a fait accompli, given the amount of talk that we hear from those opposite about it. But I say to the Australian public that this is not inevitable and we should fight it. Labor is taking a stand against the secret plan of those opposite to increase the GST by 50 per cent.
The public talk about a lack of resolution in politics sometimes, but Labor's resolution on the GST is clear: the GST is bad for small business, it is bad for everyday Australians, and it is unfair. The Prime Minister likes to say that there will be no tax reform from those opposite that will disadvantage the most vulnerable Australians. Again I say, 'Don't believe the hype.' This government has an appalling record when it comes to fairness. This government has an indefensible record when it comes to the most vulnerable Australians. When we look at NATSEM's modelling of a prospective GST, we find that a 15 per cent GST applied to everything would cause people in the lowest 20 per cent of income brackets—the vulnerable people the Prime Minister talks about—to pay seven per cent more. People in the highest 20 per cent income bracket would pay just three per cent more of their income. A typical Australian family would be $5,000 worse off. It is a tax that targets the people who are least able to afford it.
But we are told by those opposite that the PM would never bring in a tax increase that was unfair; they would compensate people. But I say to the Australian public, 'Do you trust your family budget with the coalition?' This is the same coalition, the same party, the same members sitting opposite, that brought you the horror Abbott budget, about which the current Prime Minister, Mulligan Turnbull—sorry, the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull—told Alan Jones:
I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the Budget. Every single one.
This was a budget that, according to NATSEM, would make a couple with two kids in the lowest quintile of Australians 6.6 per cent worse off, while a couple with two kids in the highest quintile would be 0.3 per cent better off. Does that sound fair to you? It does not sound fair to me.
The other bizarre thing about what those opposite are proposing is that their secret plan to increase the GST by 50 per cent seems to be the solution to every problem in Australia. The Treasurer says we do not have a spending problem in Australia; we have a revenue problem. Those opposite have a hype problem when it comes to the GST. So far, the coalition has said that a GST could pay for putting back the $80 billion in school and hospital funding that they cut, cutting personal income tax, cutting company tax, abolishing stamp duty on insurance, abolishing payroll tax, abolishing stamp duty, cutting fuel excise to abolish car rego fees and paying down the national debt. As I say, it is not a spending problem; it is a hype problem. When it comes to hype, there is no bigger hype than the nonsense that is being spouted by the Treasurer about tax policy. He says that when the coalition does tax reform it reduces taxes. He says that the coalition does not deal with revenue by jacking up taxes; that is the Labor way. When you look at the trajectory on this piece of paper—I know that the Treasurer it is not particularly good at numbers at the moment because he still has the training wheels on—the blue represents the coalition and the red represents Labor. The figures go up under the coalition, and they go down under the Labor Party.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is to be no use of props.
Mr WATTS: They are the facts. Do not believe the hype.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (16:06): The lived experience of a Labor government is that policy is something that is done on the run. The mercurial maestro himself, the former member for Griffith, personified this. This MPI is all about plucking numbers from the air and wishing them to be true. Indeed, it is similar to Labor's plans for a 50 per cent renewables target: fanciful, frothy and fictional. It is feel-good politics at its very worst. In this coalition government, however, we do not do feelings; we do facts. The fact is that the government has a plan—an innovative, agile strategy for better jobs and stronger growth.
The biggest threat to household budgets in this country is the Labor Party. Their policies and plans destroy jobs, rack up debt and wreck livelihoods. Many opposite, ex union officials, have been insulated from the real world. They have not been exposed to the realities of the private sector. They are not familiar with retrenchment and redundancy. The best way to understand the difference between a recession and a depression is, as Ronald Reagan said: 'When your neighbour loses his job, it's a recession. When you lose your job, it's a depression.' Liberal governments get this. And this coalition government knows that a rising tide lifts all boats.
The next critical plank of our platform for jobs and growth is the national statement on science and innovation. The people of my electorate of Tangney are excited about what might be contained in that statement. They are enthused by the optimism of this government and repulsed by the relentless, risible and wrecking ways of Labor. We know the plan is working. The facts speak for themselves. GDP figures released in just the last couple of hours show economic growth accelerated sharply in the September quarter, with the biggest jump in exports in 15 years. Gross domestic product rose 0.9 per cent from the June quarter. Annual growth accelerated to 2.5 per cent from 1.9 per cent. Both figures beat economists' forecasts of 0.8 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively.
What of Labor's plan? We know from Treasury documents that Labor secretly modelled an increase to the GST and a broadening of the base when the member for McMahon was Treasurer. Why didn't Labor have an honest and transparent conversation with the Australian people about their plan to increase the GST? Why did Labor look at increasing the GST in secret? Of course, Labor have form on working on GST plans in secret and then campaigning against anyone else who considers the GST in public. Remember former Prime Minister Paul Keating and Option C? He wanted a GST and then campaigned against Fightback! The difference is that our government is calling for an honest, open conversation, versus the sneaky, secretive, closed attitude of Labor. Consider this in the light of Labor's $51.6 billion budget black hole of promised additional unfunded expenditures.
Our National Platform for Economic Growth and Jobs will back Australia and Australians who are out there working hard for themselves and their families, saving for their future and investing in themselves and their fellow Australians. The Commonwealth's Infrastructure Growth Package announced in the 2014-15 budget is increasing productive capacity, generating jobs, and expanding business and labour market opportunities. I see this in my electorate, with the commencement of the game-changing $1.6 billion Perth Freight Link project. Labor's economics are pure fantasy. They want to tax their way back to growth—a new mining tax, a bigger carbon tax, a job-killing multinational tax and a massive cigarette tax! The Labor philosophy is: if it moves, tax it; and if it doesn't move, tax it again.
In summary, the best way to boost any household budget is a better paying job, and this government has a plan to deliver an innovation-led, job-rich, high-value growth strategy. Come the election, the question to the people will be: who would you rather have running the show—the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister?
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:11): It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Tangney and to hear his fantasy, his fiction, when he talks about the performance of the government. It is pure fiction when he talks about how the Liberal Party can save Australia. To know that, all we have to do is look at how the budget has blown out under this government. It is all fantasy.
When talking about a plan for Australia's future, the one thing we know is that we have a government whose only plan is to push through the 2014 budget. The one thing all Australians know is that you cannot trust a Liberal government when it comes to the GST and taxing Australians on low and middle incomes. For that matter, the one thing Australians know is that you cannot trust the Liberal government when it comes to taxing, because the highest taxing governments in Australia's history have all been Liberal governments.
Government members interjecting—
Ms HALL: You can use whatever arguments you like, you can use whatever rhetoric you want to, but the proof is there. The highest taxing governments are Liberal governments, and they stand condemned for that. They stand condemned for trying to convince Australians that they are there to create a healthier economy, that they are there for them. Their healthier economy is hitting those on low and middle incomes and then putting a great big tax on everything; it is hitting families with a 50 per cent increase in GST, not a 15 per cent increase. Let us look at it in real terms. This Liberal government is looking at increasing the GST by 50 per cent. That is an enormous increase and it will have an enormous impact on families. It is also looking at extending the GST to everything—the great big tax on everything. This will hit Australians from the time they are born until the time they die. That is what this government is about—hitting Australians, hitting people who can least afford it and looking at making their lives difficult.
I was mesmerised as I watched the member for Dobell's contribution to this debate. It seems to me that she has been stalking union officials. Why would you stalk union officials when you are back in your electorate? Surely, you would be working with your constituents. She actually had four people ring her office. If there were robo calls going out to constituents in the Shortland electorate, they would be ringing me and telling me. To be quite honest, when the changes to the boundaries occur, part of the Shortland electorate—Lake Haven and Gorokan—is deemed to go into Dobell. Those two areas are low-income areas, and I know—because I am regularly in those areas and I will regularly be in those areas—that the people living in those areas do not want an increase in GST. They do not like the government's attack on the family tax benefit. They know that those on the other side of this House have absolutely no concern for them. And they will be very interested when they find out that instead of listening to people, the member for Dobell is actually stalking union officials when she should be out there fighting for her constituents.
Today we learnt another fact: former Treasurer Hockey had a plan—a cunning plan, an evil plan—to sneak in a GST extension. It was pretty obvious to all of us on this side of the House that that was where the Treasurer was going. But a GST extension will be bad for health and bad for education. We need Australians to be able to afford to purchase fresh food. We do not need disincentives for their being able to purchase food. We do not need disincentives for their being able to go and see a doctor— (Time expired)
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:16): It is very hard to follow the member for Shortland because the gallery are applauding rapturously now, after that great contribution. Well done, Member for Shortland. This is an embarrassing MPI from a bereft shadow Treasurer who was a failed Treasurer in government. The greatest legacy of the member for McMahon is the fact that he left a $30 billion black hole in the very short period of time that he was the Treasurer of this country. So for him to bring on this MPI is desperate and it is a distraction. It is an absolute outrage, quite frankly. We are wasting the parliament's time speaking about this.
The Labor Party have, by all accounts, about $50 billion to $60 billion of increased spending or cuts that they do not approve of that they will need to find. Up until now, I have been wondering where they are going to find this money, where are they going to find the $50 billion to $60 billion? The member for Shortland just outlined why the Labor Party are the party of small government and low taxes, which was a bit of a surprise to most of us, but where are they going to find that $50 billion to $60 billion? It was all answered this week, when we found out that the Labor Party plan on introducing a $200 a ton carbon tax, a $600 billion handbrake on this economy. I say to Labor: I am very, very happy to fight the next election on a $200 carbon tax, given you went so well with a $23 carbon tax last time.
Can we just move on from this charade that the shadow Treasurer is trying to undertake today? This is a waste of the parliament's time—and this from a man who commissioned modelling from Treasury on a range of scenarios for increasing the GST and broadening its base. In the short time that he was Treasurer of this country, he racked up a $30 billion black hole, which we fixed, and he got modelling done on how to increase the base and the rate of the GST. I say to the shadow Treasurer: release all of the questions, the assumptions and the modelling that you did. The member for Watson said, 'No, we just wanted to model what would be future Liberal Party policy.' Release what you are saying will be future Liberal Party policy; let us see it. Understandably, we are very, very cynical about the Labor Party's rhetoric, which in opposition is very different to when they are government. I grew up watching Labor Party politicians railing against the GST and its regressive nature and how it would hurt low-income earners. The minute they got into government, they were quiet; they never spoke once about the GST. And now they are back in opposition, they have discovered the GST again. If the GST is so regressive, have the courage of your convictions and take as a policy to the next election that you will roll back the GST.
Every argument I have heard today is an argument against the GST. It is not an argument against an increase; it is an argument against the GST itself. Unlike you, we do have the courage of our convictions. We went to an election and said: 'The carbon tax is a handbrake on our economy. If elected, we will repeal it.' That is exactly what we did. We did the same with your disgraceful mining tax, and you wonder why nobody believes a word you say on tax. They wonder why no-one listens to them on tax. This is the party that basically tried to nationalise our mining industry, through the resource super profits tax, then they rolled Rudd and then they did a deal on the MRRT that raised no money! It raised no money, but it had $16 billion worth of expenditure associated with it. This is why no-one takes you seriously when it comes to tax policy, and, quite frankly, you have not done the work in opposition in two years to fix that.
So when we have ridiculous MPIs like this today, it is an absolute bore for those out in the community and it is a waste of this parliament's time. We are having a mature discussion about what we can do to fix Labor's mess. You have embedded a structural deficit in this country that is going to take a lot of work to repair, and we have people like the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, the member for Mitchell, who is at the table, who are working feverishly to fix that. Now, get out of the way; stop using it for political point-scoring because, firstly, it is not working and, secondly, it just further debases your standing in the eyes of our constituents. Look, if you want to keep going this way, by all means do. We will fight an election on a $200 carbon tax at the next election very, very happily, but other than that you have got nothing to say about tax, so please cease.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! The discussion has concluded.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (16:21): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 157: treaties tabled on 13 October 2015, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr TAYLOR: by leave—Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 157: Treaties tabled on 13 October 2015.
Report 157 covers two proposed treaties:
Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India concerning Transfer of Sentenced Persons; and
Amendments of 2014 to the Maritime Labour Convention.
Australia's International Transfer of Prisoners Scheme has been in place since 2002. The scheme provides a comprehensive framework to govern the transfer of prisoners in and out of Australia. The focus of the scheme is on rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners. It enables prisoners to serve out their sentence in their home country.
Transferring prisoners back to their home country removes language and cultural barriers to rehabilitation and reintegration. For Australian prisoners it may mean access to relevant counselling for drug, alcohol or gambling issues. It may also mean better supervision and support to reintegrate back into the community after release. This is in addition to the benefits of being closer to the support network provided by family and friends.
The scheme also contributes to community safety by making sure that convictions are recorded in Australia. As well, it enables effective monitoring and management of prisoners released on parole. It relieves the hardship and financial burden on the relatives of Australian prisoners held in India and reduces the cost of providing consular assistance.
The second treaty covered in this report is an amendment to the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention. The convention establishes minimum working conditions for seafarers working on ships. The Australian government ratified the convention in 2011 and it entered into force for Australia in 2013.
This amendment will require parties to the convention to establish a financial security system for seafarers abandoned by their employers. Abandonment includes:
failure to cover the cost of a seafarer's repatriation;
leaving the seafarer without necessary maintenance and support; or
otherwise severing ties with the seafarer, including failing to pay wages for a period of at least two months.
The amendment will require parties to set up a financial security system that provides:
up to two months worth of outstanding wages and other entitlements owed to the seafarer;
all expenses reasonably incurred by the seafarer, including repatriation costs; and
the seafarer's essential needs, such as clothing, accommodation, drinking water and medical care.
Additionally parties will be required to provide a system of compensation for the death or long-term disablement of a seafarer.
The amendments will make sure that vulnerable seafarers have appropriate workplace protections in place in the event of abandonment, sickness, injury or death. Seafarers or their families will be able to access compensation for a long-term disability or death.
I can advise that the committee supports the proposed treaty actions. The committee has recommended binding treaty action in relation to the Australia-India transfer-of-prisoner agreement. The amendment to the Maritime Labour Convention is deemed accepted by parties on a set date, so no recommendation is required.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (16:25): by leave—I support the remarks made by the chair of the treaties committee, the member for Hume. As he pointed out, the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention establishes minimum working conditions for seafarers working on ships. The Australian government ratified the convention in 2011 and it entered into force for Australia in 2013.
In April last year, a conference of the parties to the convention adopted a number of amendments obliging signatory flag states to provide financial support to seafarers abandoned by their shipowners and compensation for a seafarer's death or long-term disability while working for a shipowner. The Australian government must ensure that the required amendments to the Australian legislation are enacted by January 2017, and it has indicated that Australia will adopt the proposed treaty obligations in full.
I welcome this, particularly at a time when it could not be more precarious for seamen in this industry. Thankfully, the Senate rejected the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill which would have allowed foreign flagged ships to pay Third World wages to undercut Australian flagged ships on domestic cargo trade. Had it passed, Australian shipowners, required by law to pay Australian-level wages, would have been forced to operate under a competitive disadvantage. Shipowners would have faced a very simple choice: reflag their vessels to remove the Australian flag and replace their Australian crews with cheap foreign labour or go out of business. Indeed, earlier this year, when Perth ship owner Bill Milby warned the government that the proposed changes would destroy his business, bureaucrats advised him that if he wanted to remain competitive he should sack his local crew and hire foreigners at lower rates of pay.
As an island nation, we have a greater interest in a viable local maritime sector than most other nations, yet there is only a handful of Australian flagged merchant ships left. In November it was reported that Fair Work Australia had ordered the MV Portland to sail from Portland to Singapore where it will be sold and the crew flown home redundant. The ship will be replaced by a foreign flagged ship with a foreign crew. Foreign crew members are routinely paid as little as $2 an hour. The ship's owner, Alcoa, was issued with a temporary coastal licence from the Australian government to allow this arrangement to go ahead. Alcoa decided to sell the MV Portland, which has spent the past 27 years hauling alumina from Western Australia to Alcoa's smelting plant at Portland. I believe it is highly preferable for local crews with local knowledge of shipping channels, not subject to fatigue or working under poorer work and safety standards, to be at the helm of ships working around our coast.
I also believe it should be the same for workers in the offshore oil and gas industry, where occupational health and safety should be paramount. Drilling for oil and gas in offshore waters creates an extremely hazardous environment in which to work. Back in 2006 the Howard government established as an industry regulator the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority. This authority is poorly regarded by the workforce. Despite the hazardous nature of the industry, the legislation has not been improved or updated in any substantial respect. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act does not align with the principal features of all other modern Australian health and safety regimes covering high-risk industries. Every person and entity with the capacity to control workplace safety should be thoroughly consulted and protected under comprehensive legislation.
The ACTU has urged the Australian government, the Council of Australian Governments and relevant authorities to embrace world's best practice for offshore occupational health and safety legislation by adopting specific provisions of the model act and harmonising OH&S laws governing offshore industries with those governing onshore industries. The ACTU believes, and I agree, that the existing OH&S laws which apply to Victorian and South Australian onshore industries should be extended to cover offshore operations. As the ACTU says:
… why is the safety of offshore oil and gas workers treated differently to their onshore colleagues?
The national interest would be best served by having an Australian shipping industry and offshore oil and gas industry that adheres to world's best practice, specifically when it comes to issues of decent wages and conditions and uniform and robust occupational health and safety laws.
We rely on shipping for 99 per cent of our trade, including an increasing amount of our petroleum supply. We cannot afford interruptions to this trade occasioned by reliance on foreign shipping. We need a maritime sector that calls Australia home. There is also the environmental interest. Shipping in Australian waters should maintain high environmental standards, especially in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef. Incidents such as the Shen Neng, which occurred in 2010 on the Great Barrier Reef, the Pacific Adventurer in 2009 off the Sunshine Coast and the China Steel Developer this year off Mackay underscore the risk to our natural assets. As an island nation, we have a greater interest in a viable local maritime sector than most other nations. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015
Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015
Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:31): To continue my remarks on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 and related bills, prior to question time today I was making the point that, if the government wants to save money and cut red tape, there are many other areas where it could look to do so. I referred to three examples, including the application for passports and the processes that some people need to go through when they have lost a document of some sort, and the same with respect to a replacement for their citizenship certificate, which can also be very time consuming and costly to both parties. I believe that that is where the government could be making some real savings as opposed to some of the claims made about this legislation.
Another area where savings could be made is in the granting of DGR status to organisations in the community. I note that this matter was debated in the House only a week ago with respect to the Tax Laws Amendment (Gifts) Bill 2015. I bring to the House's attention a particular application: it relates to the Vietnamese Catholic community, who applied for DGR status earlier this year. The Vietnamese Catholic community own their own land in Pooraka, which they secured around 30 years ago. On that land, they built a multipurpose building that is used primarily, but not exclusively, as a church. In addition to the church activities, the community have subsequently added to the main building and now their community centre is used for a range of activities including recreation, general administration, aged-care support and a Vietnamese language school. They have plans to do much more with it as well.
In order to do more with it, they want to expand the current facilities that they have. They want those facilities to be used by the broader community for a range of non-religious purposes. In July they applied for DGR status. Their application was not successful because of what appears to be a misunderstanding that the applying organisation was a religious based organisation and that the new extensions it wants to build would be used for religious activities, when that is not the case. Perhaps they did not make their application sufficiently clear to the minister—they had to apply directly to the minister for DGR status. The Vietnamese Catholic community subsequently responded to the minister's rejection letter, clarifying the purpose of their request, and are now awaiting a further response from the minister. The reality is that the multipurpose building that the Vietnamese Catholic community want to build has nothing to do with their religious activities. It is for separate activities for the broader Vietnamese communities, and will be used for cultural activities, celebrations, community events, youth activities, aged services and the like.
I have attended activities and events held by the Vietnamese community at that location, and I can confirm that they do provide a whole range of those non-religious types of activities from their premises. If they were to be granted DGR status, it would enable them to raise funds more quickly. If they raised the funds more quickly, then they would be able to get on with the building of the multipurpose building more quickly. If they do that, it will, in turn, I believe, save the government and broader community a lot of money, because they will use those facilities for a whole range of social support activities that will benefit the local community and which otherwise may well have to be provided by government. Here is a good example of an organisation using the resources of volunteers and a building that they want to pay for themselves to then, in turn, provide a whole range of community services that, in many cases, would otherwise be provided by the government. Yet not only is their application process—I suspect there are others like it—being delayed; whilst it is being delayed they cannot get on with doing what they want to do. It is a good example of where government process needs to be made more efficient. It is a good example of where, if the government really wanted to save money and, in effect, support the community more broadly, it could do so simply by changing the process—I understand that, in some cases, it can take up to 18 months for DGR status to be finally agreed to by the minister—to make it much more efficient. The examples I have provided with respect to this legislation will, I believe, provide real savings to the broader community and real savings to government, as opposed to the claims made by many government members about how this legislation is going to do so much good by saving so much money for the broader community
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:36): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015. Before I start, this is potentially my last contribution to the House before we break for Christmas. The privilege of standing in this parliament and having one's say is one of the finest privileges any citizen can have in our democracy. I am looking forward to returning after Christmas and continuing the work that our parliament is doing.
I go the bills. Firstly, I would like to make a few remarks to reflect on the comments made by the member for Makin. When he spoke on this bill before question time he expressed his concerns about a potential rise in the GST and how this would increase the cost of living for people. That is fair enough. On this side of the parliament, we certainly do not want to increase the cost of living pressures on people. That is what I cannot understand: we hear speakers on the Labor side of parliament so incensed about the possibility of an increase in the percentage of the GST, yet the same people have their own policy to bring back a version of the carbon tax and call it an ETS. I cannot understand why members of the Labor Party come in here, like the member for Makin did during this debate, and talk about how concerned they are for the average Australian and how they could face a higher cost of living, yet, at the same time, the Labor Party promote bringing back the carbon tax in the form of an ETS. You simply cannot have it both ways. If you bring that back, all you do is increase the price of electricity and increase the price of road transport. So everything that is transported to our shops, everything that is manufactured in any way in a factory that needs power or electricity, and everything produced on a farm or in a mine increases in cost. The thing about an ETS is that it is designed to automatically increase year after year after year. I just cannot understand why the modern Labor Party go on about this when they get so upset about the cost of living. They want policies that will cause so much harm with the increased the cost of living, so much harm to the bottom line for Australia's citizens.
Secondly, the member for Makin talked about how terrible austerity measures are in many overseas countries. In that he does have a bit of a point. We saw scenes in Greece and other parts Europe with austerity programs that I hope we never, ever see in our country. We saw pensioners standing outside of banks in tears because their life savings were no longer there. That is something we never want to see in our country. We need to remember that countries in Europe that are imposing austerity programs do not do so out of pleasure or design; they do so because previous governments borrowed and borrowed, wasted that money and created obligations for future generations of citizens in that country.
I am sure that none of us in this parliament ever want to see a period of austerity in this country, but, if we are going to do that, what happens to this country in 10 or 20 years after the decision that austerity policies have to be brought in? People will go back to the decisions that we make now in this parliament to make sure that we were living within our means and were not continuing to borrow and borrow. With just the borrowings by the previous Labor government, our interest bill is already $1 billion a month. Let's be clear about that: from the taxes that are paid by wage and salary earners in this country, we have to tax them $1 billion a month, not to repay the debt but to just pay the interest. One billion dollars comes out of the economy every single month just to pay the interest on the reckless spending of the previous government. If we do not want to burden future generations of this country with the austerity measures that we have seen in Europe, it is up to our government, the parliament and every person who is elected to this House and the Senate to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to bring the budget back to surplus.
On the specific provisions of the bill, they send the message—and there are practical steps involved—that the government has a commitment to less red tape and fewer regulations to free the hands of the entrepreneurs of this country to get out there, invest in new start-up businesses and create new wealth and new jobs. That is the message that we are sending along with this bill. We have seen, time after time, the unintended consequences of overburdensome government regulation, where a government sees what it thinks is a problem, rushes in and says, 'We can fix that problem with regulation,' only to make the problem worse.
I would like to give some examples of that. There are many citizens in this country who have relatives and friends living overseas, and we transfer about $60 billion a year out of Australia. It is a form of private foreign aid. In fact, it is more than 10 times greater than our official government foreign-aid budget. That money is remitted in various ways. Some is remitted directly through the bank—where someone walks into a bank, puts their money on the counter and says, 'Send this to my cousin's bank account in the Philippines,' or Tonga or Vietnam or anywhere else in the world. Another way is through Western Union.
We also have what is known as the home remittance industry. This is where individual Australians have seen an opportunity in the marketplace because of the banks' extremely high fees and charges. They can provide this service efficiently and at a lot less expense than the banks. It has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to help many Third World countries and increase what is, effectively, our private foreign-aid budget.
Governments were concerned, and rightly so, about the possibility of money laundering and funds being diverted to terrorist activities. Various acts were brought in, not just in Australia but around the world. The result of this was the banks said they faced fines—our banks are all large multinationals and operate in many countries throughout the world—being imposed upon them in other jurisdictions. They found anyone involved in this home remittance business and shut them down. They closed their accounts down, one after the other. We had people who had built up their businesses over a decade, complying with every single piece of red tape and AUSTRAC regulations. They had crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's and had done everything right—only to find their accounts had been closed down.
What has happened because of this? It has had the opposite effect of what we had hoped for. Previously, people went through the official channels of remitting money, tracked by AUSTRAC. We had a chance to pick up whether the money was being laundered or going to terrorist activities. The system worked and we caught people doing that. Our official agencies have done a very good job in doing that. But this legislation is forcing this industry underground. We will end up with less transparency, less tracking of the money when it goes overseas and more people dealing in cash. It was said in one of the committee hearings, today, that there are reports of people smuggling several hundred thousand dollars in cash out of Australia—because of the very legislation we thought would fix the problem.
Another example is in my electorate, out in Western Sydney, in what we call the Moorebank intermodal. Again, this was government coming to the rescue to try to reduce pollution in Western Sydney. The thought was, if you take your freight and put it on rail instead of road, you will reduce the pollution. At first blush, there is some truth to this. With rail you have steel on steel and it is more efficient than rubber on road. As far as diesel fuel goes, if you are moving freight for 20 kilometres—what it is from Moorebank to Port Botany—you need half the amount of fuel, than by road, if you put that container on a train and send it via rail.
Federal and state governments are jumping up and down saying how wonderful this is and we will have less carbon pollution, because we will be burning less diesel fuel. But they forgot to have a look at the real pollution in Western Sydney: particulate matter. They forgot to consider how much particulate matter is produced by trucks and trains. The diesel trains we have running around Sydney, on our suburban freight network, spew out 18 times more particulate matter than truck engines. Government thought it was doing a great job at lowering pollution—yes, you use half the fuel but you end up with a nine-fold increase in particulate matter, in Western Sydney, coming from every container that we take off the road and put on rail. At a minimum, it will be a nine-fold increase in particulate-matter-pollution in Western Sydney.
It is particulate matter that the World Health Organisation has deemed a carcinogen. Yet government solutions to reduce pollution are resulting in a nine-fold increase. I could go on with example after example. The fact is that many times, when we come into this place and government thinks it is fixing things, it often only makes the problem worse. That is why this legislation—yes, it does a few things—sends a message that this government is about lowering regulation, is about less red tape, is about freeing the hands of the entrepreneurs who create the wealth in our society. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, on indulgence, and through you: can I just remind the member for Hughes that he was in the chair when I was addressing this bill, and he pulled me up on relevance.
Mr Craig Kelly: I missed the member's interjection.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Go and have a chat with him.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (16:52): It is very good of the member for Hunter to remind us that we should not waste time and should get on with it and be relevant—I will remember that!
Today I would very much like to be part of the debate on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. We often talk about red tape and the time and the effort it soaks up. And I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not the biggest advocate of political correctness; I think political correctness is trying to drag Australian society down to the level of countries that are far less efficient and far less fortunate than we are. If we are not very careful, the mountain of paperwork that we deal with in every area of life—particularly in the building industry, and particularly for people who want to establish small businesses and such things—could bury us. The biggest disincentive to a young couple to go out and work for themselves is the paperwork and the reporting they are required to do.
A lot of what we are talking about here today is not so much about the business side—although that is probably the most important side of it, because small businesses particularly do not have the personnel and the time to deal with a lot of the reporting and the red tape that we are all faced with today, and that is incredibly important. But it is very easy to forget that this also concerns the health industry, government and non-government, and the aged-care industry, and various other organisations such as not-for-profits or those in communication and the arts, especially if they have volunteers, because volunteers are not going to be too rapt with having to deal with a lot of the red tape and the reporting et cetera.
This bill will amend or repeal legislation across 14 Commonwealth departments that are not the subject of individual stand-alone bills. The bill is about cleaning out spent or redundant legislation. The government must ensure the job is getting done in the most efficient way, and we always look to assess and scrutinise legislation and government bodies to ensure they deliver the best services to the Australian public. But the bill is also about simplifying things, and we have to do that on a regular basis. Any government which simply passes legislation without looking at whether it is becoming redundant or is simply a waste of time puts itself or its motivations at risk.
This bill will see legislation in aged care and the Health portfolio altered, making it more accessible and easier to understand. The administration of residential aged care will be improved, by altering many provisions of the Aged Care Act 1997, making it a faster process. Currently the act requires the approved providers to notify the Department of Health of changes in key personnel and their employment within 28 days. In circumstances where an employee leaves and is replaced by another, this would require two notifications to the department even if neither changed or affected the quality of care. This is an unnecessary requirement, taking up precious time for the aged-care provider and also the department, which is absolutely inundated with requests and sometimes has up to 10,000 notifications from aged-care providers each year.
The Aged Care Act 1997 will still require providers to notify the department of changes in circumstances that materially affect the provider's suitability to provide care. These are simple but necessary changes, saving not only time but also costs. The Department of Health has estimated it will lead to an annual saving of well over $1 million in compliance costs.
Other aspects of the bill deal with medical training and the fishing council. The omnibus bill will abolish the Medical Training Review Panel. Currently this panel overlaps with the National Medical Training Advisory Network, and both of these bodies' functions include providing advice on medical workforce planning and medical training plans to inform government, employers and educators, and the advisory network will now pick up the reporting obligations on medical training and education. Obviously, we do not need two bodies doing the same job. The bill will also repeal part 3 of Fisheries Administration Act 1991. That part of the act establishes the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which has not convened for close to 14 years.
This bill will also change various acts in the Communications and the Arts portfolio. I would not claim to be a close follower of the arts portfolio, but I think we all deal with communications. Once more we will remove duplication of legislation, including that which is under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and the Telecommunications Act 1997. Much of this involves removal of ineffective consultation requirements, repealing a number of inconsistent approaches to the time and method of doing so. Some of these consultation periods range from 14 to 60 days with a requirement of publication on a website, while some require publication in multiple newspapers. These requirements are not consistent and they are inflexible. We should not be tied up looking through outdated and unnecessary regulations to see if they apply. Spent acts to be repealed also include the Statistical Bureau (Tasmania) Act 1924 and the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970. Leaving this legislation in place serves no purpose other than making it harder for people to understand, which is rather unreasonable given that New Guinea has not been our protectorate for some 25, 35 or 40 years.
The coalition are committed to ensuring businesses, community organisations, families and individuals can find information with ease surrounding regulations that matter to them. This is clear, as the government has decided to repeal over 10,000 legislative instruments and around 3,600 acts of parliament. It may not be exciting—and a lot of housekeeping is not—but we have to make sure that the legislation and regulation serve a real purpose and do not just fill out a folder somewhere. We do not want to be overwhelmed and over-governed by regulations sitting idle and providing barriers to the important information.
I commend this bill to the House—no matter which aspect we look at, whether it is for business, not-for-profit organisations or non-government organisations. For all those parts of legislation which require government departments and others to do things and follow certain principles—whether it is taxpayer money paying public servants, or a husband and wife running their own business—saving money is the name of the game, making life simple and not just putting stuff there for a reason that adds to the mountain of paper. It is extraordinarily important. I repeat what I said at the outset. If it is just there because it is politically correct, that is an even better reason to get rid of it.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (17:02): I rise today to speak in favour of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision (No.3) Bill 2015. With more than 30,000 businesses in my electorate of Brisbane, I dare say there are few in Australia who would welcome this legislation more than many of the businesses in the electorate of Brisbane. It will help people in a very, very practical way. As someone who has been brought up in small business all her life, I fully understand the time that is consumed with red tape—the amount of time consumed after hours filling out forms and surveys. It is an endless complaint that many businesses have in my electorate. I have very small, diverse businesses in my electorate—from little Italian biscuit manufacturers such as Dolce Sapori in Clayfield to some of the largest law firms like Clayton Utz and Freehills in the CBD. I know that these reforms are very wide ranging and are going to have a very positive effect on the business community throughout the Brisbane electorate.
The coalition made a commitment before the last election to reduce red tape by $l billion annually. We have achieved that, with a target of $4.5 billion in red-tape savings announcements in the first two years. I thank the member for Kooyong for the wonderful work that he has done in this area.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Ms GAMBARO: The member opposite may well yell out at me, but we have actually delivered on what we said we were going to do. It is all in the stats. We have repealed 3,600 spent and redundant acts. You cannot deny that. I know he is a lawyer, so he understands what legislative instruments are. We have removed 10,000 legislative instruments from the Commonwealth books. For every $1 added to the cost of regulation, the government has made decisions that have cut $11. It is there to see.
The omnibus bill is a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation that is not the subject of any individual stand-alone bills. The omnibus bill alone will amend or repeal legislation across 14 government departments, much of which is spent or redundant or has remained on the Commonwealth's statute books long after it has fulfilled its purpose. For example, the omnibus bill will repeal the Wool International Act 1993 and the Wool International Privatisation Act 1999 from the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. These two acts are redundant because WoolStock Australia Ltd was wound up. Why do we have to have something there that has been wound up and was delisted from the Australian Stock Exchange in 2001?
At a decision-making level, we have also improved processes through this legislation. For instance, all cabinet submissions are now accompanied by an analysis of the regulatory cost and benefit, and that is a fantastic thing. We have also changed the way we approach regulation so that it is not seen as a costless way to address policy issues. The federal government now has a Regulator Performance Framework for Commonwealth regulators.
While we have come a long way unshackling the businesses that I spoke about just earlier from the regulatory burden put in place by previous governments, there is still a need to expand the regulatory reform agenda. Now is the right time to update our reform agenda, because regulatory reform should do more than just reduce compliance costs. It needs to support flexibility in our economy. It needs to encourage that innovation that we talk about and the innovation of the future. It needs to do that in the best possible way. We need to be free from some of these regulatory burdens so that businesses are free to grow and innovate.
To do this, we are focusing our regulatory reforms on the following: we are putting the needs of business and the broader community first, and that should be the first goal always; we are removing the regulatory obstacles that can stifle competition and new technologies; and we are continually reviewing ongoing regulations to make sure that they stay fit for purpose. We are working with the states, territories and local government to make sure that the reform potential continues. We have already seen evidence of that, particularly in states like Queensland, with a one stop shop, and making sure that we have more of these streamlined portals for business to go to.
I congratulate the Brisbane City Council for the wonderful work they do with their innovation and digital portal. It is probably one of the most advanced portals of any local government. They have led the way in this area, and I really do want to pay tribute to the great work they are doing with businesses, making sure that businesses are connected to all those processes.
Where regulation is necessary it has to be designed in the best possible way. It has to be fit for purpose and easy to comply with. Bad regulation, as we have heard from many of the persons who have spoken before me, costs time and money. It is a drag on people's businesses and on their time. More importantly, it is a drag on the economy.
In my own electorate I see it on a daily basis, where businesses, particularly SMEs are restricted by unnecessary paperwork. They want to make decisions quickly. They do not want to be buried in paperwork. We have seen this and we have seen the difficulty of regulatory regimes in adapting to digital disruptors, like Uber for example, or the rise of online retailing. Regulatory barriers can also hinder competition and the market forces that push firms to innovate and perform at their very best.
In an age of rapid technological changes we simply cannot set and forget. When it comes to rules and regulations, that is particularly important. We have to move ahead and we have to be flexible. Brisbane technology start-up Cloud Manager, for example, is charting new territory in cloud brokerage services. It is simply not good enough to provide standards for our current technological capabilities only. For possible advancements to be made for tomorrow we have to be flexible. We must provide those policy settings that promote regulatory innovation, as much as it promotes innovation in business.
This modern approach is also being adapted in government departments, with several being given a digital makeover. This reduces the time it takes to do business with the Department of Human Services. It will also trim all of those associated costs for individual businesses and community organisations by $61.6 million.
It should come as no surprise that the new tranche of reforms have a renewed focus on innovation and on productivity. Allowing spent and redundant acts or provisions to remain in force on the Commonwealth statute books does not serve any purpose. It only makes it harder for Brisbane businesses, community organisations, families and individuals to find out about the regulations that matter to them.
To date, and subject to the passage of the legislation through the parliament, in total this government has taken decisions to repeal 10,000 legislative instruments and 2,700 acts of parliament. Through the omnibus bill and the AAR and SLR bills this government is continuing to demonstrate its commitment to make steady and consistent progress to reduce red tape. Proper housekeeping is part of the government's responsibility to ensure that the rules the parliament agreed to in the past continue to remain fit for purpose.
One of the most omnipresent structures most constituents in my electorate face is the tax system. We are committed to streamlining this process so that businesses and individuals can focus on growing the economy. I note that the Assistant Minister for Productivity is in the chamber. More productivity will result if businesses can just focus on the things that they do best. So we will continue to develop new ways to make our tax system easier to comply with. The latest tool, myDeductions, allows individuals to record their deductions using their phone, which is another great innovation. We are enhancing the ATO online services for individuals and sole traders. Legislation is giving businesses the freedom to communicate digitally. Brisbane is the financial and commercial capital of Queensland. We are making it much easier for the many hundreds of businesses dealing in the financial services sector to communicate important information to all of their consumers. Consumer preferences are changing. We see an ever-increasing number of people making digital transactions. That is why we allow product disclosure statements to be delivered to consumers digitally, unless the consumer opts out. This will reduce the cost of printing and mailing for businesses, while preserving the choice for consumers.
It is this same agenda of business-friendly reform that we are unfolding right now across this government's policy agenda. The government has also signed three free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to further reduce the burden of regulation on business. In fact, many local businesses in my electorate, like Charlton Brown, Nanny Agency and Halfbrick Studio, that are taking full advantage of our policy achievements by exploring new markets and particularly engaging in these new free trade agreements.
It is important to recognise Brisbane's current economic outlook, and indeed that of Australia. There is no question that we have enjoyed more than 20 years of growth, thanks to the commodities boom and the structural reforms in our economy. However, this was never going to last. Therefore, this government is going to remain proactive in creating a policy environment in which we will allow businesses and individuals to transition to as seamless as possible diversified economy.
Where these bills will be useful is in increasing productivity, which is absolutely vital for our economy to grow and to prosper. While significant productivity-enhancing reforms can be difficult to achieve, our track record proves that we should never discount our nation's courage to embrace reform. As long as we are open and frank about the challenges we face, we build a case for change. The lasting benefits will be there for all to see.
For the sake of Brisbane businesses, we must ensure that this legislation is passed. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro—Assistant Minister for Productivity) (17:13): It is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity today to sum up on this package of repeal day bills: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015, Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015. In total, these three bills repeal just over 900 Commonwealth acts, ensuring regulation remains in force only for as long as necessary. Making regulation easily accessible and removing old and unnecessary provisions means that business individuals and community organisations spend less time trawling through regulations and more time contributing to the economy and to society.
The omnibus bill repeals a range of redundant and spent acts, as well as spent and redundant provisions in Commonwealth acts.
The Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 continues the government's efforts to streamline the statute book by removing over 877 amending or repealing acts enacted between 1990 and 1999.
The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) continues the work of repealing spent or redundant legislation and correcting minor errors in the Commonwealth statute book. By removing obsolete provisions and correcting outdated terminology, the bill also makes sensible improvements to the acts it amends without making substantive changes to the law.
Together, the three bills include significant changes, but they are just a part of a broad range of initiatives that we outlined on the spring 2015 repeal day. In total, this government identified over $2 billion in red tape reductions in the spring 2015 repeal day, meaning the annual cost for businesses and individuals in complying with Commonwealth regulations has been reduced by around $4.5 billion since September 2013.
This achievement has been accompanied by the institution of significant transformation across government since 2013. The Commonwealth government's regulatory gatekeeping, including the application of regulation impact statements to assess the costs and benefits of policy options, has been strengthened. Regulators are also required, under the Regulator Performance Framework, to look at how they administer regulation and minimise the cost this imposes on taxpayers, customers and other affected and regulated entities.
The strength of our frameworks is being recognised globally too. The recent OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015 placed Australia in the top grouping of countries for each indicator, including regulatory impact assessment, stakeholder engagement and post evaluation of new regulations.
I want to particularly acknowledge the member for Kooyong, the now Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, and the member for Pearce, the now Minister for Social Services, for their important contribution to this agenda. There is still much work to be done, and we are focused on nurturing innovation and growth and on creating jobs. As Assistant Minister for Productivity, I look forward to continuing to foster this important cultural change across both the Commonwealth and state and territory governments.
This package of repeal day bills, along with other key regulatory reforms that the government plans to implement, reduces costs on businesses and removes regulatory impediments to competition and innovation. Through a comprehensive regulatory reform agenda we can continue to free businesses, improve productivity and transition to a stronger economy.
I commend the bills to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro—Assistant Minister for Productivity) (17:17): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro—Assistant Minister for Productivity) (17:19): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro—Assistant Minister for Productivity) (17:19): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (17:20): I say at the outset that Labor will support the Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015. This legislation comes after consultation with the Aged Care Sector Committee. We commend the government for this legislation and we support it. We have seen members opposite wax lyrical about the alleged $4.5 billion in savings, but this is red tape reduction. For the sake of those who may be listening, the four tranches of legislation that the government has put forward save only $63.6 million of taxpayers money. We commend them for doing so, but it is not $4.5 billion.
We are in favour of getting rid of spelling and punctuation errors. We are in favour of reducing red tape, as this legislation does—and I will go through the terms and details of this legislation. But much of the reforms that have been made in relation to the aged-care sector come very much out of Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms—a $3.7 billion tranche of legislation that Labor brought in in the last year of its tenure, after extensive consultation with the unions, LASA, COTA, National Seniors, ACSA and a whole range of aged-care providers and stakeholders. The government has continued to consult with the sector, but there are continuing challenges.
This particular bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to streamline processes in two main respects. There are two schedules: the first schedule relates to the transfer of places between aged-care providers, and the second schedule deals with provisionally allocated places in aged-care facilities.
In relation to the aged care sector generally as well the background to this bill, it has to be understood that the coalition has accepted the deliverance of the biggest aged care reforms that have ever been made in this country—Living Longer Living Better. The strategy is consistent with red-tape reduction, and we brought that in when we were in government. Living Longer Living Better provides a framework to build an aged care system for the future. It was a strategy over a 10-year period to build a better, a fairer, more sustainable and nationally consistent aged care system. The reforms are all about delivering choice, easier access and better care for older Australians, their families and carers, while making sure that the aged care industry is equipped to deal with the dramatic demographic changes that we will see with the ageing population. There will be a burden experienced by the community and the taxpayers but there will also be an opportunity in terms of trade and investment and the export of our skills, talents and abilities into the growing, the burgeoning, ageing populations of Asia.
So Labor's reforms were about appropriately funding the system and making it more sustainable as the demands for aged care services increase significantly over the next few decades. In the next few decades, the proportion of Australians over 65 years of age will increase from about 14 per cent to about 25 per cent—about one in four Australians will be over the age of 65 years. On this side of the chamber, we remain committed to ongoing reform. We remain committed to Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms, which the government is carrying out. We are also committed, as I said before, to ongoing aged care reform and red-tape reduction.
What does this legislation have to say, specifically? It implements, as I said, the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan that the government has developed in consultation with many of the stakeholders that I referred to. The Red Tape Reduction Action Plan sets out a range of actions to reduce red tape for aged care providers and consumers. One particular area highlighted in the plan was the review of places management. There are changes in relation to: policy setting and governance, streamlining of administrative requirements, and simplification of consumers' interaction with the aged care system. Specifically, this legislation says as follows. Schedule 1, in relation to the transfer of places, says that, when an approved provider of residential aged care decides it is no longer capable of delivering care to residents, it may seek out another approved provider to continue that care and it may transfer the ownership—if I can put it like that—of the aged care places.
Prior to the amendments that we have before the chamber today, there was an indefinite opportunity for approved aged care providers to continue to hold those aged care places in place without the developments of facilities for a long period of time. That resulted in some challenges, because people held beds for a start and were not going about making sure those beds were operational. Indeed, they were not going about making sure that they were ready within the time frame that the public expected or that the government anticipated. When they were transferring beds, what they actually had to do was get the approval of the secretary of the department, who would consider and either reject or approve all of the applications. This was in circumstances where the department and the minister had actually approved these two aged care providers already. It seemed to the government, and I concur with its assessment, that amendments needed to be made to streamline the transfer process where you have two providers already approved. The amendments remove the requirement for approved providers to make applications and simply wait for the secretary of the department's decision. The amendments deem the transfer to be approved already after a notice of transfer has been given by the approved provider. We agree that that is a good sensible suggestion.
We want to make sure that the quality of aged care and the capacity of the providers remain. So the secretary of the department would retain a power of veto, to ensure that the transfer is of someone who is suitable and appropriate, in order to make sure that the delivery of those aged care services can take place. The right of veto ensures that someone is not transferred to a shonky provider but to a provider who has actually been approved. That qualification protection remains for consumers and the Australian public, and we agree with it.
The second schedule in relation to this fairly simple bill relates to provisionally allocated places. I alluded to this before. One of the biggest problems that people, particularly providers, have complained about is the situation in relation to the time frame to get the beds and the places operational. People would get provisionally allocated places and, prior to these amendments, approval of the secretary of the department had to take place and you needed an extension after two years. Aged care providers told us, the government and the public that it takes on average longer than two years to get those residential aged care facilities and beds in place—in fact, that it takes on average about four years. So what the government is doing, and I think it is sensible, is making that two years into four years.
The point I made before was about the indefinite period of time in which provisional aged care places could remain in the pocket of the approved provider without being rolled out. What happened was that communities were not actually getting the delivery of residential aged care services; although the providers got the provisional places, they were not actually delivering them. That could have gone on and on and on. The government, through this legislation, will actually bring that to an end. There will be two one-year extensions that can be sought. After those two one-year periods, it is only in exceptional circumstances that that provisional allocation of beds can continue on. The providers have to go to the department and provide evidence that they can still deliver. They must also show that they need approval because the exceptional circumstances qualification has been satisfied.
I agree with the government; I do not think this has happened. As shadow minister for ageing, as I have gone around the country, what has happened is that too often beds are not delivered—residential aged-care facilities are not delivered, promised, allocated. That can potentially happen. I see that the member for Hasluck is here. I have been in his electorate and I know that the need for residential aged care places in his electorate is real—and I make no political comment or criticism of the government in relation to it. Hasluck just happens to be a marginal seat, by the way, but that is beside the point. I know that there is a need in that electorate for more residential aged care facilities and places—and that is quite clear in WA as well.
The government's amendments here are sensible, and we support them. While we are on the government's performance in terms of red tape reduction and administrative changes, the government has said it is carrying out Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms. I am critical of the government's implementation of those reforms. While I am at the dispatch box and we are talking about administrative burdens and red tape reduction, one of the biggest administrative burdens that I hear about is the My Aged Care website. I think the government really needs to look into that and the hotline. I know the time frames have improved but, still, not enough providers are actually getting the referrals, and people are finding it difficult to navigate their way through the website. It still takes too long on the hotline. And I found residential aged care providers who, but for the fact they had waiting lists, would be broke by now and, but for the fact that we have actually provided the opportunity to get refundable accommodation deposits for high care, would have been really struggling financially.
The government really needs to have a look at that, if they are on about red tape reduction. The previous bill and this one are about red tape reduction. One of the biggest red tape reductions, administrative burdens and challenges that the government needs to face is the improvement of the My Aged Care website and hotline. More staff and resources have been allocated, but they need to do it. The system has been plagued by long delays, inaccurate and often incorrect information and there clearly is an inadequate referral system in this country through the My Aged Care website.
I say to the government: we will give you our support for this. Keep carrying out Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms—we support you to do that—but implement them better than you have been. Make sure you do a better job in implementing them. You have not resourced the system appropriately. You have not consulted the key users of the system—GPs and aged-care providers—as much as you need to do. We know that is the case because the government has admitted it. When the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners wrote to the government recently, they labelled the new system 'unsafe, clunky and time consuming'. That led to an admission by the government that the My Aged Care website and hotline were not operating the way they need to—and, still, it needs to be improved. We will support the government on this legislation. We commend them for the red tape reduction in relation to this, but there is a lot more work to be done if they want to get it right.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (17:33): There is a key principle at the heart of forward-thinking governments that also better positions the management capacity of the governments that follow to deal with emerging challenges. Failing to plan is planning to fail. For Australia, this is particularly true when it comes to old age and retirement. While most people want to grow old in their own home, in the neighbourhood they know and within easy reach of their family and friends and the community centred support networks that have grown around them, sometimes our elderly, unwell and frail family and friends need a level of care that can only be delivered in care facilities or a nursing home. The electorate of Ryan has 13 various homes and care facilities.
One of the biggest challenges Australia faces is how we are going to house, service and look after our ageing population. The latest Intergenerational report, for example, showed life expectancy was currently 91.5 years for men and 93.6 years for women but this would increase to 95.1 years for men and 96.6 years for women in 2054-55. And there is reason to expect that some of us will still be around: about 4.9 per cent of the population, or nearly two million Australians, will be aged 85 and over in just 40 years.
While our aged-care system is world class, people are living longer as a result of better health and better care. We need to make some fundamental changes now to ensure the system is more sustainable and affordable in the future. The coalition government is working to ensure the sustainability of aged care is not put at risk, ensuring that we will be able to provide quality care for older Australians now and into the future. The Australian government provides aged-care funding for residential aged care and a range of community care services, including care in the home.
It is encouraging that those opposite agree with us that there will always be a safety net and that people who can afford to contribute to the cost of their aged care should do so. The changes we are implementing today are designed to make the aged-care system more sustainable, more efficient, more flexible and easier to access and navigate. Moving towards consumer directed care is a big part of the changes we are making to the aged-care system that mean people will have greater choice and care will be based on needs.
As I said at the start of my contribution, failing to plan is planning to fail. The 2015 Intergenerational report shows how Australia may change over the next 40 years. While it projects that income growth will slow, it also shows that Australia can continue to prosper by making the best of our circumstances and opportunities, including by reforming the tax system to promote jobs, growth and opportunity. We need to do whatever we can to rein in unnecessary costs that are built into the aged-care system today in order to make services more affordable sooner, while helping create the most agile, innovative and affordable aged-care sector for future generations. I congratulate the Minister for Aged Care for recognising this and, more importantly, for doing something about it.
Australian government expenditure on aged care has nearly quadrupled since 1975. And, as a result of the increase in the number of people aged over 70, expenditure is projected to nearly double again as a share of the economy within 40 years. In effect, expenditure is projected to increase from 0.9 per cent of GDP in 2014-15 to 1.7 per cent of GDP in 2054-55. This is an increase from $620 to $2,000 in real, per person terms. When looking at the big challenges facing the Australian government, it is generally a good idea to have a look at the legacy of previous governments.
In this context, it is worth recalling that when the Rudd-Gillard governments came to office, Labor inherited a surplus of $20 billion with no net debt and $45 billion in the bank. When the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left office six years later, it left in its wake 200,000 more unemployed, gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion, $123 billion in cumulative deficits, the world's biggest carbon tax and a mountain of job-destroying red and green tape. If no action had been taken on Labor's reckless spending commitments, within a decade our interest repayments would have been $3 billion a month. Clearly, there is a need to rein in Labor's debt and do whatever we can to grow the economy and create jobs.
Excessive red tape can detract from productivity and ultimately lower the standard of living of all Australians. I welcome the Aged Care Amendment (Red tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015 as just one more step forward in our government's deregulation reform agenda. There are significant costs for business associated with various government laws, regulations, licences, approvals processes and compliance—on top of all the various government taxes, fees and charges. While there is always a role for government to set quality standards and protections for consumers, too often the process loses its sense of purpose and grows at a disproportionate cost for service providers. This unnecessary cost—the cost of government red and green tape—is then passed onto the consumer as higher priced goods and services.
Boosting productivity and reducing the burden of regulation is crucial to making Australian businesses, entrepreneurs and workers better off, while also helping drive down the cost of services for consumers. On this side of the House, we believe government should be an enabler. Sometimes the best thing we can do to make more services more affordable and more accessible for more of those who need it is for government to do less. The amendments in this bill aim to reduce red tape in aged-care places management by better aligning the current business realities of approved providers and removing the need for them to seek approval to transfer residential/home care and flexible aged-care places to another approved provider. This bill goes some way to chipping away at the mountain of red tape Labor left in the aged-care sector and is consistent with the coalition's commitment to reduce red tape by $l billion a year.
There was an identified need to reduce the red tape burden on approved providers to enable and support more efficient and effective management of aged-care places. I commend the minister for dealing with this issue in this bill and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (17:41): I listened to the member for Blair very closely and I thought he gave a very good potted history of the Rudd-Gillard proposals for aged-care. Prior to that, over its time, the Howard government invested threefold. From what the member for Blair said and from what the member for Ryan just said, we are going to increase that twofold over the next 10 years. That is my summary of where we are at with the investment in aged-care. Because I am quite a bit older than the member for Blair—
Mr Neumann: I am the shadow minister for ageing.
Mr BROADBENT: You are the shadow minister for ageing, and you are obviously very passionate about this area of policy, which is very important to all of us in this House. In 1950, when I was born, we were transitioning from ageing in the home, with people looking after their own families, to beginning to age in residential care. Where did that come from? I do not know about the cities, because I was a country person. In the country we put in bush nursing hospitals, because four times more women were dying in childbirth in the country than in the city. Local government and communities got together with the state government and built bush nursing hospitals. The enormous rates of women dying in childbirth were cut to exactly the same levels as in the cities. That is what bush nursing hospitals did.
Those hospitals then began to take elderly people out of their communities to care for them as they aged. At that time people died a lot younger than they do today, and we heard from the member for Blair, the member for Ryan and others about how much longer we are living today. The member for Blair said that a quarter of the population will be over 65 in the next two decades. So we have an enormous task ahead of us with the changes that we have made. As we transitioned from bush nursing hospitals caring for older people, there was a very clear need for residential care for people who were ageing on their own, where communities needed to go into a household situation and put somebody into a situation where they got the specialist care they needed as they aged.
So was born the local nursing home. It will not surprise any of you that last Friday I was at a local nursing home-aged-care complex at Korumburra, Hillside Lodge, in my beautiful electorate of Macmillan. I was there to present a certificate of accreditation to the staff, because the management knows how much work the staff had put into the accreditation. Not one member of parliament has gone to an aged-care centre and not been told, 'Look at all the forms we have to fill in. We spend more time filling in forms than we do trying to give care to those for whom we are responsible in this aged care facility.' That has been the mantra for as long as I have been in aged care, and I can say that for the whole of my adult life I have had some connection to an aged-care facility in some way, either raising money or being on the committee or being part of the planning process for a new nursing home. That is what you do in the country—everybody is into everything. You go a fundraiser for an organisation—in our case it was a local aged-care attachment to the hospital, which ended up as aged-care only and not a hospital, as the world progressed.
I was at Korumburra presenting the accreditation certificate. Hillside Lodge is exactly what its name suggests—it is comfortable aged-care facility surrounded by the township of Korumburra and nestled in the beautiful hills of South Gippsland. Hillside Lodge is one of three aged-care facilities under the auspices of the Gippsland Southern Health Service, which operates out of the old Leongatha hospital. The other two are Alchera House, which also operates out of Korumburra, and Koorooman in Leongatha, and they are all fully accredited. There are 86 residents currently accommodated in the three venues.
One of the important things that all members desire for their elderly constituents is that they are able to age within their own communities, especially in country areas and that can move from home to care smoothly, though people are moving from home to care much later now because of the packages that the federal government provides. When there was a shortage of low-care and high-care beds in my area, people were finding that their partner quite often went into care away from the township. In the country you cannot just hop on the train and whip over to the next town—it has to be done by car—and so it is quite often very hard for families to maintain daily contact with their older relation if they are moved into a care facility far from where they live.
Koorooman House and places like it throughout my electorate are extremely important. There is a brand-new facility down at Foster—an absolutely beautiful facility with a waiting list a mile long. It is so important for people of Foster and the surrounding district to know there is somewhere for them to go when their time comes to go into care. It is important for every district to have such a facility, but it is all very expensive. There are 86 people, as I just said, across three facilities, and we know that model is broken. The new model is for larger facilities at less cost—90 beds, 150 beds, 200 beds. There has been a lot of amalgamation of aged care facilities and health facilities right across electorates just like mine of Macmillan.
It is important for us to reduce the burden of paperwork. I think this has been adequately explained by previous members and so I do not need to go into the details of the particular amendments. We are streamlining the forms that people need to complete when they move from one facility to another. Accreditation is not a small thing. If you do not get accreditation, you are closed down. It is harder for some of the older facilities to get accreditation than the brand new ones. I was down at Wonthaggi opening a beautiful new facility and accreditation was not a problem. Older facilities like Korumburra which have been there for 30 or 40 years are no longer up to scratch for this type of accreditation, and they have to put a lot of work into their accreditation. And it often falls to the staff, along with the management, to help carry through that accreditation.
I want to pay tribute to president the of the board of management, Mr Mark Holmes; to the CEO, Mr Mark Johnson; Ms Vicki Farthing, the Executive Director of Nursing; Mrs Marg Radmore, the Director of Nursing at Hillside. I would also like to particularly mention Mrs Helen Husband and Mrs Lyn Carmichael, who are much loved by the residents. I notice the member for Grey is in the chamber; I am surprised he is as thin as he is. If he went to afternoon teas similar to the ones I attend at these facilities, he would find it difficult not to partake in the beautiful afternoon teas that they present. I would like to congratulate all at Hillside, Alchera and Koorooman for attaining full accreditation. I thank you on behalf of the government and the people I represent for the wonderful job you do. These facilities give our parents or grandparents the most wonderful care. There are the thousands and thousands of people in residential care at the moment—high care, low care or dementia care.
I am not going to speak in this place without saying something directly to the people whose work is looking after older people. They are the salt of the earth. It does not matter where I go in my electorate, I am always stunned by the wonderful care given to residents. No matter how their ageing has affected their health, they get treated with dignity and they get treated with care—they get treated with care that in some cases even their family could not provide. The people who work in aged care have my absolute adoration. We all recognise these people and the work they do every time we go to a centre. It does not hurt to pat someone on the back and say, 'I know you get paid for your job, but well done for the job you do—well done for the care you give to the elderly people of this nation.'
It is said that this is the best time to be an Australian. The care given to the elderly people in this nation is A1-plus-plus-plus. I thank all those carers who are listening for the work that they do in our aged care centres—you are worth gold to us because you do what we cannot do; you carry us and you carry our older parents and grandparents when we cannot carry them. The work that you do is very important to us. Having had my mum and dad and Bron's mum and dad go through aged care, all of them having passed away now, we saw the care and love and attention that they received in their latter years and it is something we are very proud of.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (17:54): It is an honour to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill on behalf of the government and on behalf of the people of Grey. It is pleasing to be part of a government that has taken some very solid action in this area to remove unnecessary red tape not just in aged care but right across the board. Aged care is an area that has layer upon layer of regulation. Not for one minute would I suggested that we throw out the regulatory rule book altogether, but it is a right and proper thing for governments to revisit the rule book and see what it is that has to be there and what it is that does not, and find those areas in the middle where we can make improvements to the system to make the life of those who own and operate our aged care facilities and those who work within them develop these facilities into better places for residents.
This bill addresses the issue where aged care places have been allocated but for one reason or another they have not been built. We know we are going to need more and more aged care facilities in our communities—the Intergenerational Report tells us exactly that. We have an ageing population. There are other things the government can do in this area, and we continue to grow the area of aged care support that is home care packages. Home care packages are wonderful things because, firstly, they save the taxpayer money, and that is a good thing. Secondly, and more importantly, they allow people to grow old in their homes. Who would ever prefer to leave their home even if they were going to the best aged care facility in the world if home is a good and adequate place to be? After all, home has that one special quality—it is our home and we are surrounded by the memories of our full lifetime.
I am well aware, even in my own electorate, of places being allocated to various companies to build aged care facilities and they have not got off the ground. In one case I can think of, eventually those places were handed back. Then, when others wanted to access those places—in the same city, as it turns out—it was not so easy. This reform allows for proposed providers to transfer their licences to other aged care providers who may want to operate facilities in the area. Instead of having to go through the rigmarole of advising government, following ream after ream of paper on what has to be done, there is now a fairly simple notification process.
Departmental data indicates that the median time it takes for providers to build new facilities is four years, and 80 per cent are operational within six years. This bill amends the legislation so that approved providers have to build within four years with the possibility of two 12-month extensions. That gets to that six-year point when about 80 per cent of these facilities are currently built. Further extensions will be granted in exceptional circumstances. On 30 June 2014 there were more than 7,000 aged care places still provisionally allocated six or more years after allocation—they still had not been built. These were 7,000 aged care places that the government of the day had planned to have available. Approved providers to whom places have been provisionally allocated have been accustomed to just rolling over the extensions: 'We'll keep our hands on those, they'll be worth something one day.' This will bring that behaviour to an end—it will be easier for us to control that situation.
The contents of this bill allow me to speak on a few other issues concerning the aged care industry, and the member for McMillan, who spoke before me, touched on some of them. At one stage, I was chair of a management committee for a local aged-care facility. I will come to that in a moment. In all the time that I have been involved in politics I, like the member for McMillan, have been absolutely amazed at people who have dedicated their life to caring for the aged in their community. I think of myself as a caring man but I marvel at what these people do and I doubt that I would have it in me to do the same job.
The one thing that you can guarantee when you go into an aged-care facility is that the nurses and workers will tell you about the paperwork. I cannot believe what they have to do. The member for McMillan touched on accreditation. When I was the chair of this particular facility, we would eye the three-yearly time frame as we came to accreditation with great trepidation because we knew how much work would be required by the staff to meet these accreditation guidelines. The facilities are getting older and it is harder to meet those accreditation guidelines. Sometimes I even became convinced, in both the area of aged care and in the hospital sector, that the accreditors were people of fetish. One accreditor would say that the facility was in perfect working order and the next accreditor would pick on anything they could find just to prove they had been doing their job. And if the first accreditor was not the person who rolled up the next time, the person who did come would not be particularly concerned about the improvements that may have been made in that area. It is a fairly imprecise science and it is not a time that nursing homes and aged-care facilities look forward to.
I am reminded of a story that a good friend of mine who was running a fair sized nursing home at the time told me. This facility was some distance from Adelaide—about a six-hour drive and about a 1½-hour flight. In a two-week period, she had four different inspectors come into the kitchen of the aged-care facility. I think one of them checked the gas to see that it was safe. Another one looked at the food health standards within the kitchen. I am not too sure now what the other two were for. But in each and every case the aged-care facility was responsible for transporting the licensing inspectors there. And being 600 kilometres from Adelaide you can image how this would add to that particular facility's cost.
Like I said, we are not going to throw out the regulatory rule book but we should at least look at all these things and see how it affects the operations of these facilities. My electorate is made up of vast open spaces and the towns are a long way in between. Many of our facilities are below critical mass. They are just not big enough to make money on a regular basis. In fact, they are probably pretty good at just trying to break even. If you have a 30-bed facility, or even a 20-bed facility, it is very, very hard to make ends meet. Interestingly enough, in my electorate I have a number of major private providers that are concentrated in the bigger centres. Port Pirie, for instance, has a major private provider and Port Lincoln has a major private provider. But in the smaller communities we have facilities that quite often started life as aged-care hostels. And because of the changing demographic and the changing demand for aged-care facilities, they have become de facto nursing homes with much higher levels of care. They are not necessarily designed to deliver nursing home standards but, because that is what you have got, the staff make it work and very well.
I spoke earlier about the fact that I used to chair one of these organisations. That came about by happenstance because at the time I was chairman of my local hospital board and in the same town we had a separately operating hostel facility. We got our heads together and thought that the smart thing to do there would be to amalgamate the two boards and amalgamate the responsibilities because there were a lot of good synergies—the hospital kitchen, for instance, could supply the meals to the aged-care facility. We were not the only community that moved in this way; it was quite common across South Australia once the ball got rolling. In the end, these facilities became controlled and operated by our hospital and aged care boards.
Some 12 years ago the state government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to basically take over the hospitals. They got rid of all the local hospital boards and now those facilities are operated from 'Adelaide Central'. But, of course, they picked up the aged-care facilities at the same time because they were common property for the hospitals. State governments do not have a direct interest in aged care as a rule, so the state government has ended up with a lot of facilities that it does not really want. They operate on Commonwealth subsidies but that is all they get. And they have no appetite, in my opinion, for reinvestment in this area.
When these particular facilities reach their use-by date in 30 or 40 years, what is going to be the driver to deliver aged care in these smaller communities in the future? The South Australian government has no direct responsibility. It does not seem to have a lot of interest in the area. I think it is embarrassed by the fact that it owns aged-care facilities. The current model would suggest that we should be looking for a larger private provider to move in because these markets are just not big enough to sustain a hostel of, say, 60 beds. It is reaching crisis point in some place. On a number of occasions, I have raised it with ministers here. As long as those facilities remain in the ownership of the state government it is difficult to see how we are going to get a breakthrough.
They are a number of issues that gave me an opportunity to speak this afternoon. The legislation itself is good common-sense reform. It delivers on the government's agenda on red tape reduction. It is going to make life easier for administrators on the ground. It will make it easier for people to invest in the aged-care industry because they will be able to obtain the bed licences when and where they need them—on a secondary market, if you like—without too much red tape surrounding it. I commend the legislation. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on it.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health) (18:07): I have the privilege of doing the summing-up speech on this debate. I thank the member for Blair for his comments, and, in respect to my aged-care website, I know that our department has been working on the issues that have been raised, as each issue is identified. I want to acknowledge the work they are doing in order to streamline the process and for a better point of access. I also thank the member for Ryan, the member for McMillan—and I certainly concur that the staff in aged care are the salt of the earth because of the support and services they deliver—and the member for Grey.
The Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015 is an important component of the government's deregulation agenda. Australia has an ageing population, with the life expectancy of older people increasing. With this demographic comes the need for governments to support older people with their increasing care needs and make the process of delivering care less administratively burdensome.
This bill makes the business of delivering aged care easier for service providers and removes unnecessary red tape so that a focus on care delivery can be at the forefront of a service provider's attention. This bill aligns with the action areas in the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan by reviewing current practice and assessing the case for enhanced policy settings, streamlining administrative requirements and ensuring fit-for-purpose regulation.
The amendments proposed in this bill remove the need for approved providers to seek approval to transfer their places to another provider. They simply notify the Department of Health of the transfer and wait for the transfer to be processed. The Department of Health will retain the ability to veto transfers where they are not appropriate, and must still consider the matters critical to ensuring aged-care consumers are protected. As part of the notice to veto, the location and special needs associated with the places remain an important consideration for government. These requirements to continue to support older people, including those who live in rural or remote areas, will be maintained by this amendment.
The amendments proposed in this bill also reduce the number of times approved providers who have been provisionally allocated places must apply to extend the period of provisional allocation. The bill amends the act to give approved providers four years, with the possibility of two 12-month extensions and further extensions in exceptional circumstances.
Both measures are founded on the three key concepts of only seeking additional information from the aged-care sector that is necessary to provide an informed risk-managed perspective of the proposed transfer; reduced involvement in business transactions of approved providers of residential care; and, most importantly, upholding quality aged-care service delivery and other consumer protections. This bill is a positive step forward in reducing red tape for aged-care providers.
I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. These measures have been supported by those consulted within the aged-care sector, and I welcome your support for this bill in reducing red tape in the management of aged-care places.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health) (18:11): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015
Consideration of Senate Message
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for a requested amendment announced.
Bill returned from the Senate with a requested amendment.
Ordered that the requested amendment be considered immediately.
Senate's requested amendment—
(1) Schedule 1, page 9 (before line 28), before item 15, insert:
14A Before clause 47 of Schedule 1A
Insert:
46B Re ‑crediting a person ' s FEE ‑HELP balance—VET FEE ‑HELP account in deficit at the end of a calendar year
Main case
(1) A *VET provider must, on the *Secretary's behalf, re‑credit a student's *FEE‑HELP balance with an amount if:
(a) the student receives *VET FEE‑HELP assistance in a calendar year for a *VET unit of study undertaken with the VET provider; and
(b) under subclause 45E(1), the Secretary notifies the VET provider that the VET provider's *VET FEE‑HELP account was in deficit at the end of the calendar year; and
(c) the VET provider reasonably believes that some or all of that assistance caused or contributed to the deficit.
(2) The amount to be re‑credited is equal to so much of that assistance as the *VET provider reasonably believes caused or contributed to the deficit.
Note: A corresponding amount of the student's VET FEE‑HELP debt relating to the unit will be remitted (see section 137‑18).
(3) The *Secretary may re‑credit the student's *FEE‑HELP balance under this subclause if:
(a) the *VET provider is unable to do so under subclauses (1) and (2); and
(b) the Secretary knows how much of that assistance that the VET provider reasonably believes caused or contributed to the deficit.
If not all of the deficit can be re ‑credited under subclauses ( 1 ) and ( 3 )
(4) If the deficit exceeds the total amount able to be re‑credited under subclauses (1) and (3) for all of the *VET provider's students who received *VET FEE‑HELP assistance in the calendar year for *VET units of study undertaken with the VET provider, the *Secretary may re‑credit the *FEE‑HELP balance of each of those students with the amount equal to:
That excess x Student's percentage of the total assistance
where:
student ' s percentage of the total assistance means the percentage equal to the percentage that the student's *VET FEE‑HELP assistance referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is of the total VET FEE‑HELP assistance received by students of the *VET provider in the calendar year for *VET units of study undertaken with the VET provider.
14B At the end of Subdivision 7 ‑B of Schedule 1A
Add:
51A Implications for the student ' s liability to the VET provider for the VET tuition fee
If a student's *FEE‑HELP balance is re‑credited in accordance with this Subdivision with an amount for a *VET unit of study, the student is discharged from all liability to pay or account for so much of the student's *VET tuition fee for the unit as is equal to that amount.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills and Deputy Leader of the House) (18:13): I move:
That the requested amendment be made.
Question agreed to.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (18:14): I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the POC Act; the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Criminal Code; the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the AML/CTF Act; and the AusCheck Act 2007, the AusCheck Act. It contains five schedules which will implement a range of measures to improve and clarify Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements, including amending the POC Act to clarify the operation of the non-conviction based proceeds of crime regime in response to recent court decisions; amending the Criminal Code to insert two new offences of false dealing with accounting documents and amending the serious drug offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code to clarify the definitions of the terms 'drug analogue' and 'manufacture' and ensure that they capture all relevant substances and processes. It will clarify and address operational constraints identified by law enforcement agencies with the AML/CTF Act and expand the list of designated agencies authorised to access AUSTRAC information so that it includes the Independent Commission Against Corruption of South Australia. Finally, it will clarify and extend the circumstances under which AusCheck can disclose AusCheck background check information to the Commonwealth and to state and territory government agencies performing law enforcement and national security functions.
Labor will continue to support the government in building stronger laws that tackle criminal kingpins and take the profit out of crime. Schedule 1 will amend the POC Act to clarify the operation of the non-conviction based confiscation regime provided under that act. The non-conviction based forfeiture scheme is an essential tool under the POC Act, which is designed to target those who distance themselves from the commission of offences but profit as a result of illegal activity. Under the POC Act, a proceeds of crime authority—the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—may apply to restrain property that is reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime without requiring any person to be charged. The restrained property may later be forfeited if the court is then satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the property is indeed the proceeds of crime. The non-conviction based regime operates in addition to the conviction based forfeiture scheme. Section 319 of the POC Act provides that the fact that criminal proceedings have been instituted or have commenced, whether or not under the POC Act, is not a ground on which a court may stay proceedings under this act that are not criminal proceedings. This reflects the parliament's intention that the non-conviction based scheme could operate even where criminal proceedings are on foot. The measures in schedule 1 of the bill address issues relating to the non-conviction based forfeiture scheme raised in two court decisions in 2015: the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao and in the matter of an application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.
Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to the POC Act following these decisions to clarify the principles a court may consider when granting an application for a stay of proceedings under the POC Act, including providing grounds on which a stay is not be granted; strengthen protections against disclosure and use of material related to the confiscation proceedings in subsequent criminal proceedings and clarify that, where an exclusion application has been made pursuant to division 3 of part 2-1, which deals with restraining orders under the POC Act, this application must be heard and finalised prior to the hearing of a forfeiture application.
Schedule 2 will amend the Criminal Code to create two new offences of false dealing with accounting documents. These offences implement Australia's obligation as a party to a convention of Organisation for Cooperation and Development, OECD: the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Article 8 of the convention requires parties to create offences of false accounting for the purposes of concealing or enabling bribes to a foreign public official. The two new offences are inserted in a new division of the Criminal Code titled 'Division 490 False dealing with accounting documents' in a new part titled 'Part 10.9 Accounting records'. The first of the two new offences, at section 490.1 of the Criminal Code, applies where a person makes, alters, destroys or conceals an accounting document or a person fails to make or alter an accounting document that the person is under a duty to make or alter, with the intention that the person's conduct would facilitate, conceal or disguise the receiving or giving of a benefit that is not legitimately due or a loss that is not legitimately incurred. The second offence, at section 490.2, applies in the same circumstances as the first offence but where the person is reckless as to whether the benefit or loss would arise.
Schedule 2 provides for penalties proportionate to the differing fault element structure of each offence. The offence at section 490.1 imposes a maximum penalty for an individual of 10 years imprisonment, a fine of 10,000 penalty units—that being $1.8 million—or both. The maximum penalty for a body corporate is the greater of (a) 100,000 penalty units, (b) where the court can determine the value of the benefit, three times the value of the benefit obtained by the body corporate and any related body corporate from the offence and (c) where the court cannot determine the value of the benefit, 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the 12 months ending at the end of the month during which the conduct constituting the offence occurred. For the second offence at section 490.2, to which the lower fault element of recklessness attaches, the penalties are half of the penalties for the offence at section 490.1.
The offences will apply both within Australia and overseas, in prescribed circumstances where constitutional power permits. Section 490.6 provides it is necessary to seek the Attorney-General's consent to commence proceedings where the alleged conduct occurs outside Australia and where the alleged offender is not an Australian citizen, an Australian resident or a body corporate incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory. This requirement to seek the Attorney-General's consent should ensure that, in circumstances where the nexus between the offending conduct and Australia may not be obvious, the Attorney-General is given the opportunity to review relevant considerations concerning international law prior to deciding, at his or her discretion, whether to consent to the commencement of proceedings. It is intended that the office of international law in the Attorney-General's Department would be consulted prior to seeking the Attorney-General's consent.
Schedule 3 will amend the serious drug offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code to clarify the definitions of the terms 'drug analogue' and 'manufacture' and ensure that they capture all relevant substances and processes. The schedule makes two amendments to the definition of 'drug analogue' in section 301.9 of the Criminal Code. First, it clarifies that the terms 'addiction' and 'replacement' have their ordinary meaning, not their scientific meaning. This change is necessary to remove ambiguity in the section and ensure that it operates to capture all substances that are structurally similar to listed controlled and border controlled drugs. Secondly, the schedule clarifies that a substance will be a drug analogue of a listed controlled drug even if that substance is also listed as a border controlled drug and vice versa. These amendments are necessary to remove ambiguities in the section, as has been highlighted by the decision of the ACT Supreme Court in R v Poulakis. The schedule also amends the definition of the term 'manufacture' in section 305.1 to ensure that it applies to processes where a substance is converted from one form into another, but which do not necessarily create a new substance or change the chemical structure of the substance. These changes are necessary to remove ambiguities in the definition, which have been highlighted by the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Beqiri v R (2013) 37 VR 219.
Schedule 4 will amend the AML/CTF Act to clarify and address operational constraints identified by law enforcement agencies, and enable a wider range of designated officials and agencies to access and share information obtained under the AML/CTF Act. These amendments will, firstly, list the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption of South Australia (ICAC SA) as a 'designated agency' under section 5 of the AML/CTF Act, which will then enable it to access AUSTRAC information, subject to the requirements of section 126 of that act; secondly, it will enable the AFP and the ACC to share AUSTRAC information with the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL) and the European Police Office (Europol), and provide for a regulation-making power to enable additional international bodies to be prescribed in future; and, thirdly, it will clarify the circumstances in which entrusted investigating officials of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), and the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) may disclose information obtained under section 49 of the AML/CTF Act.
Schedule 5 will make amendments to part 1 and division 1 of part 3 of the AusCheck Act to clarify and extend the circumstances under which AusCheck can share AusCheck scheme personal information. Specifically, the amendments in schedule 5 will enable AusCheck to directly share AusCheck scheme personal information with a broader range of Commonwealth agencies and with state and territory government agencies performing law enforcement and national security functions. AusCheck scheme personal information is defined in subsection 4(1) of the AusCheck Act and includes information relating to an individual's identity and information obtained as a result of an AusCheck national security background check. The purpose of these amendments is to support Commonwealth and state and territory agencies performing law enforcement and national security functions by providing access to AusCheck scheme personal information, as appropriate.
AusCheck is a branch within the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) that provides national security background checking services for the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC), Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC), and National Health Security (NHS) check regimes. This background check is intended to identify individuals who should not be allowed access to secure areas of Australia's airports or seaports or to security sensitive biological agents (SSBA). A background check, defined in section 5 of the AusCheck Act, is an assessment relating to an individual's identity, criminal history, security assessment, citizenship status, residency status or entitlement to work in Australia. Background checks are conducted under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (ATSA), the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (MTOFSA), or other primary legislation or legislative instruments.
AusCheck undertakes background checking activities within a legislative framework comprising the AusCheck Act and the AusCheck Regulations 2007. This framework is supported by guidelines for accessing information on the AusCheck database (AusCheck guidelines). AusCheck uses information provided by an applicant for an ASIC, MSIC or NHS clearance to request a security assessment from the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO), a criminal history check from CrimTrac and, if necessary, a citizenship status check from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Providing a centralised government background checking mechanism for these sectors means that private organisations and industry bodies do not need to deal with sensitive information, including personal and criminal history information. The vast majority of AusCheck activities relate to the ASIC and MSIC schemes, which are established under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development administers these schemes.
The information handling provisions in AusCheck's legislative framework are primarily addressed at obtaining, using and disclosing information for purposes connected to background checking. There is some scope for information sharing for other purposes—section 14(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) allow AusCheck to use or disclose information in responding to a national security incident and for law enforcement or security intelligence purposes by the Commonwealth, or by Commonwealth authorities with law enforcement or national security functions. AusCheck is limited in its ability to share AusCheck scheme personal information. Currently, AusCheck can share with Commonwealth and relevant Commonwealth authorities with functions relating to law enforcement or national security. These restrictions limit the flow of relevant information to other Commonwealth agencies dealing with national security and crime threats. They also prevent AusCheck from sharing relevant information with Commonwealth agencies which are not traditionally considered to be law enforcement agencies but which may require access to the information for law enforcement or national security purposes. AusCheck is also unable to directly share information with state and territory agencies with functions relating to law enforcement or national security, including state and territory police.
These restrictions are at odds with the significant role these agencies play in law enforcement and national security, and the collaborative approach that is necessary to combat the cross-border threats of terrorism and serious crime. This also causes particular challenges for agencies that undertake law enforcement and national security operations at secure airport and maritime port areas, such as state and territory led police taskforces targeting drug importation. In order to address these challenges and support the efforts of agencies performing law enforcement and national security functions, schedule 5 to the bill amends the AusCheck Act to enable AusCheck to directly share information with state and territory authorities and with a broader range of Commonwealth authorities. This sharing will continue to be limited to the performance of functions relating to law enforcement or national security, and it will be subjected to strong safeguards.
Appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the disclosure of AusCheck scheme personal information under the AusCheck Act. Criminal offences are included in section 15 of the AusCheck Act, which makes it an offence to unlawfully disclose AusCheck scheme personal information. An offence under this section is punishable by up to two years imprisonment. These offences provide additional protections for information obtained by AusCheck and create an obligation on AusCheck staff to ensure information is shared appropriately at all times. AusCheck issues privacy notices to applicants advising them how their information will be used and to acquire consent for the collection and disclosure of their personal information. Each applicant receives a privacy notice and the privacy policy is also published on the AusCheck webpage.
The Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department issues the AusCheck guidelines under regulation 15 of the AusCheck regulations which establish a compulsory framework for AusCheck staff to consider in determining the legality of requests for personal information under subparagraph 14(2)(b)(iii) of the AusCheck Act. The AusCheck guidelines implement recommendation 46 of the AusCheck privacy impact assessment for the development of a protocol relating to the disclosure of AusCheck scheme personal information.
The AusCheck guidelines are developed in consultation with agencies that will be receiving information, to ensure appropriate contact officers and authorisations are in place. The AusCheck guidelines are published on the AusCheck webpage. They require Commonwealth agencies seeking access to AusCheck scheme personal information to be a 'recognised Commonwealth authority' or accredited as an 'authority to use information for law enforcement and national security purposes'. In order to be so accredited, agencies must provide information to AusCheck establishing its law enforcement or national security functions and the legislative or other authority supporting this function. Information is only shared with nominated senior executives, and written undertakings outline the law enforcement or national security purposes for the information. The AusCheck guidelines will continue to apply how information is shared with Commonwealth authorities under subparagraph 14(2)(b)(iii). To ensure appropriate accreditation and protections for information shared with state and territory authorities under new subparagraph 14(2)(b)(iiia), state and territory authorities will also be subject to AusCheck guidelines established under regulation 15 of the AusCheck Regulations.
AusCheck has memoranda of understandings in place with relevant authorities that set out the key principles and obligations relating to the sharing of AusCheck scheme personal information. The MOUs outline the purposes for which AusCheck information may be shared, and they place obligations on receiving agencies to manage and control access to AusCheck information at all times so as to protect the privacy of individuals and the confidentiality of the information received. These safeguards will continue to apply to information disclosed under new subparagraphs 14(2)(b)(iii) and (iiia) to ensure AusCheck scheme personal information is only accessed by Commonwealth, state and territory agencies performing law enforcement or national security functions, and this information is dealt with appropriately within these receiving agencies. Agencies that receive AusCheck scheme personal information are also required to comply with all relevant privacy, recordkeeping, records disposal, auditing and reporting requirements. We thank the minister for briefing the opposition on the measures found in this bill.
In conclusion, to ensure the proper scrutiny of this bill, Labor will be referring it to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. This will ensure that the bill receives a proper level of scrutiny from interested stakeholders, and will ensure that the legislation that goes forward is indeed meeting the intent of this parliament. We will carefully consider the views expressed to the committee and the final committee report when it is released in due course. Labor has championed legislation in both government and opposition to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to confiscate unexplained wealth from criminal figures. This is a critical weapon to enable our law enforcement agencies to crush criminal organisations in Australia. Labor will support the measures in this bill, which will improve and clarify criminal justice arrangements pending any negative outcomes reported by the Senate committee. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (18:33): I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015, a bill which improves and provides further clarification to Commonwealth justice arrangements. The bill makes important amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and the AusCheck Act 2007. The amendments are a multi-faceted approach to improvements that will, through the five schedules included, further enhance the abilities of Commonwealth investigative and prosecutorial bodies to operate and gather intelligence, target and confiscate proceeds of crime, and provide overall improvements to their administrative efficacy.
Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—the POC Act—to elucidate the functions of the non-conviction based confiscation system provided for in this act. The non-conviction based scheme of forfeiting proceeds of crime was introduced in 2002 after the Confiscation that counts report by the Australian Law Reform Commission noted the Commonwealth's conviction-based proceeds of crime laws were deficient. Through advanced technology and globalisation, people at the head of criminal organisations could separate themselves from individual acts of crime, thereby avoiding criminal conviction and keeping their profits from crime out of reach of conviction based laws.
The POC Act provides for a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds and instruments of, and benefits gained from, Commonwealth and foreign indictable offences, as well as certain offences against state and territory law. The confiscated property may later, if a court is satisfied on the balance of probability that the property consists of proceeds of crime, be forfeited. The non-conviction based scheme will operate in addition to the conviction based forfeiture scheme. Within the POC Act, new subsections under section 319 clarify whether a court may or may not grant a stay. The provision is a particular reflection of the parliament's intention that the non-conviction based scheme may operate concurrently with criminal proceedings in motion. Concurrent civil and criminal proceedings are possible and therefore require specific consideration of the individual circumstances and associated risks of prejudice in order to determine if a stay is able to be granted. The amendments to the POC Act also reinforce protections against the disclosure and use of material related to the confiscation proceedings in subsequent criminal proceedings. There are safeguards against prejudice where a person is facing both proceeds of crime and criminal proceedings.
Schedule 2 of the bill makes amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995—that is, the Criminal Code—to create new offences that relate to the falsification of accounting documents. The two amendments have been implemented to ensure we fulfil our obligation as party to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions—more simply known as the OECD antibribery convention. Article 8 of the OECD antibribery convention requires that parties create offences of false accounting for the purposes of concealing or enabling bribes to a foreign public official.
To date, Australia has relied upon section 286—that is, the obligation to keep financial records—and section 1307 on the falsification of books of the Corporations Act 2001 and similar state and territory offences to combat false accounting and demonstrate adherence to article 8 of the convention. Upon review in 2012, however, it was found that Australia was not fully implementing the requirements of article 8 as the OECD's working group on bribery found that the provisions either did not apply to a wide enough range of circumstances or did not apply adequate sanctions.
There are two new offences in the new division 490 of the Criminal Code that enforce dealing with accounting documents. They apply in instances where a person makes, alters, destroys or conceals an accounting document or where a person fails to make or alter an accounting document that the person is under a duty to make or alter with the intention that the person's conduct would facilitate, conceal or disguise the receiving or giving of a benefit that is not legitimately due or a loss that is not legitimately incurred. The second offence allows for the same as the first offence; however, it takes into consideration 'recklessness' as opposed to 'intention'. The penalties for these offences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence—namely, the penalty for recklessness is half that of intentionally falsifying accounting documents.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Criminal Code part 9.1 in relation to serious drug offences. The amendments to the definition of 'drug analogue' will remove ambiguities to ensure the integrity of serious drug offences. It also clarifies that the terms 'addition' and 'replacement' have their ordinary meaning, not their scientific meaning.
Listed controlled and border controlled drugs are substances listed by their chemical structure. This alteration is necessary to ensure that all substances that are structurally similar to listed controlled and border controlled drugs, known as 'drug analogues', are captured. It ensures that the manufacturers of listed controlled and border controlled drugs are unable to avoid prosecution under the Criminal Code.
The Criminal Code contains offences relating to the manufacture of controlled drugs, defining 'manufacture' to be any process by which a substance is produced other than the cultivation of a plant and states that the processes of extracting or refining a substance and of transforming one substance into another are included in the meaning of 'manufacture'. The amendments contained in schedule 3 of this bill, however, will make it clear that a process which converts a substance from one form into another will fall within the meaning of 'manufacture'. This means that the Criminal Code will capture processes that change the form of a substance—for example, from a liquid to a powder or from a powder into a pill—but do not necessarily change the chemical structure of the existing substance.
The changes included in schedule 3 are a continuation of the government's commitment to take a tough stance on serious and organised crime, particularly drug crime. The current epidemic of the drug ice in Australia, about which I have spoken on many occasions, is testament to the necessity of these changes. We in government need to do everything we can to ensure that the manufacturers and peddlers of illicit drugs are able to be prosecuted with the full weight of the law.
Continued vigilance and support for our law enforcement and prosecution agencies is essential to being tough on people who commit crimes. The more we equip Australia's law enforcement and prosecution agencies, the more they can work to thwart the supply and manufacture of the illicit drugs that are causing so much destruction in communities.
That includes communities such as my electorate of Dobell, where I regularly hear of the destruction of families and relationships due to the use of illicit drugs, particularly ice. The family and friends of a 25-year-old woman are mourning the loss of her life after she consumed ecstasy at the Stereosonic festival in Sydney. Another woman, aged 22, escaped with her life after she was rushed to hospital in a coma. She had likewise consumed ecstasy. Despite a heavy police presence at the festival, these young people, along with many others, still rolled the dice with illicit drugs and risked their lives. Another 120 young people were treated at the festival for the effects of illicit drugs. As a government, we are committed to doing everything we can to stop the manufacture and supply of illicit drugs, because one less manufacturer could mean a life saved.
Schedule 4 of this bill provides further explanations to and addresses operational constraints that have been identified by law enforcement agencies in relation to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. The amendments enable a wider range of designated officials and agencies to access and share information obtained under the AML/CTF Act. Specifically, the definition of 'foreign law enforcement agencies' will be extended to include Interpol and Europol. There is a provision for a regulation-making power to enable additional international bodies to be prescribed in the future, although this will remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
This is to the benefit of Australia's relationship with foreign countries and international organisations, enabling efficient and effective cooperation in the investigation of transnational and multijurisdictional crime. The present definition of 'foreign for enforcement agency' means AUSTRAC information is only able to be shared with the government body that has responsibility for law enforcement in a foreign country or part thereof. It does not extend to international law enforcement coordination and cooperation bodies that are comprised of multiple member countries. The amendments included in schedule 4 of the bill address these issues.
The bill also amends the secrecy and access provision of the AML/CTF Act to ensure that entrusted investigating officials have clear authority to make external disclosures of information and documents obtained under the act where such disclosure is done for the purposes of or in connection with the performance of the duties and functions of their office. This includes investigative purposes such as disclosures in relation to obtaining warrants. It enables certain designated persons to obtain further information and documents through written notice, implementing international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force requiring competent authorities to obtain documents and information for use in investigations, prosecutions and related actions pertaining to money laundering and terrorist financing.
Schedule 5 of the bill makes amendment to the AusCheck Act 2007, specifically enabling AusCheck to directly share information with state and territory government agencies and a broader range of Commonwealth agencies which are performing law enforcement and national security functions. This rectifies present restrictions where AusCheck is unable to share information with Commonwealth authorities that have functions relating to law enforcement or national security.
State and territory agencies are presently unable to access AusCheck information, which is contradictory, given the significant role these agencies play in law enforcement and national security. The government recognises the necessity of having a collaborative approach to law enforcement and national security, particularly given our present high terror-threat rating. We need to combat threats across state and territory borders and ensure that the relevant law enforcement and national security operations have access to the information they require.
AusCheck scheme personal information includes information relating to an individual's identity and information obtained as a result of an AusCheck national security background check. This information can include criminal history, matters relevant to a security assessment under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and information relating to an individual's citizenship status, residency status and entitlement to work in Australia. Naturally, the disclosure of this information will remain subject to robust safeguards and guidelines, including the criminal offences outlined in section 15 of the AusCheck Act for the unlawful disclosure of AusCheck scheme personal information, which carry penalties of up to two years imprisonment.
AusCheck issues privacy notices to applicants advising them about how their information will be used and to acquire consent for the collection and disclosure of their personal information. AusCheck has memoranda of understanding in place with relevant authorities that include the key principles and obligations relating to the sharing of personal information. The sharing of information will still be limited to functions that relate to law enforcement or national security.
This bill is a sensible approach to ensuring that we, as a government, have clear legislative frameworks to enhance the ability of Commonwealth and other agencies to work effectively to combat crime and prosecute criminal offences. The sharing of relevant information between relevant agencies will enhance our law enforcement across state and territory borders and ensure that we remain ever vigilant in matters of national security and the war against illicit drugs.
I congratulate the Minister for Justice for his extensive work in presenting this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (18:47 ): What a pleasure it is to be speaking on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015, which deals with, amongst other things, the proceeds of crimes legislation—legislation that we support. We supported it in government. We built on it in government and support it in opposition because we are committed to ensuring that there are strong laws that will tackle the kingpins of crime and remove their ill-gotten gains. However, we think it is important to refer the bill to a Senate inquiry so that the parliament can be satisfied that the bill achieves its stated objectives without any untoward or perverse consequences. We have championed the legislation in both government and opposition to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers that they need to confiscate unexplained, ill-gotten wealth from criminal figures. We will continue to support these sorts of bills.
The bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Criminal Code Act, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and the AusCheck Act. It will implement a range of measures to improve and clarify Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements, including a number of technical changes, such as amending the proceeds of crime legislation, to clarify the operation of the non-conviction based proceeds of crime regime. These measures come in response to a series of recent court decisions.
In some circumstances there can be a stay of confiscation proceedings, and that should always remain the case. But what this bill does is make sure that this cannot be used as a tool to delay what is always going to be the inevitable. A court may still opt to stay proceedings, if it is in the interests of justice to do so—a provision which we strongly defend. However, the person who faces having their assets confiscated cannot just say that they may face charges or have to give evidence in a related criminal trial at some future date as a ruse to avoid confiscation of their ill-gotten assets.
The bill also amends the criminal code to insert two new offences of false dealing with accounting documents. This allows us to strengthen our compliance with the OECD anti-bribery convention. Under the changes in this bill, conduct that involves altering, destroying or concealing an accounting document will be criminalised. These are straightforward, sensible changes, and I welcome them. They will improve and clarify criminal justice arrangements, pending the report of the Senate committee.
It would be remiss of me if I did not take the opportunity to assess, during the course of a parliamentary debate on a bill that deals with the proceeds of crime, to reflect upon the record of the Abbott-Turnbull government when it comes to the disbursement of funds which have been confiscated through the Proceeds of Crime Act. It would not come as a surprise to anyone in this chamber that many of the proceeds of crime relate to drug trafficking and related crime. It is estimated that crime—that is all crime—costs Australia nearly $36 billion a year. Drug-related crime represents a significant proportion of this cost and is of increasing global concern. What some may not be aware of, however, is that money from the scheme's Confiscated Assets Account—that is, the account into which confiscated moneys go prior to disbursement—allows for payments to be made under a program approved by the Minister for Justice. The money may, for example, be put towards crime prevention, law enforcement or diversionary measures and also measures relating to the treatment of drug addiction. This is something that, as a shadow minister in the Health portfolio, I am very interested in. This is a sensible scenario. It takes the proceeds—the ill-gotten gains—from the criminals who prey on vulnerable members of society, and it directs that money into efforts to steer people towards a better life, particularly in relation to rehabilitation. Workers on the front line in the treatment sector need all the support that they can get, because every extra dollar will count. Grants from this account can really go a long way to helping with substance misuse problems. It helps them turn their life around.
When Labor were in government, we used the proceeds of crime scheme's Confiscated Assets Account to fund projects which would support alcohol and illicit drug treatment and rehabilitation as well as prevention strategies. In fact, we spent around $5.8 million supporting treatment workers on the front line. I will give a couple of examples: $149,000 was given to a project developing and implementing an alcohol and drug program for women in prison; another nearly half a million dollars was given to the Inside Out through care program, which assisted inmates affected by drug and alcohol use to accept support and treatment services so that they could successfully rejoin the community; and another $145,000 went to the Getting It Together project, which addressed drug and alcohol use within the Coonamble community in the remote central western plains of my own state of New South Wales.
It was not only the previous Labor government which adopted these strategies. Deputy Speaker Vasta, you have been in this place quite some time. You are probably familiar with the fact that the Howard government had a similar idea. They dedicated funds to projects of real use to workers on the front line and the communities that they support. Deeply regrettably, the Abbott and Turnbull governments have ignored the sector and instead dedicated funds from the account to support projects within their own electorate. It is perhaps not unkind of me to suggest that this was, in many instances, a pork-barrelling exercise in the lead-up to a federal election.
I think that the justice minister is truly committed to this area of public policy, but he can do a lot better. He can do a lot better when it comes to disbursement of funds. I remind you, Deputy Speaker, that this is a man who said earlier this year—and this goes to the nub of the problem—in relation to methamphetamine use that, 'We are not going to police our way out of this. We're going to need to look at the health and education programs if we are going to turn this problem around.' You would expect that a man who held that conviction in his heart would put that conviction into practice when it came to disbursing funds from this account. Regrettably, under the Abbott government and under the Turnbull government, this has not been the case.
If we are going to get on top of drug related crime, we need to get to the source of the problem. We need to look at the demand side as well as the supply side of the problem. These services need all the help they can get. We know that demand is rising and many within the sector feel abandoned by this government—not without reason. Over $800 million has been cut from funds which support alcohol and illicit drug treatment services. This is having a devastating impact. Not only have there been cuts to the funds which support these services; there has been a delay in funding and uncertainty around funding and program streams. This means that services are laying staff off; they cannot plan about what services they are going to be offering in the next financial year. It is an untenable situation.
Against this backdrop, the need could not be greater. That is why I use the opportunity of this important debate to say quite clearly to the government and to the minister: we need to be doing better. If we are confiscating funds from drug dealers, from drug importers and from those who are involved in the illicit drug trade—if we are confiscating the ill-gotten wealth from these individuals—then surely some of that money could be better directed towards minimising the demand for these deadly products in the first place. We should be using the opportunity of the funds amassed through the proceeds of crime legislation and direct that money towards drug and alcohol treatment services. As the minister himself admits—and as former commissioner Ken Lay himself admitted in statements after his around the country tour as a part of the National Ice Taskforce—this is not a problem that we can arrest our way out of.
To take that a step further, we need to look at this as a health related problem. If there are extra dollars available to the Commonwealth and we have a choice about where we allocate those extra dollars, then some of them should be allocated towards drug and alcohol treatment services. Nothing is more effective than taking a person from a life of addiction, which may also involve a life of crime, and rehabilitating that person to ensure that they can turn their life around and become a productive member of society. I argue that that is a very effective investment of Commonwealth money—more effective if we are confiscating money off the criminals in the first place and redirecting it towards the victims of those crimes so that they can turn their lives around. Once rehabilitated, that person is not only contributing in a positive way to the community; they are not engaging in the crimes, whether they are property related crimes or other related crimes, which tie up so much of our precious police resources, both state and federal.
Deputy Speaker, if you are not moved by compassion, then you might be moved by accounting on this particular issue. It is an effective investment. As we are debating a bill which deals with the issue of proceeds of crime, it is an opportunity for us to say, 'Let's learn the lessons of the past.' The Howard government got it. The Rudd and Gillard governments got it. This is a call out to the Abbott-Turnbull government to revisit this issue, because we can be doing so much more and so much better than what we are doing—using this fund as a cynical honey pot in the lead-up to an election, for nothing more than cheap pork-barrelling exercises. I think that it behoves us all to ensure that we are using the proceeds of crime and confiscated moneys in a much more socially useful way. With those comments, I commend the legislation to the House, noting that, when it goes to the other place, it will be referred to a Senate committee to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:00): It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015. About 230 years ago the great economist Adam Smith wrote:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
That is a fundamental point of our economy: when we encourage individuals to engage in economic activity that creates real wealth they benefit themselves and make a profit but the ultimate winner is the society. That is the point that Smith was trying to make. That is why we need to ensure that our laws encourage people to take up activities that create wealth and benefit our society. When people go down a path of crime they are not actually adding wealth; they are stealing from others, causing damage not only to the people they steal from but to our entire society.
I was trying to explain to a school group recently how government works and how it raises and prints money. One of the students came up to me and said, 'If you can print money, why don't you just print money and give everyone a million dollars?' I can see the member for Moreton over there smiling and nodding, and I am sure there would be many on the other side who would think it is a good idea to fire up the printing presses and hand out a million dollars to everyone. I am sure that that young gentleman has a great future in the Young Labor movement—unless we can correct his ways of thinking!
These kids were about 11 years old; they were in fifth class and going into sixth class. Compared to when I was an 11-year-old they actually have been given a million dollars. If you look at the opportunities that they have, and the lower cost and greater variety of goods and services, they actually have a million dollars. That wealth has been created because people in our society have taken up wealth-making opportunities.
I have a few examples. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you may be a few years younger than I am—you are nodding your head—or maybe a decade or two, but let's compare the things we had when we were 10 or 11 to what students have now and the lower cost and the benefits of that. Firstly, think of travel. When we were kids, going to Melbourne or Brisbane for a weekend away was unaffordable. Today, in our society, you can fly from Sydney to Melbourne or Brisbane for $100. The possibility that you can actually afford to jump on an aeroplane and go for a weekend away is the extra wealth that the kids and families of today have.
Think of the lower cost of communications and the opportunities kids have on their iPhones today—things like music. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would have saved up your pennies to go and buy an old vinyl record. Today, kids can download those same songs on their iPhones and, rather than having to play them on an old record player in one particular room in the house, they can carry them around and play them through earphones. When we were kids, to do that would have cost thousands and thousands of dollars.
Or think of motor vehicles. I am sure you can remember when you bought your first car, Mr Deputy Speaker; it was probably still a couple of thousand dollars. We know that the cost of many cars today is the same in dollar terms as it was 30 years ago. But it is not only that; you get a safer, better and more fuel-efficient car.
And it even goes to food. I was in one of the food courts in the Sydney CBD the other day. For $10 I could buy any variety of food from 20 different expert chefs from around the world—Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mexican, Vietnamese and so on. In past generations, this was not available to us.
It goes on and on and on. But the best thing we have given these kids is greater life expectancy. Through the innovations and medical breakthroughs that we have made, kids in high school today have 10 to 15 years greater life expectancy than my generation had.
All of this has come about because we have an economic system that has encouraged people to go out and create real wealth. But if we allow a system where people can actually build up wealth through criminal activities, we undermine that in its entirety. With our proceeds of crime legislation we send the message out there that, if you think you are going to create your wealth from criminal activity, the government is coming after you. But if you create your wealth through real wealth-creating activities that benefit society, you deserve everything that you get and all the success that you have.
The previous speaker, the member for Throsby, talked about the problems we have with drugs, particularly methamphetamines, on the supply and demand side. I would like to talk about how we have to work on supply and demand in relation to criminal activities. I have great concern about the talk of raising the price of cigarettes to $40 a packet, because that is not going to kill off demand. If we were to raise the price of cigarettes to $40 a packet, I am sure some people would still find the money to buy them, but it would be a boon to the bootleggers and the black marketeers. In most Asian countries, you can buy a packet of cigarettes for the retail price of $1. That is the retail price, not the wholesale price. If you can buy them lawfully overseas for $1 but you make the retail price in Australia $40, all you do is create a great gulf where you encourage criminal activity. We are already seeing it. If any of us in our electorates were to go around to small tobacconist shops, we would see that they are selling black-market cigarettes. There are people selling home-grown tobacco. If we increase the price of cigarettes to $40, whatever benefit there is to society from the reduction in smoking, there will be at least the same problem, if not more problems, with illegal activity in that space.
I turn to the specific provisions of the bill. Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to clarify the operation of that act's non-conviction based confiscation scheme in light of recent court decisions. That is where there may not yet have been a conviction but the court can put an injunction on someone's assets. Schedule 2 creates two new offences of false dealing with accounting documents. It will strengthen Australia's compliance with the OECD anti-bribery convention. The offences will criminalise conduct where a person makes, alters, destroys or conceals an accounting document or fails to make an accounting document that the person is under a duty to make; and either intends or is reckless to the fact that this conduct would facilitate, conceal or disguise the offender or any other person receiving or giving a benefit, or another person incurring a loss, where that benefit or loss is not legitimately due. Schedule 3 makes amendments to improve the clarity of serious drug offences.
Schedule 4 makes several amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to remove operational constraints that have been identified by a number of law enforcement agencies. We need those provisions to be very strong. We do not want to see wealth earned in this country diverted into terrorist activities. We do not want to see people who have engaged in criminal activities being able to use our institutions to launder money. We do have a problem in this area. There is overseas legislation that is similar to our Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. As a result, we have seen the banks closing down many small businesses in what is called the home remittance industry. You generally find that the people running these businesses are from ethnic communities, where they are the pillars of trust and confidence. People trust them to give them their money to organise it, to transfer it to a friend or relative overseas. Even though these people comply with all the legislation, with all the red tape and with all the antiterrorism requirements, they are 90 per cent cheaper than the banks. It is often thought that you need to be big to be efficient. This is an example where you think, 'How could these people do it more efficiently than the banks?' Yet they are able to run these businesses, organise money transfers overseas and charge one-tenth of what the banks are charging. The banks are closing them down, whether for convenience or whether the banks think there is some genuine risk.
At the moment, when money goes through this small home remittance industry, everything is documented and detailed through AUSTRAC. Where money is diverted for a terrorist activity or to criminal activity, the system, through AUSTRAC, works. The system picks up these people. The last thing people in the home remittance industry want to do is have their businesses closed down because they have not complied with the legislation. But their accounts are being closed down. We had a reasonably transparent system, but an unintended consequence of enforcing this legislation is that the banks are closing down their accounts. The money is now being transferred under the counter. We heard examples in committee hearings of people taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash on aeroplanes because the banks have closed down accounts. So we are losing the transparency that we had. There are so many ways for people to transfer assets overseas. In closing down a legitimate sector of business, a sector that is complying with legislation, that is reporting any suspicious activity, the legislation is having the reverse effect to what it was trying to achieve. This is something that we need to look at as a government because for many third-world nations it makes up a huge proportion of their GDP.
It is the work that people do here in Australia and then transferring that money back to their families—$60 billion. That is more than 10 times our official government foreign aid. That private foreign aid is sent directly to a family to start up a small business or to help someone who needs it. This is something that we need to address. We cannot let these people close down and be driven out of business.
With that, I am very pleased to hear that the opposition is supporting this bill and I commend it to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (19:15): The coalition is committed to doing whatever we can to combat terrorism and organised transnational crime. Recent events across the world have highlighted that it is not difficult to conduct an attack and that the time frame between planning and execution is shrinking. In this environment the ability to share information quickly between those who need it is critical to prevent the loss of innocent lives.
I welcome the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015, which will amend Australia's anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing regime to enable financial intelligence to be shared with key international bodies, including INTERPOL and Europol. Specifically, the financial intelligence information obtained by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre—AUSTRAC—plays a central role in identifying and preventing terrorist and criminal activity. By enabling information to be shared faster and more easily, these amendments will maximise intelligence value and assist regional and international partner agencies in the early identification, targeting and disruption of terrorism and transnational crimes, where time is often of the essence.
The Australian Crime Commission recently said that as counter-terrorism efforts throughout Australia are enhanced, linkages between terrorism and broader organised crime are being identified. These linkages include, but are not limited to, Australians who finance terrorist activities, Australians who leave Australia to support terrorist causes and who may return to Australia with the intent of inflicting harm on the Australian community or Australians who may be recruited by organised crime groups seeking the specialist skill sets they have developed in foreign conflicts.
In the current Australian environment, serious and organised crime is exploiting three specific key capabilities. Firstly is organised crime's ability to conceal criminal activity by integrating into legitimate markets; secondly are their increasing technology and online capabilities; and thirdly, there is the globalisation of organised crime.
Serious and organised crime has become interwoven with our economic, social and political environments. Although organised crime has continued to operate in traditional illicit markets, such as illicit drug markets, it has been innovative in infiltrating legitimate industries to yield and launder significant criminal profits, including by setting up businesses within the transport, resources and investment sectors.
Serious and organised criminals have proven themselves adept at identifying and exploiting new and emerging technologies to facilitate their crime, to expand their reach and to provide them with the anonymity and distance from their crime which makes it difficult for law enforcement to detect and identify them.
Transnational organised crime groups have capitalised on the high level of demand in Australia for methylamphetamines, particularly for crystal methylamphetamine—better known as 'ice'. And while significant production is still occurring domestically, there has been a sharp increase in detections of methylamphetamine at the Australian border recently.
Our approach to criminal surveillance, monitoring and dealing with criminal activity should be strong, agile, creative and innovative, capable of quickly recognising and then adapting to and disrupting increasingly sophisticated criminal networks. We must better address law enforcement issues and national security risks through improved information sharing and we must continually improve the efficiency and effectiveness of various laws relating to the administration of criminal justice.
Serious and organised crime diverts funds out of the legitimate economy and undermines the profitability of lawful business. Serious and organised crime removes large amounts of money from the Australian economy that could be otherwise used to fund services, roads, hospitals and schools. This money is instead lining the pockets of criminals. This bill will enhance the ability of Commonwealth agencies to investigate and prosecute criminal offences and ensure that Australian law enforcement agencies can effectively target and confiscate proceeds of crime.
The government is committed to using the dirty money from proceeds of crime and unexplained wealth proceedings to fund strategies to tackle organised crime and the illicit drug trade. The Proceeds of Crime Act provides for a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Australian law. The act can also be used in some circumstances to confiscate the proceeds of crime against Australian law in conjunction with a foreign jurisdiction under their laws.
The Australian Federal Police are responsible for investigating whether the Proceeds of Crime Act can 'capture' a person's profits and then determine whether to commence a literary proceeds action. In layman's terms this is an action to recover the benefit that a person derives from the commercial exploitation of others. These proceeds can then be returned to the Australian community to fund anticrime initiatives.
Labor deposited proceeds-of-crime money in the Confiscated Assets Account and used these funds to boost their budget bottom line instead of boosting crime-fighting capacity at the frontline. At the last election, the coalition said that proceeds of crime would be directed into crime prevention and related work. And we are doing what we said we would. We are delivering on our commitment to the Australian people.
In Brisbane, for example, from round 1 of the Safer Streets program, $780,000 from the proceeds of crime has been redirected into the Brisbane Safer Streets project, to implement safety enhancements for crime hot spots so as to reduce antisocial behaviour and improve community safety. About $890,000 in proceeds of crime money has gone into upgrading closed circuit television capabilities at some of our busy airports by providing wide-angle surveillance and digital videorecording capabilities, including Brisbane, Gold Coast and Cairns international airports. More than $650,000 has been used to help OzCare provide a non-residential, integrated drug rehabilitation service in Brisbane, and about $150,000 has gone into supporting Brisbane City Council's Walls and Colours project, which targets some of the most frequently and severely hit graffiti hotspots.
Criminal profits confiscated and held by the government in the proceeds of crime account will also be directed into fighting ice, including $9.8 million over two years to establish a new National Criminal Intelligence System that will redevelop Australia's criminal intelligence systems and database infrastructure to strengthen information and intelligence sharing across law enforcement agencies and jurisdictions; $5 million over four years to deploy transnational crime analysts to organised crime and drug importation hotspots including the United States, Canada, Dubai and Hong Kong; and $3.4 million over two years to boost the Australian Crime Commission's capability to target money laundering activities and undermine the business models of transnational criminal syndicates that are profiting from the misery caused by the illegal ice trade.
The coalition is delivering on our commitment—working hard to keep Australians safe and secure in increasingly uncertain times and using the proceeds of crime to support our fight. I congratulate and thank the minister for bringing this bill forward, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (19:24): The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015 includes numerous measures that will clarify and improve Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements. Schedule 1clarifies the operation of the non-conviction based confiscation regime provided under of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; schedule 2 inserts two new offences of false dealing with accounting documents into the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Commonwealth Criminal Code; and schedule 3 amends the definitions of 'drug analogue' and 'manufacture' in the serious drug offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code to ensure that they capture all relevant substances and processes. It will clarify and address operational constraints identified by law enforcement agencies with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, and expand the list of designated agencies authorised to access AUSTRAC information to include the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption of South Australia, in schedule 4. Schedule 5 extends and clarifies the circumstances under which AusCheck can disclose AusCheck background check information to Commonwealth, state and territory agencies performing functions related to law enforcement and national security.
With the rise of terrorism Australia needs to ensure it has the best measures in place to keep our nation safe. This bill will see stronger information sharing to address law enforcement issues and combat corruption. Enhanced information sharing will enable the federal government to do everything in our power to detect and deal with organised transnational crime and terrorism. Recent world events remind us that very little planning and time is needed to conduct an attack. The time frame is shrinking but the impact of an attack is catastrophic and long lasting. The images coming out of Paris will stick in the minds of everybody across the globe. That does not mean we have to let these things paralyse us—it certainly does not mean that we have to accept these occurrences as the norm and not deal with them. Sharing information has become critical in these situations—agencies involved in the prevention of such attacks need to be able to share information between more quickly. It is information that could save lives.
The financial intelligence information obtained by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre plays a central role in identifying and preventing terrorist and criminal activity. This bill will amend Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime to enable financial intelligence to be shared with key international bodies including Interpol and Europol. The bill will maximise intelligence value through assisting regional and international partner agencies. It will allow intelligence to be better utilised in the early identification, targeting, and disruption of terrorism and transnational crimes.
The measures will also amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 to enable the Independent Commission Against Corruption of South Australia to access AUSTRAC's financial intelligence data holdings. Allowing access to this financial intelligence will enhance the commission's ability to investigate serious and systemic corruption and misconduct in public administration.
There are also changes to drug offences. This bill includes new laws making drug offence provisions clearer, more effective and stronger. As drugs continue to trouble Australia—none of us are exempt, whether it is my electorate of Calare or anywhere else in Australia or the world in general—the federal government is committed to stamping out the manufacturing, selling and buying of dangerous illegal substances. Under these laws it will be more difficult for drug traffickers and manufacturers to supply these substances. The bill will ensure that the serious drug offences apply to all substances that are structurally similar to illicit drugs, called 'drug analogues', and all manufacturing methods, including those that do not create a new substance. The coalition will continue to reduce serious drug offending in our communities as the result of substance abuse as it continues to trouble our local police and communities. To do this we must have effective and strong frameworks to stop drug traffickers and organised crime in a bid to reduce Australia's growing addiction to illicit drugs like ice.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Kingston Electorate: Volunteers
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:30): I have risen many times in this place to recognise the fantastic effort of our volunteers and I do so again today with the International Volunteer Day coming up on 5 December. There are many people who contribute significantly to the southern suburbs of Adelaide and continually show so much care and concern for their local residents. I would like to commend them for it today. In particular, there are a number of awards that local residents have won as a result of their extraordinary effort in volunteering.
I would like to congratulate the Willunga and Districts Lions Club on winning the community organisation award at the Every Generation Onkaparinga awards ceremony. The work they were particularly recognised for was the Willunga Lions Auctions. The Willunga and Districts Lions Club won the award in recognition of their hard work in holding regular auctions and as a result of their club alone raising over $1 million in the past 20 years, which they have distributed to local charities such as the CFS and community health programs. I think we can all say that this is an incredible achievement.
There were also individual winners at the Every Generation award. Barbara Cain, from Morphett Vale, received an award for her volunteering and outstanding contribution to our community—in particular, her work with the ACH Group and the Southern Arthritis Friendship and Support Group. Barbara has also led a singing group for the past 12 years and is a volunteer educator with Arthritis SA. James Greenfield, from Morphett Vale, also received an award for his dedication to teaching older members of our community how to use information technology and assisting hundreds of people over the last 30 years. Both recipients have assisted older members of our community to stay active and to participate in life and should be commended.
This also gives me the opportunity to say a big thank you to members of our community who volunteer in the southern suburbs. I was particularly pleased to recognise many of those contributions in my annual southern suburbs volunteer awards ceremony. I think it is fair to say, as I said at the ceremony, that if government were to fund all the work that volunteers do we would be significantly in deficit. I also recognise that volunteers provide services to the community that cannot be measured in dollars, money or economics. The care and contribution that volunteers make to the work that they do is completely unable to be quantified and I would like to thank them.
Over 100 members of the southern community were nominated for work that went above and beyond what was ordinarily expected of a volunteer. There are a number of people I would like to highlight just to give you the flavour of that. Jess Doyle is a volunteer from the Noarlunga unit of the South Australian State Emergency Service. Jess joined the Noarlunga SES in 2007. She was deployed to Victoria twice, as well as to Kangaroo Island, Queensland and New South Wales, along with many intrastate deployments assisting communities in need. Her commitment to volunteer service is second to none. She never fails to come to the aid of the community when required. Keith Lloyd has been a member of the Country Fire Service in Milang for 45 years and achieved a life membership in 2008. He has done volunteering for a range of other organisations. These include the Riverland Musical Society, the Willunga High School and the Friends of the Paddle-Steamer Industry. He became a life member of Milang and District Historical Society in 2013—and the list of organisations go on.
It is also important to recognise our international volunteers. These are volunteers who use their skills and time to volunteer in developing countries. There are a range of people I would like to acknowledge, including Elmina Joldic, Christine Gates, Jarad Wilkinson, Chelsea Berner, Tierney Sheridan, Kate Loveday, James Anthony, Diane Anthony and Belinda Lacy. These volunteers have committed time away from their homes and their families and friends to improve the lives of many in developing countries overseas, where their skills and time have been much appreciated.
This is a small snapshot of what is happening in the southern suburbs in terms of volunteering. I would like to commend all those volunteers. They do not expect much from others. Thank you. You make people's lives better.
Solomon Electorate: Darwin RSL
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (19:35): I rise tonight to once again speak about a community campaign led by the Darwin RSL. Back in April this year the President of the Darwin RSL, Mr Don Milford, kicked off the campaign for an upgrade to the Darwin cenotaph, including the installation of an eternal flame. Don rightly pointed out that Darwin is the only capital city in Australia not to have an eternal flame. Commentators have noted that we should also not forget that Darwin is the only capital city in Australia to have been bombed by enemy forces.
Each year we commemorate the first bombing of Darwin, which occurred on 19 February 1942. The bombing of Darwin was the first time that Australia was attacked by enemy forces. Bombing raids by Japanese forces over Darwin continued for many months and eventually extended to other northern Australian towns such as Broome, Cairns and Townsville. Sadly, more than 250 people were killed in the attacks on Darwin and many more were wounded. Sadly, a United States Navy destroyer, the USS Peary, was also sunk in Darwin Harbour on 19 February 1942. It was one of eight vessels that were sunk that day. The sinking of the USS Peary is commemorated each February as well; it is the first commemoration and then we move on to the official Bombing of Darwin commemorations.
I know that, some five years ago, when I first spoke in this House about the bombing of Darwin, some of my colleagues were quite surprised; they did not know that Darwin was actually attacked. They also did not realise that more bombs were dropped on Darwin than on Pearl Harbor some 10 weeks earlier.
That is why it is so important for my electorate that every year we stop and reflect. We have to learn from the past. We honour the fallen and we hope to God it never happens again. I am proud of the way in which our two countries, Japan and Australia, are now good friends. We must never, ever forget. We must always honour those who died in those terrible days of the past.
Some people have asked: why does Darwin need an eternal flame? According to the Australian War Memorial's web page:
An eternal flame at a war memorial symbolizes a nation's perpetual gratitude towards, and remembrance of, its war dead.
That statement, to me, summarises perfectly why Darwin must have an eternal flame—to show our gratitude to, to honour and to always remember our war dead.
We are moving along the path to getting an eternal flame. There is still a way to go, though. There have been a lot of meetings between the RSL, Darwin city council, federal and Territory ministers, and me—and so far so good. The former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, my good friend Senator Ronaldson, understood the importance of this project, and I am confident that the new Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be as enthusiastic about this project as his predecessor. I am sure that he will understand the importance of having an eternal flame in my electorate of Solomon. This is a project where all levels of government have to work together with the RSL if we are going to be able to deliver an upgraded cenotaph and an eternal flame for Territorians.
My job is to continue to advocate for this very important project, which I am doing. I am also trying to secure much-needed funds for this project, so I am hoping that there will be bipartisan support for it. I know that the member for Lingiari would be more than happy to support this because he attends some of these commemorations too. This is not just something for Darwin; it is for all Territorians. I hope that we will be able to deliver on this very important project.
Turnbull Government
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:40): The face of Australian politics has apparently changed, or so we are led to believe. Having disposed of one prime minister, the Liberal Party has set about creating a new, more agile and innovative government with a new prime minister at the helm. Yes, we have a new prime minister, new ministries, some fresh faces and some new job titles. To be sure, the Australian people collectively breathed a sigh of relief as the door shut on the former Prime Minister and the new Prime Minister emerged.
There was, at least initially, some new-found confidence in this new Prime Minister. He was a better wordsmith. He had a better suit. But it turns out he is still selling the same old lame Liberal-National party policies—I will come to some of those in a minute—and falling back on a number of the same old practices, as we saw in parliament today. Indeed, as the TV confession that continues to haunt the Special Minister of State now haunts the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister preferred to gag debate today rather than have to defend yet another bad captain's pick in this parliament.
In terms of just how little has changed, I think it is worth exploring some of the policies that remain on the table in this parliament. Let us not forget that this new government stands firmly by the decision to make the biggest ever cuts to our schools, with some $30 billion to be ripped from our classrooms over the next decade. In my electorate of Newcastle, schools will be more than $195 million worse off because of these cuts over the next 10 years—cuts that will impact on every student in every school in the region.
Likewise, the GP tax is still in place. I think it is up to something like version No. 4 now. Whilst we do not dare utter the words 'GP tax', these days it is a tax by stealth, hitting everybody who sees a doctor.
Let us not forget that, before the Liberal government were elected, they promised to build and create jobs for Australians. Yet, two years later, 800,000 Australians are out of work, including 300,000 young Australians, the highest number in over 20 years. Then there are the cuts to the family tax benefit and pensions.
On top of all these cuts, all this pressure the government is placing on hardworking Australians, it is planning an increase of the GST. There is nothing fair about a 50 per cent increase of the GST or broadening its base. Modelling suggests a broadening of the base of the GST to include fresh food would add some $686 per year in costs to the average household, another $251 per year if extended to education, $467 extra if extended to health and another $727 extra for financial services and other items. The Liberals do not understand that people are already struggling to make ends meet to pay those bills—including the people in my electorate of Newcastle. Slugging people who can least afford to pay more, while letting those who can off the hook, is never going to pass the fairness test. It is just more of the same from this Liberal government.
Labor will stand with Australian families and will fight the government's plans to increase the GST. While the government has been working hard to place additional pressure on the Australian people, Labor, in stark contrast, have been working on our positive plans for a smarter, more prosperous Australia.
We have plans for the jobs of the future because we know that 75 per cent of the fastest-growing occupations now require STEM skills, and employment in STEM occupations is projected to grow at twice the pace of other occupations. We will heavily invest in all levels of education. Our commitment to creating jobs does not end in our school system. Indeed, we are looking at higher education, but we also understand the important role of TAFEs. Certainly, our commitment to securing funding for TAFE is vital for regions such as mine. This is part of an ambitious plan that Labor have for Australia, a vision that we will deliver at the next— (Time expired)
Dobell Electorate: Youth Suicide Prevention
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (19:45): On the Central Coast, we are known for our beaches, lakes, valleys and sporting achievements, to name but a few, but, sadly, there is also a dark side for which we are nationally known. Tragically, until recently, the Central Coast had one of the highest numbers of youth suicides. I am fortunate to represent an electorate with a number of organisations that are determined to take practical measures to assist youth who are struggling with mental illness and hence alleviate the tragic loss of young lives.
A successful program currently being undertaken in my electorate is SOKS, which is short for Save Our Kids. Conceived and administered by the Gosford North Rotary Club, the SOKS program has been operating on the Central Coast since 2010. The Save Our Kids program was originally founded as a youth suicide prevention program; however, in 2012 it also branched out into a youth enrichment program. North Gosford Rotary raised over $17,000 and formed a partnership with Lifeline to deliver a program called safeTALK, which is designed to train school staff to identify and approach young people who indicate contemplating suicide. In the first year, nine Central Coast schools undertook the training, and 18 young people were subsequently identified as being at risk.
The club has raised more funds to continue and expand SOKS in order to maximise their impact on the youth of the Central Coast. In 2014, SOKS donated $26,000 to Lifeline, which allowed them to deliver more programs, resulting in the saving of 39 lives. This year has been another year of growth for SOKS, with a further 12 programs delivered and additional funds raised to deliver a high-level program called ASIST—Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training. ASIST is a two-day program targeted at deputy and year heads of schools, school counsellors and welfare staff who support youth in crisis. ASIST provides participants with the skills and understanding to identify at-risk students, make appropriate suicide intervention and provide suitable referrals. Feedback received from participants in the ASIST workshop was resoundingly positive, with many feeling better prepared and equipped to help people who are at risk of contemplating suicide. The youth enrichment arm of SOKS consists of four Rotary youth programs. Since youth enrichment began, SOKS have been able to increase the number of youth attending the program from 13 in 2013 to 24 in 2014. This year, they have facilitated the attendance of 37 young adults. SOKS have received tremendous feedback on the success of their programs and are eager to continue their expansion. SOKS are aiming to increase training to 1,000 school staff and parents, plus 100 young adults, in leadership programs over the next two years, at a cost of approximately $150,000.
For the last two years, I have been proud to be an advocate and sponsor of the SOKS program, as I recognise the vital role they play in tackling youth suicide rates on the Central Coast. The silent nature of suicide is most lethal, and raising awareness to ensure that those who battle inner demons are comfortable to discuss the issues they face has to be a priority if we are to reduce the rate of youth suicide. Evidence demonstrates that medical and community interventions prevent suicide, yet often the coordination and strategies of suicide prevention activities are lacking and ineffectively organised. SOKS have been working hard to bridge the gap in youth suicide prevention strategies and programs. Each year, their programs are proving successful in saving lives. Alarmingly, 2014 data indicated that a total of 6,369 youths aged 11 to 17 years on the Central Coast were at risk of suicide. The most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that 172 Central Coast families had been directly impacted by suicide in suburbs across my electorate in recent years. In 2010, a Senate committee estimated that the number of people immediately affected by one suicide is six; however, I maintain that there is no possible way to determine how many people are truly affected by something of this nature.
The work of the Gosford North Rotary Club through their Save Our Kids program is hugely beneficial to the community. The volunteers of this Rotary club, particularly Lester Pearson and Michael Sharpe, have undertaken a number of initiatives, some mentioned previously, to reduce youth suicide. I commend Lester, Michael and the Gosford North Rotary Club for taking the initiative to develop and implement SOKS and for their dedication to expanding the program in the coming year. Unfortunately, suicide is a huge problem in my electorate, and we are working very hard with these groups to reduce that number and help those people who have mental health issues. I once again commend Lester and Michael and the Rotary club for all their hard work.
Animal Welfare
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (19:50): On Saturday 14 November I met with members of Central Coast Claws 'N' Paws Pet Rescue. The group was launched in 2012 and has successfully rehomed in excess of 2,000 domestic pets. In 2014, Claws 'N' Paws became involved in rescuing greyhounds. In two years, they have rehomed 109 greyhounds, but, unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The greyhound industry has been plagued with multifaceted animal welfare issues. Unfortunately, the industry and governments have failed to change the culture within the industry. Consequently, the brief lives of 96 per cent of greyhounds bred in Australia for racing are horrendous and filled with exploitation, cruelty and abuse. There has been endemic evidence of cruelty and the euthanising of thousands of healthy greyhounds. Greyhounds are euthanised because of injury, lack of speed, lack of aptitude or a multitude of similar reasons. Unfortunately, the industry is all about making money, and the greyhounds are deemed a disposable commodity. This is something that is totally unacceptable in Australia. We value the lives of animals and do not support cruelty. Unfortunately, the greyhound industry lacks transparency, and governments have neglected to regulate the industry properly; the focus has been on gambling and revenue.
Recently, the greyhound industry has been thrown into disrepute because of its failure to address issues that have been endemic in the industry. It is imperative that governments at both state and federal level act to change the culture and regulate the industry. I was appalled when I learnt of the suffering of Australian animals that were being exported overseas, in particular to Macau, and the failure of the federal government to act. Greyhounds that are exported to Macau face the grimmest of fates. In Macau, Australian dogs are housed in appalling conditions at the greyhound racing stadium, the Canidrome, where they are kept in cages so small that they can barely turn around. And then each and every time they run, they are running for their lives. In 2010, greyhounds were killed at the rate of one a day. These healthy dogs received a death sentence simply because they failed to finish in the top 3 in five consecutive races.
It is time that the Australian government stopped this cruelty. Greyhounds Australasia have argued for better regulative oversight by the federal government and are becoming frustrated by the lack of government support. During Senate estimates, Minister Joyce's department demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the passport system and discussions about making it mandatory. That the department was unaware that its own Greyhound Export Declaration form calls for a greyhound passport number to be provided is very worrying. Unfortunately, the current passport system cannot be enforced outside Australia, which leads to many of the atrocities that are occurring.
I now refer to a letter from Greyhounds Australasia. They state that they remain frustrated with the lack of government support for better regulatory oversight of the exportation of Australian racing greyhounds. They state that a large number of jurisdictions are not supported by GA because they lack the controls to maintain an adequate standard of welfare for these animals. In the letter they wrote to the minister they say that there are some key outcomes that need to be reviewed. They point out that the current scheme cannot be enforced outside Australia. They call on Minister Joyce to meet with them. Unfortunately, he stated that the government is not prepared to impose additional regulations. Animal welfare, as stated in this letter, is a significant issue for the industry. My message to Minister Joyce is that he needs to act on this. It is not good enough that Australian animals are being exploited in the way that they are. The minister is showing absolutely no concern for animal welfare by refusing to properly regulate the export of Australian greyhounds and by failing to listen. This carnage must stop.
I thank the Central Coast Branch of Paws 'n' Claws for making me aware of this important issue and for the great work they do in rehousing greyhounds and other domestic pets. (Time expired)
Senator Nick McKim
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (19:55): I regret to say that I have been alerted to a speech delivered in the Senate last Monday evening by Tasmanian Greens Party Senator Nick McKim. I do not generally pay much attention to speeches by members of the Greens, but the speech in question deserves a response. Senator McKim, as we know, has been in this parliament for only a very short period of time. Before that, he served in the Tasmanian Labor-Greens government. Labor Premier David Bartlett and his successor Lara Giddings both did a deal with the Greens to secure government. That deal elevated Mr McKim and later his Greens partner in politics and life, Ms Cassy O'Connor, as ministers in the Labor government.
Given Mr McKim's record as a minister, there is no basis for the boastful comments he made in the Senate last Monday. Senator McKim said:
I am shocked that the newbie has to stand up and give you guys a very well-deserved lecture …
There you have it, Mr Speaker. Senator Newbie from the Hobart latte set has come to Canberra to save us. But what really caught my attention was Senator McKim's extended rant against the citizenship bill, where attacked me, the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am a member, and every politician—Labor and Liberal—who voted for the bill. I remind the House that support for this important piece of counter-terrorism legislation is bipartisan. Labor and Liberal members on the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security have helped deliver four tranches of national security legislation, with a fifth currently before us. Our reports have been bipartisan, with 136 recommendations accepted by the government. So, to hear Senator McKim, with no involvement in our committee, with no experience in national security, state that the passage of this bill was 'an outrageous collusion between the government and the Labor Party' is most disappointing. It reflects his ignorance of parliamentary process.
But it gets worse. Senator McKim referred to me and every MP who supported this bill as 'extremists'—the very threat that our counter-terrorism laws seek to address. He said:
They are extremists, Senator Rice; I could not agree more.
What an appalling slur on members of this parliament. We know from Senator McKim's maiden speech that he was formerly an apple picker, a shepherd, a gardener and a public relations expert—an interesting background to proclaim oneself an expert in parliamentary affairs and national security. This is the same man who commentators say was amongst the very worst ministers in the history of Tasmanian politics and who presided over catastrophic losses for the Greens at the last state election, giving an embarrassing, ungracious concession speech. The mess that he left in the Corrections and Education portfolios are still being cleaned up today in Tasmania. Who can forget the hapless Minister McKim announcing multiple school closures in Tasmania, which caused angst and pain to many of the communities which I am a part of. Then he embarrassingly had to backtrack on those closure decisions.
Senator McKim and his partner Cassy O'Connor enjoyed four taxpayer-funded cars—two private-plated vehicles (Audis, if I am not mistaken) and two chauffeured ministerial cars—in the same household. So much for Greens concerns about CO2 emissions! As leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Mr McKim said environmental protesters who broke the law were like Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. Seriously!
I know that thousands of Tasmanians who lost jobs in the timber industry do not see Mr McKim and his activist mates as heroes.
I also read Senator McKim's maiden speech in the Senate where he said that he knows how hard it is to 'choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table'. Well, his rent issues appear to continue in 2015. The Tasmanian media revealed in January that Senator McKim and Ms O'Connor were named on a debtors list for not paying their rates. This Greens power couple on a combined income of about $400,000 per year failed to pay their rates bill. What extraordinary arrogance! A senior Tasmanian tells me that, in the state parliament, Mr McKim was regarded by public servants in Hobart as 'a delight to work with'—an interesting comment delivered with a twinkle in the eye and linked to the fact that Mr McKim never appeared to be across his ministerial brief.
What Senator McKim demonstrated during his time in the Tasmanian parliament and in his speech last Monday is how thankful Australians should be that he is nowhere near the national security decisions of our country. I call on him now to unconditionally withdraw, at the first available opportunity, his appalling slur that members of this House are extremists.
The SPEAKER: It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Joyce: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Water Act 2007, and for related purposes.
Mr Keenan: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, and for related purposes.
Mr Morrison: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes.
Ms O’Dwyer: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001, and for related purposes.
Ms O’Dwyer: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to personal and corporate insolvency, and for related purposes.
Mrs K. L. Andrews: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for other purposes.
Dr Hendy: 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: Brisbane and Cairns Control Tower Life Extensions.
Dr Hendy: 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: HMAS Stirling Redevelopment, Stage 3A, Garden Island, Western Australia.
Dr Hendy: 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: Growler Airborne Electronic Attack Capability Facilities Project.
Dr Hendy: 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: Melbourne and Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centre—Extension Works.
Dr Hendy: 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: Delamere Air Weapons Range Redevelopment Project, Northern Territory.
Dr Hendy: 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: Battlefield Airlifter Facilities Project, Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, Queensland.
Mr Perrett: to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 the Houses of the Australian Parliament had the power to expel a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives;
(b) the expulsion of a Member of this House is the most drastic of sanctions;
(c) on 11 November 1920, the then Member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Hugh Mahon, was expelled from this House; and
(d) Mr Mahon is the only Member to have ever been expelled from this House;
(2) acknowledges that Mr Mahon was expelled:
(a) by a motion brought on hastily and with limited time for debate;
(b) by a vote of the House on party lines; and(c) without the due process and procedural fairness that such an important issue deserves; and
(3) recognises that:
(a) it was unjust on the limited evidence for the institution to which Mr Mahon had been democratically elected to reverse the decision of his constituents; and
(b) the expulsion of Mr Mahon was a misuse of the power then invested in the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Prentice ) took the chair at 09:47.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Blair Electorate: Ipswich Motorway
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (09:47): When will the Abbott-Turnbull government finally stop ignoring the people of South-East Queensland? Before the last election, the then opposition leader, the member for Warringah, made a commitment to fast-track the upgrade of the last six-kilometre stretch of the Ipswich Motorway. But then this government turned its back and broke its promise. Motorists and businesses have waited long enough for the Darra-to-Rocklea section of the Ipswich Motorway to be fixed and deserve a lot better than the hollow promises that were made just before the last election.
We know that in the last budget of the Labor government we put in $279 million to kick-start the Darra-to-Rocklea section from the troublesome Oxley roundabout to Suscatand Street. When we were in government, we designed, built and completed the Dinmore-to-Darra section of the Ipswich Motorway, at a cost of $2.8 billion. Labor have always understood the importance of this particular road to the people of South-East Queensland, particularly to the people of Ipswich and Somerset in my electorate. Tens of thousands of them use this section of the Ipswich Motorway, which is located in Brisbane, each and every day.
I am calling on the Prime Minister to change his mind, to kick-start the funding and to make sure the coalition fulfil the promise they made before the last election. I welcome the support of the Council of Mayors South East Queensland, who made it crystal clear in their 2015-16 federal advocacy document, A shared future: collaborative opportunities for South East Queensland, that stage 1, the $558 million commitment, is absolutely crucial for South-East Queensland. It will make sure there is ramp rationalisation and smarter motorway treatments for the entire section of that part of the Ipswich Motorway. It is particularly important to upgrade that part of the motorway to three lanes between Oxley Road and Suscatand Street. I know that planning needs to be done. That is why Labor made a commitment that we would start this process.
Recently I had a meeting with Minister Bailey and the Labor candidate for Oxley, Councillor Milton Dick, in Brisbane in the minister's office. He made it crystal clear to us that planning was necessary to get that final section started and underway. For stage 1, the $558 million commitment is absolutely crucial to make sure that that particular part of the motorway is underway. So we have made a commitment and I have made it crystal clear as well that my No. 1 priority is to get that part of the Ipswich Motorway done. We have made a commitment that we will, through the Infrastructure Australia process, undertake the planning and fund it, and we will do it. I call on the government to fulfil the promise they made before the last election.
Robertson Electorate: Road Safety
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (09:50): The Central Coast is the most beautiful region in the best country in the world to live in. There are stunning, pristine beaches. The city of Gosford is really turning a corner and beginning to thrive, thanks in part to our federal government's initiatives. And there are the seaside suburbs that we all love, such as Umina, Ettalong, Patonga, Terrigal and Copacabana. It is all within quite a short distance from Sydney, making it a great drawcard for families these Christmas holidays. This summer, I have no doubt, it will be buzzing again.
But in January last year, there was a shattering event that devastated a family and our community. The death of four-year-old Tom McLaughlin at Macmasters Beach was as sudden as it was shocking. On a family holiday, little Tom died after running out onto a local road. Being a mother of two young children—including my son Oscar, who was the same age as Tom when he died—I can only admire his parents, David and Michelle McLaughlin. Their bravery is incredible, not only in dealing with this awful, tragic event, but also in the way that, in the months that followed, they have sought to establish a legacy that means our community can be safer as a result of their actions.
Tom's legacy is the creation of the Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation by David and Michelle, named after the dinosaurs that Tom loved to draw. The foundation is all about educating and protecting children around roads, teaching them about the ever-present dangers, and using signs to better inform drivers.
This is a message that every parent should hear and share with their children and every family should remember when they hit the freeway after the working year wraps up. And here is why: 65 children under the age of 16 were killed on Australian roads in 2014—a staggering statistic. The foundation has found a number of factors as to why this may be the case. For children, there is the issue of a lack of height to be able to see the cars. There are cognitive limitations, like being easily distracted or being able to react to sudden changes in the environment and identify safe places to cross the road. It can also be hard for children to accurately discern the origin of sound or use it as a measurement of distance, which of course can make all the difference when a car is approaching. Education like this helps to identify safe crossing areas and distinguish between features in new environments, like holiday parks or at beaches.
For drivers, the Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation has also been rolling out a successful holiday-time campaign, which started on the Central Coast last year. They have great signs that say, 'It's Holiday Time: Slow Down Kids Around' and 'Hold My Hand'. They are very bright and colourful, and a timely reminder of this very important safety message for our community during the holiday season.
I will conclude by saying that this message of the Little Blue Dinosaur has saved my own children from crossing the road in dangerous situations on more than one occasion. So I call on the community and parents around Australia to help keep our kids safe this summer.
Climate Change
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (09:53): I was one of many thousands of Tasmanians at a people's climate rally on Sunday in Hobart on the Parliament House lawns. These rallies were held around Australia and around the world. Having recently surveyed my electorate, I know that climate change remains one of the most important issues for residents in my area. Of course that is no surprise, given the low-lying areas of my electorate—all of those bound by the ocean, and the many islands along the coast of my electorate. The people in my electorate of Franklin are concerned about climate change, just like many people around the world are, because of its impact.
The impact here in Australia, we know, is estimated to cost more than $200 billion if we get the 1.1 metre rise of sea level, and that is very substantial indeed. It would affect Australia annually by $7.3 billion or reduce our GDP by one per cent per year. That is why it was so important that Australia should have stood up in Paris this week.
Of course, we know that the Prime Minister went to Paris this week with Tony Abbott's climate change policy. Indeed, the only thing we saw from the new Prime Minister that is different was his pledge to double renewables. But, of course, we know that pledge is really just restoring what Labor had already done on renewables. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation's annual report shows that clean energy investment in Australia last financial year was just over $3 billion, and that is almost half of the $6 billion that it was when Labor was in government in 2012 to 2013. This commitment by Prime Minister Turnbull to double renewables, really, is not a commitment at all. All it is doing is restoring where it was under Labor.
We also know, of course, that the government has no plan to do that, and we heard in parliament just this week that the government is still planning to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, who are actually the innovators in this technology that would allow Australia to invest more in renewables and to be world leading in the area of renewables. Labor's policy announced by Bill Shorten just before Paris and before the weekend rally is in stark contrast to that of the government. Labor has said that we will implement a five-yearly pledge to review mechanisms to assess progress, that we will have a target of zero net pollution by 2050, that we will consult on the Climate Change Authority's 2030 baseline target of a 40 per cent reduction of carbon pollution based on 2005 levels and, within a year of coming to government, that we will put in place a 2025 target for reducing emissions. This was a very significant statement by Bill Shorten in the lead-up to Paris. It is a shame that Prime Minister Turnbull did not do more in Paris and did not say more about what Australia's commitment should be, and I know my residents will be very disappointed. (Time expired)
Lyons Electorate: Sorell Regional Art Prize 2015
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (09:56): Regional arts form a very important part of many communities around my electorate. They provide a really valuable community service and a place for community to come together to share in their common interest, which is artistic endeavour. So it was that last Friday night I had the pleasure of attending the Southern Beaches Regional Arts organisation's annual Sorell Regional Art Prize. Can I congratulate Sue Banks, the president of this organisation; Jodi Chivers, the vice president; and the irrepressible Saakia Itchins, secretary, publicity officer and also exhibition organiser, on what was a fabulous event.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the winners of the various awards. They include Natalie Murden, who won the Sorell Council Acquisition Award; Claire Doran, who won the Southern Beaches Regional Arts Prize, worth $800; Hannah Van der Merwe, who won the Sorrell Lions Club Award, worth $300; Steve Wakeling, who won the Holts Award; Peter Birch, who won the Southern Beaches Regional Arts Award, again for $300; David Lane, who won the Wendy's Quilts Award; Sue Banks, who won the Lufra Award; Cheryl Manning, who won the Bendigo Bank Sorell Award; Saakia Itchins, who won the Sorell on Stage Award; and Dawn Gatehouse, who won the Rural Solutions Award. The Lufra Residency Award went to Sheila Vince. There were a number of other highly-commended participants. It was a wonderful night, attended by the mayor of Sorell, Kerry Vincent.
May I also take this opportunity to wish all of those in this place a very merry Christmas, but particularly my staff: Caroline, Sharna, Lorraine, Charles, Jane, Kirsty and Alison, who has recently left my employment. She will be replaced by Cassie. I wish them all a happy Christmas. Can I thank the electorate, particularly for the support that they have shown me. We have had some success together and I look forward to working with my community groups, with my councils and with my constituents to deliver further benefits next year.
Can I particularly take this opportunity to thank my wife, Amanda, and my two sons, David and John. As has been said by many: we are the volunteers in this business; they are the conscripts. As some of you might agree, we do not always give them the thought and care that they absolutely deserve in the challenging role of being married to or being in the family of a member of parliament. I thank them very much. I love them all dearly. Next year I hope to be a better father to my sons and a better husband.
Northeast Health Wangaratta
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:00): I would like to bring to the attention of the House an amazing service that is operating in north-east Victoria, auspiced by Northeast Health Wangaratta: Telehealth. Telehealth is the use of information and communication technology to offer rural and regional communities a real opportunity to reduce existing inequalities and to improve health services, without having to travel. We have this fantastic service operating now out of Wangaratta and right across north-east Victoria.
Today I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Marg Bennett, the CEO of the Northeast Health, Wangaratta. I would like to congratulate Jane Kealey for the wonderful work she has done as a project leader. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Dr John Elcock, who is the director of medical services, and Dr Helen Haines, through the University of Melbourne, who has done the evaluation of this service.
In Wangaratta, through the use of technology and high-grade telephone conferencing, we have linked up to health services in my rural communities of Rutherglen, Tallangatta, Corryong, Beechworth, Myrtleford, Bright, Mount Beauty—part of Alpine Health—Benalla, Mansfield, Alexandra, Yea and Eildon. The service that is provided is through high-grade internet connections. We have links to Air Ambulance for emergency retrieval of critically unwell patients. They support GPs and nurses. We have 24-hour access to mental health triage, preventing travel for patients and families and mental health workers. We have Hospital in the Home for patient services, the Hit Risk Foot Service, tele-rehabilitation, residential care and many more services.
What I particularly like is the weekend coverage. If you are in one of those rural communities you link into your Telehealth and you have management of patients all weekend. So they get access to the Wangaratta and to the specialists, and the nurses in the health service know they have the support of a fully-fledged group of people.
What I really want to say to the House is that Telehealth is just beginning. It has enormous capacity to grow the rural workforce. It has enormous capacity to deliver health care services of all types. Telehealth care can reduce barriers.
In closing, I would really like to acknowledge the foresight of Northeast Health Wangaratta. You are taking a leading role and you have a fantastic service. The best bit of all for me was when I was able to bring the Governor-General to Wangaratta in February this year and have him actually experience the Connections with Corryong and see it working first-hand. Well done to all concerned. Congratulations. I look forward to working with you in the future on this really important service.
Petition: Wide Bay Burnett Tourism
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (10:03): I table a petition from the Wide Bay Burnett Regional Dive Wreck Advisory Group, local residents, business owners and tourists concerning the need for a new tourist attraction to increase domestic and international visitations to the Wide Bay Burnett Region to stimulate the local economy and create jobs. The petition has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions.
The petitioners, led by Ed Gibson, are asking the House to gift, remediate and scuttle HMAS Tobruk, or a similar decommissioned military vessel, in waters between Hervey Bay and Bundaberg to create a 'diving into history' experience. Tourism operators need another water-based attraction, an attraction that will keep boats in the water during the months that humpback whales and loggerhead turtles are not present. It is estimated that a military dive wreck will contribute between $1 million and $4 million each year to the local economy. This would be a great rate of return for a one-off investment estimated at just $6 million.
I would like to congratulate all of those involved, who have managed to collect 4,042 signatures in less than three weeks, in order to have it tabled before the parliament breaks for the year. The idea of a military dive wreck was first floated with me before the last federal election by well-respected local fisherman Nicky Schulz. Not long after being elected I contacted local business owners, recreational scuba divers and my state and council counterparts to gauge their interest in the proposal. I was absolutely overwhelmed by their positivity. I wrote to the Assistant Minister for Defence, Darren Chester, to seek advice on which military vessels were due to be decommissioned over the next few years. In November last year, Mr Chester visited the electorate to see firsthand why the Wide Bay-Burnett is an ideal location for a military dive wreck. A Wide Bay-Burnett regional dive wreck advisory group was formed to assess the project's feasibility. The advisory group includes a variety of key local representatives, including a marine biologist and experts who have established dive wrecks in other locations. I have met with Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, to discuss any potential legal impediments or public liability issues for the government. Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Senator James McGrath, who is highly supportive of the project, has questioned senior Defence personnel during committee hearings. Local media coverage has been overwhelmingly positive.
The Fraser Coast Regional Council has committed $1 million towards the project. The Bundaberg Regional Council, however, has declined to contribute, and so, on 20 November, I wrote to Bundaberg's mayoral candidates to seek a commitment to allocate $1 million if elected in 2016. Without that funding, we risk losing this vessel to another region. I have sought an urgent meeting with the Queensland Premier.
I believe that Defence assets that are paid for by the Australian people can, and should, continue to serve the community long after they are no longer of use to the military. HMAS Tobruk should not be sent to the scrap metal yard. The Wide Bay-Burnett is an ideal resting place for HMAS Tobruk. We are a region who admire our veteran community, and we will treat the Tobruk with the greatest of respect. The project will boost the local economy and create jobs in my region.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the Wide Bay Burnett Regional Dive Wreck Advisory Group, local residents, business owners and tourists draws to the attention of the House:
The need for a new tourist attraction to increase domestic and international visitation to the Wide Bay Burnett region, stimulate the local economy and create jobs.
The region (including Lady Musgrave, Lady Elliot and Fraser Islands) is renowned for its fresh seafood, perfect climate and awe-inspiring marine life and, yet, it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Tourism operators need another water-based attraction that will keep boats in the water during the months that humpback whales and loggerhead turtles are not present.
It is estimated a military dive wreck would contribute between $1 million and $4 million each year to the local economy. This would be a great rate of return on a one-off estimated investment of just $6 million.
A military dive wreck would complement the Rats of Tobruk Memorial in Bundaberg, the HMAS Brisbane Dive Wreck at Mooloolaba and the Fraser Coast Military Trail, which is currently being developed by the Fraser Coast Regional Council. Hinkler has a larger than average veteran population and an impressive ADF recruitment application rate, but receives the lowest annual Defence spend of any Federal Electorate.
We therefore ask the House to: gift, remediate and scuttle HMAS Tobruk (or a similar decommissioned military vessel) in waters between Hervey Bay and Bundaberg to create a "diving into history" experience.
from 4,042 citizens
Petition received.
Shortland Electorate: Landcare
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:06): I would like to say a big thankyou to everyone who is involved in Landcare. They do a fantastic job and their work is truly appreciated. I, like many members in this House, I am sure, have visited many Landcare sites within my electorate and I have always been overwhelmed by the dedication and commitment of those working on Landcare projects throughout the Shortland electorate and Lake Macquarie.
Last Friday night, I attended the Lake Macquarie Environmental Excellence in Landcare Awards, which was also a Christmas party and a nice, friendly get-together. It was really good to catch up with friends and committed Landcare workers and to learn of their achievements over the last 12 months. I would like to mention the winners of the awards. In doing so, I acknowledge that some of the winners were from the Charlton electorate, but a large number, if not the majority, came from the Shortland electorate. The Newcomer Group Awards went to Arkana, Phil Hughes; Greenway Toronto, Joan Steele; Boughton Point, Margaret and Bob Conners; and Fraser Parade, Ben Muller. The Longstanding Groups were Ivy Street, Christine and David Eastham; Straker Park, Peter Suna; Dobell Drive Reserve, Clare Shiels; and Friends of Belmont Wetland Park, Greg Wright. Greg has put in an enormous effort in the Belmont area over a large number of years and it is great to see him recognised. The Community Education Awards went to Carmel Brown at Catherine Hill Bay Dunecare—she has done a wonderful job there and, with her education background, she was in a really strong position to work in that capacity; and Peter Dalton of Fern Creek Gully Landcare. He has transformed an area. It is unbelievable what he has managed to do at Fern Creek Gully. Further winners were Laurene Mulcahy for Climate Ready Dora Creek Landcare; and Richard McFayden at Kenibea Landcare, which is in Kahibah.
Landcare Achievers Award went to Marion Lugg, Sunshine Silverwater; Suzanne Pritchard, Coal Point; Karen Ayliffe, Rankin Park; and, once again, Greg Wright, Friends of the Belmont Wetlands Park. The Local Legends Awards went to Garth Chapman, Wangi Ridge Preservation Board; the wonderful Nigel McDonnell from Blacksmiths Dunecare; Helen Rogers, Friends of the Belmont Wetlands Park; and Win Warner, Green Point Foreshore. The 10-Year Service Awards went to Garry Stewart, Lakeside Drive; Graham Healy, Lakeside Drive; John Adams, Lakeside Drive; and Maryanne Murray from St Mary's Gateshead. The Soaring with the Eagles Award went to Don Roach.
Banks Electorate: Community Organisations
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:09): I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak about the great activities of a number of important community organisations in my electorate. Last Saturday, 28 November, I attended the annual dinner dance of the Knights of St George Heart Association. For almost 30 years, the Knights of St George Heart Association has been raising funds for the Cardiothoracic Surgery Unit at St George Hospital. It has raised more than $1 million over that period. I would like to thank Dr David Horton, the president of the Knights, and also Susan Leahy, who organised the event, as she does every year with her characteristic efficiency and great enthusiasm for the organisation. The Knights of St George do tremendous work for St George Hospital. They are one of the most respected groups in our community. I thank them so much for all of their efforts.
Also, last weekend, on 29 November I attended Club Central at Hurstville for the CASS Chinese school concert. I am fortunate that my electorate of Banks has the highest proportion of Australians of Chinese background of any electorate in the nation. One of the most important groups within the Chinese community is CASS. CASS runs a number of Chinese language schools, both Mandarin and Cantonese, at Hurstville, Connells Point, Kogarah and other places. They are very well-run schools and are highly regarded in our community. At the concert on Sunday more than 200 kids performed to a packed house of 450 people. I thank Bosco Chang for his efforts in organising this event, and my good friends Henry Pan, Maria Cheng and everyone else at CASS. Thank you so much for everything you do.
Also, last week I paid a visit to the Oatley Heritage and Historical Society. The society meets on a regular basis to discuss, as the name suggests, the history of the suburb of Oatley, which is a beautiful region around the Georges River in my electorate. I attended and very much enjoyed a talk about Robert Townsend, who was the first private landowner in the Oatley region. It was a fascinating talk that we heard on the day about the history of the land development of Oatley. To President Rodger Robertson, thank you. Thank you also for the publications of the group, such as Bill Wright's book World War I Oatley Veterans. Thank you so much to the Oatley Heritage and Historical Society for what you contribute to our community.
Neighbourhood Watch
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:12): In March of this year, Neighbourhood Watch Australasia opened up a round of community grants made available through the federal government Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The guidelines were spelt out in a public notice and the closing date for applications was 2 April. Neighbourhood Watch Australasia managed the program and allocated the funds available. Of the $80,723 allocated to the 36 successful groups, no funding was made available to South Australian applicants. South Australian Neighbourhood Watch applicants were advised that they were ineligible for funding because Neighbourhood Watch SA was not a member of the national body.
In an email dated 21 April sent to SA Neighbourhood Watch group No. 188, the CEO of Neighbourhood Watch Australasia stated:
We regret to advise that unfortunately the Neighbourhood Watch South Australia Volunteer Association is currently not a member of Neighbourhood Watch Australasia. For valuable Neighbourhood Watch groups to receive funds, their representative body must be a member jurisdiction of Neighbourhood Watch Australasia.
The CEO's advice appears to be inconsistent with the funding guidelines. On 3 July, I wrote to the Attorney-General about the matter. On 17 August, I received a reply from the Minister for Justice, which stated:
The NHWA Community Funding Program's 2015 guidelines … do not include a requirement that the applicant be a member of the Neighbourhood Watch national body. Accordingly, South Australian Neighbourhood Watch groups are not precluded, on this basis, from access to the Program's funding.
The minister's response is consistent with the guidelines and contradicts Neighbourhood Watch Australasia's application of the guidelines. I have written to the minister asking whether Neighbourhood Watch Australasia has breached their guidelines with the federal government by rejecting the South Australian applications. I am awaiting a response from the minister to that question.
I believe that the South Australian Neighbourhood Watch groups were wrongly excluded from the funding round by Neighbourhood Watch Australasia. I acknowledge that the government has no direct role in the distribution of the funds, but I believe that as the provider of the funds the federal government must ensure that the distribution process used is fair and accessible to all worthy community groups, as the guidelines quite clearly state. In this particular case, South Australia has clearly missed out, in what I consider to be an unfair application of those guidelines, and I bring this matter to the attention of the minister.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Henderson ): If no member presently objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a period of 60 minutes.
Petition: Alligator Creek
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (10:15): I certainly do not object. I rise to bring a voice to this place in the form of a petition that has not gone through the Petitions Committee. I seek leave to present it as a document.
Leave granted.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: The petition is from Alligator Creek, just south of Townsville in North Queensland. It is a small but growing community set amongst the foothills, where people enjoy a little bit of extra space. They have a very tight-knit community because they share a great lifestyle and they share common problems. One of the problems is mobile phone coverage, or rather lack thereof. In the world we live in today, mobile phone coverage has become one of the basic services we rely on. For anyone in business, it is a service that can be very difficult to live without. I know there are many home based businesses in Alligator Creek. People that are running those businesses cannot give out their mobile phone numbers, because there is an expectation, when you have a mobile phone number in a business, that it is going to be answered immediately or that messages will be responded to soon after the call. They cannot do that with no mobile phone coverage in that area.
Alligator Creek is beside the Bruce Highway. We know the importance of being to access mobile phone coverage during emergencies such as an accident on the highway. Alligator Creek is also beside Bowling Green Bay National Park. It is a popular recreation spot for Townsville and tourists as well. However, there is no mobile phone coverage there, which leaves people isolated in times of need. Sadly, about five years ago a young 17-year-old girl, Che-Nezce Perrie Shepherd, died at Bowling Green Bay National Park when her leg became trapped between rocks as the floodwaters rose at that time. Because no-one could phone for help, they had to go and try to get help. It was too late for poor Che-Nezce. It really is needed.
When the last mobile phone black spot campaign was there, I got the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications down to visit Alligator Creek and have a forum on the issue of mobile phones. Half the town turned out for that meeting and the minister got a good understanding of the problem. I nominated Alligator Creek as a top priority under that funding program. The sad thing was that the network providers had a different set of priorities. Even though the local Telstra Country Wide office had listed it as a top priority, the boffins down in Sydney had a different view and we have missed out. North Queenslanders never give up, a lesson learned in the NRL grand final this year. I will be strongly advocating for Alligator Creek in the second round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Residents have filled in that petition and we will be making sure that they get that funding for that mobile phone tower in that area.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Henderson ): I thank the member for Dawson. Could I just ask the member for Dawson: has the document being tabled been presented to the Petitions Committee? Has it been rejected?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: It has not been presented. I sought leave to table it just as a document.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The document will be forward to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders.
Workplace Relations
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:18): On many occasions in this house, I have raised the concerns of workers and families on the New South Wales North Coast. They are often very worried about the choices the National Party makes, and how this affects their lives in a very real and often devastating way. As I have often said, National Party choices hurt. Their decision to constantly call for the cutting of penalty rates is potentially harmful for many workers in my area. There have been increasing calls from many Liberal and National Party members for the reduction or abolition of penalty rates for workers, particularly for those in retail and hospitality industries. Locals in my area are concerned that once again their working conditions are under attack from the government's plan to bring back Work Choices. Not only does the Prime Minister want Australians to pay more for everything with a 15 per cent GST, but he also wants them to do it by working for less and with less cash in their pocket, by cutting their penalty rates.
As we know, a few months ago the interim report released by the Productivity Commission confirmed the government's agenda. They are intent on cutting penalty rates, the minimum wage and working conditions. The commission's interim report had proposed a two-tier penalty rate system which would cut the penalty rates of every worker in the hospitality and retail sectors. This is a massive pay cut for those who work in restaurants, cafes and shops, particularly for those in regions like my electorate. It is especially harmful for those in regional and rural areas. The fact is that there is no evidence to show that cutting penalty rates increases employment or productivity. It is simply an attack on workers' wages.
The cutting of penalty rates of thousands of workers in my area would have a devastating effect. The McKell Institute has undertaken research which has found the impact of the loss of penalty rates will fall disproportionately on those working and living in rural and regional areas. The full impact of such cuts to working conditions is highlighted in a report by the McKell Institute, The economic impact of penalty rate cuts on rural NSW. The report found there would be a staggering loss in incomes of $22.6 million a year collectively to the 6,700 retail workers in my electorate of Richmond. Those cuts to penalty rates would represent a 16.6 per cent loss in take-home pay for the average worker in the Richmond electorate. The report also highlighted that cutting penalty rates to retail workers in my electorate would mean a loss of $6.5 million to local businesses. This is a devastating flow-on impact for our local economy. If the government is successful in cutting the penalty rates of hospitality and retail workers, we know who they will be after next: the nurses, the firefighters and the police.
At the last election, I had National Party members in my area running around saying they wanted to see penalty rates slashed, and they continue to say that. Labor will fight those unfair plans. We will fight the National Party's plans to slash the pay and conditions of our local workers, because, rather than a race to the bottom on wages, we believe the government should focus on jobs and economic growth. It should be investing in skills, training, infrastructure and innovation. That should be the direction, not cutting penalty rates. I will continue to support locals in this fight against the National Party's attempts to cut their pay, because, as I have said, it is not just the workers who are impacted by cutting their pay. These people are also the customers of other businesses, so the flow-on effect will be massive to our entire economy. I will stand by our workers in defending their rights to access penalty rates.
Dobell Electorate: School Centenary Celebrations
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (10:21): It has been an exciting couple of months in Dobell with the celebration of not one but two school centenaries. The Entrance Public School and Berkeley Vale Public School celebrated their 100 years of education within weeks of each other, with fun activities and recognition events.
Berkeley Vale Public School opened on a part-time basis as Tumbi Umbi School with only 12 students back in 1915, and now it has 800. Berkeley Vale Public School celebrated the special event with a dinner dance and festival, which I was able to attend. Festival MC, Bob Graham, patron of the school and local Wyong Shire councillor, did a fantastic job introducing special performances by students on the day, including some extremely enthusiastic and well performed dance and choir routines. I was able to address the crowd and congratulate the school staff, students and parents on the great job they undertook in organising the centenary celebrations. I was presented with a special commemorative book for the school's 100 years, which now has pride of place in my office here in Parliament House. The commemorative book contains photographs from the school's 100-year period, a history of the school, facts and figures, and, most importantly, reflections from the former and current students, teachers, principals and parents over the decades. After the formalities, I was able to tour the school, view some of the memorabilia on show and visit the exceptional performing arts room. Congratulations to all involved in making the Berkeley Vale Public School centenary celebration an unforgettable event. I commend principal, Narelle Armour, and her team of dedicated teachers and staff for their contribution to education and the Berkeley Vale School community.
The Entrance Public School also opened in 1915, with 10 students, and now it has 582. The Entrance Public School celebrated their centenary with a formal school assembly, presentation and filling of a time capsule that will be opened in 50 years time. They had cake-cutting, a memorabilia display and student art exhibitions, as well as a special dinner event. The Entrance Public School also had three special murals commissioned for the occasion, including a mural representing the local Darkinjung people and the Tuggerah Lakes. These murals are now situated around the school for everyone's viewing pleasure. There was also a special presentation by Leo Dagg, who was so proud to have re-enacted his grandfather's first day at Tuggerah Entrance Half Time School, as it was then known. The art and craft display was a particularly special exhibition, where many ex-students commented on the memories that were brought back when viewing the memorabilia. Congratulations to principal, Mark Rudd, his outstanding teachers and staff, students, parents, ex-students and all involved in the organisation of the celebrations. In a surprising twist, the link between these two Centenary celebrations was the inclusion of the oldest people from both the schools and Mrs Audrey Davey, who is 98, from Bateau Bay. She we was a pupil at both schools. It was a great day. Congratulations to both schools.
Freemantle Electorate: Beeliar Wetlands
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (10:25): I would like to read a letter from a constituent, Corina Abrahams, to the Prime Minister.
Dear Prime Minister,
I'm writing this letter asking that you please help stop the desecration of our beautiful unique Beeliar Wetlands and cultural heritage from the Roe Highway extension, which the Western Australian Government is determined to build against the wishes of the Noongar community. Please Mr Turnbull, I ask you kindly to intervene.
I'm a local Noongar Woman, a custodian of the Whadjuk Noongar people and direct descendant of the Beeliar Noongar tribe. I'm unsure if you have been educated with what the beauty of this land holds and the cultural significance it maintains, not only to me, but my Elders and my Ancestors. It weakens my heart to know that you as Prime Minister of Our Country have provided the West Australian Liberal Government the financial capability that is needed to ensure this project goes ahead.
Beeliar Wetlands plays a significant role in the creation of our Dreaming and Mythological stories, in particular the story of Our Wargle otherwise known as Our Rainbow Serpent. It plays an important spiritual role in maintaining the health of these local waterways.
It's historical importance as a major meeting place is attested to by numerous archaeological deposits in the area, one of which includes chert, indicating a very lengthy site of occupation indeed given that chert sources on the Perth coastal plains were submerged 6000 years ago. Registered sites that were previously listed and documented according to the Aboriginal Heritage Act have now all of a sudden been de-listed, and taken off the heritage sites registry.
I believe if you took a short time to read the historical information, which is readily available, you would start to question the process and the manipulation, the disrespect and lack of cultural regard for the custodians and direct descendants of the Beeliar Whadjuk Noongars, including the actions our West Australian Government took in ensuring this project gets the necessary Federal funding and approvals for Roe 8.
I can ONLY hope and pray that you take into consideration the destruction this project will entail, after reading the reports provided by public record and your department; that you ensure that you don't lose your integrity, values and morals as an Australian, and 'rethink the link', and protect this area from Roe8 for our people.
The loss of our endangered native wildlife inhabitants and the natural beauty of our local bushland and cultural significance to the Beelier Wetlands Lake Coolbellup (known today as North Lake) and Lake Walliabup (known today as Bibra Lake) will be unreplaceable and no amount of money can change that.
Therefore I ask you to please consider all aspects of other feasible options that have also been suggested and researched which have encompassed all significant factors that I have just expressed and addressed. Please consider my letter, 'A Letter of Importance' to preserve the natural beauty and cultural significance this place holds to allow our future generations to maintain, continue cultural customs and protocols in this area. Our cultural values and connection to country are very important from an Aboriginal perspective just as important as Churches, historical places, war memorials and any place that holds great significance are to Non Indigenous people, from a Non Indigenous perspective. Please our children's future is in your hands, Mr Turnbull.
Gilmore Electorate: Anzac Centenary
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (10:28): One hundred years ago, it was reported that on Monday morning 30 November 1915 the Nowra showground was a hive of activity as recruits, organisers and supporters feverishly prepared for the departure of the Waratah Recruiting March. Leaving the showground shortly before 9.20, the contingent marched the short distance down the Junction Street slope to the Nowra Post Office on the corner of Berry Street. With most of the shops closed so that everyone could attend, there was huge crowd gathered from all parts of the district, with estimates ranging from 2,000 to 4,000. The Waratah Recruiting March, which travelled from Nowra to Sydney just prior to Christmas in 1915 was one of a number organised around the state following the success of the Coo-ee March.
On Sunday morning 29 November 2015, the local Nowra community re-enacted this significant event of patriotism that took place so long ago. Two years ago, the Anzac commemorative grants committee met to discuss the various submissions that had been put forward. Most were to upgrade memorials or for special events surrounding Anzac Day itself. These two projects were quite different. Since then these projects have been developed. The first was to enable the publication of a commemorative book, The Waratahs: South Coast recruiting march 1915, written by Alan Clark OAM. Other members of the historical society, Robyn Florance and Timothy Rigney were the driving force for this outstanding project and they also worked tirelessly on the background research for the waratah recruiting re-enactment.
The second major project was coordinated, organised and created by two tenacious and dedicated local veterans, Clyde Poulton and Rick Meehan. They were the catalysts involving many RSL members and community groups and gathering the public for the journey down memory lane. They also organised a steam train for the day from the Lachlan Valley Railway. There is nothing like the experience of yesteryear, such as catching a stream train amidst the noise, the soot and the excitement, to remind you of the past.
I congratulate Helen Clark for making the duplicate silk flag, the historic society for their passion and research, and the Berry co-op for their memorabilia display.
I could not have been more proud than when I read the speech from the federal member of the day, the Hon. Austin Chapman. I heard Nowra Public singing, watched the members of the re-enactment Light Horse Brigade as they paraded their magnificent horses down Berry Street, watched the re-enactment recruits under orders from Clyde Poulton aka Captain Ernest Blow, saw the members of Vincentia Red Cross dressed as their predecessors from the Red Cross of 1915, and then marched across the Nowra Bridge. The Nowra Town Band was wonderful and the Scottish Pipes and Drums took our steps all the way to the railway station. Peter Williams, with his famous bugle, was part of the service and Marilyn, his wife, was dressed in the uniform of the Salvation Army of that period. The cadets of the TS Shoalhaven did the unit proud with their great drumming. Finally, HMAS Albatross contributed a flyover by a helicopter—not quite a commemorative event, but certainly welcomed by everyone.
It is not easy to have roads closed, marching people and steam trains all working together, but they pulled it off and it was magic. (Time expired)
Miller Technology High School
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:31): Last Wednesday I had the opportunity of hosting student leaders from the Miller Technology High School at Parliament House. Barbara Schefer, Edwin Lim, Mehdi Heidari and Chutikarn Chatree visited Parliament House from Sydney, together with their principal, Dr Ken Edge, and teachers Sally Atkins and Roger Thompson. These students visited Parliament House as part of a program that I have sponsored over the last 10 years. It provides student leaders with the opportunity to visit Canberra and to gain an insight into the roles and operations of our parliament.
Miller Technology High School is located in my electorate in the south-west of Sydney in a very diverse and culturally rich community. The school's population has 50 per cent of its students coming from non-English-speaking backgrounds and seven per cent of the students are of Aboriginal descent. Many of these students come from families who have low socioeconomic backgrounds and the school facilitates a number of curriculum choices, including intensive English programs and cultural orientation to enhance the learning, understanding and knowledge of all students.
Under the leadership of Dr Ken Edge, Miller Technology High School proudly celebrates its diversity through a range of cultural and artistic events each year. This year students were involved in the Fowler Anzac Centenary Competition designing artworks that depict their understanding of this important time in Australian history and to honour the commitment and service of those Australians during the First World War. Miller Technology High School won a number of awards in the categories of visual arts and print. However, among the awards was a short film that was written, directed and performed by students, entitled The Chance of a Lifetime. It took out first place in the performing arts category. It was certainly a most commendable achievement.
In June this year, 19 students from Miller Technology High School were also involved in the Tree of Life performance at the Casula Powerhouse. This was designed to commemorate Refugee Week. Their performances portrayed the personal experiences and stories of students that came from war-torn backgrounds in the hope of educating others and sharing their experiences in coming to this country.
This year also represents a very significant time for Miller Technology High School as it marks the 50th anniversary since the school opened in 1965. I congratulate Miller Technology High School on reaching this tremendous milestone and wish them well for the future. I hope they continue their commitment to culture and diversity. It is an area we should be very proud of, particularly as it gives students the opportunity to extend themselves and be ready for employment in the bigger wider world.
Member for Capricornia: Staff and Family
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (10:34): With the end of the parliamentary year upon us, I would like to thank the important people in my life. To start with, I would like to thank my wonderful staff for the incredible job they have done this year. Kylie Jackson, my very efficient office manager, keeps the offices in Rockhampton, Sarina and Canberra running like clockwork—the digital guru, particularly for us who are a bit technically challenged. Christopher Lawson, my media adviser, is a whiz at providing interesting stories to the local media—master speechwriter, motivator and expert organiser. Janine Crute, my electorate officer, manages my diary and deals with constituent issues. Constituents love her kind and calm manner when dealing with difficult issues. Rebecca Hitchcock is my part-time electorate officer. Bec is the financial guru, very efficient, with no job too big or too small. Nanet Pagsanjan, our wonderful electorate officer running the Sarina office, does a great job representing me in the northern part of the electorate. Alex Scott is the newest member of our team—all that youthful energy in the office, and then after hours running up the Young LNP, doorknocking and doing roadsides. I would also like to thank Mark Hiron, who worked for us for two years. Thank you, Mark, for your loyalty and your commitment.
A big thank you to the LNP members and supporters in Capricornia for your continued support. I would also like to thank my colleagues and the ministers who have supported us in Capricornia this year—in particular my colleagues in the National Party, especially Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce. Thanks also to the staff who keep Parliament House running—the security, the clerks, the cleaners, catering and groundsmen.
I would also like to thank my family: my parents, Bill and Gloria Martin; my daughters, Jessica Price and Kirstin Daniels; my son-in-law, Tim Price; and my wonderful partner, Cam Schroder. Without the love and support of you all, I could not do this job weeks away from home at a time. You keep the home fires burning. I would also like to mention my brothers, Daniel and Robert Martin, and their families, who have been drawn into the political arena as well. Thank you.
Last, but not least, to the people of Capricornia: you have given me your trust, and I will not let you down. Everything I do as a parliamentarian is about my electorate of Capricornia. I would like to wish you all a merry Christmas and a safe and prosperous new year.
Parliament House: Cleaners
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:37): I too rise to acknowledge the hard work of the Parliament House cleaners. They do work very hard to ensure that we have a clean and safe work space. But, Deputy Speaker, as you may know, this week our cleaners are taking industrial action, and they are taking industrial action because this government is refusing to meet with them to discuss workload and pay issues.
The Parliament House cleaners have not received a pay rise for three years—in fact, many are calling it a pay freeze—and that is because this government, on one of its big red tape repeal days, scrapped the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. That was a set of standards and a framework in which the cleaning company here at Parliament House, as in all other Commonwealth buildings, could bargain for a fair and reasonable pay outcome, and the government would pay it. That has not happened. This government, on one of its big red tape repeal days, scrapped those guidelines, so the cleaners, in fear of having their pay cut, have taken industrial action.
That should not have to happen. It should not come to this. People around Parliament House will see there are wheelie bins. These bins are there for us to dump our own rubbish, and I am sure many people are doing that, because nobody wants a dirty office, but it should not come to this. Workers only take industrial action when their jobs are on the line or when they are facing a pay cut. What we have seen happen at other Commonwealth government departments is that the cleaners have had up to a $6,000-a-year pay cut. That is a lot of money for somebody on a small income to lose. The cleaners who clean the Foreign Affairs building have had a pay cut of $6,000. It is simply not fair.
Yet what we saw yesterday, rather than a commitment to sit down with these hardworking cleaners or the government's own employees—people who are members of the CPSU and work in Customs—and talk genuinely about their workplace issues, was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection using question time to berate, belittle and attack them. This is not sensible leadership. This is not what we expect from employers. The government should be a model employer. They should demonstrate good faith bargaining by engaging with their workforce—sitting down and genuinely bargaining a fair agreement. Customs officers, like the cleaners, are taking industrial action because this government is trying to cut their pay. It is trying to cut their penalty rates and their take-home pay. Workers take industrial action only when they are under this level of attack. I call on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to be true to his word and meet with the cleaners and his workforce.
Social Media
Mental Health
WYATT ROY (Longman—Assistant Minister for Innovation) (10:40): We live in an exciting age of technology disruption. Our world is changing at an incredibly fast rate. Globalisation is shrinking our globe at a rate we could not imagine only a few short years ago and technology disruption is changing the way we do business in this country and across the globe. I see this as an enormous opportunity. It is natural for us to respond to change with fear, but if we embrace that opportunity, if we embrace that change, we make it our friend and then we can drive the future prosperity of our country and of our communities.
I want to pay a huge tribute and say a massive thank you to Facebook for coming to my electorate to talk to what they tell me was the largest group of small business owners they have spoken to in this country around how they can change their business models. Facebook is the largest media organisation in the world. We know the way that we are consuming information is changing at an incredibly fast rate. Where a business previously might have been putting ads in the local newspaper or on local radio, the opportunity to reach out to new customers and new markets by engaging in online media, particularly through Facebook, is an incredibly exciting opportunity. Thank you to Facebook for flying in people from Singapore and from Sydney. Particularly, it was very exciting for me that the social media team from Culture Kings and the incredible Sammie Lee from Live Music Promotions came along to share their experiences of social media. This will give local businesses a real boost, help grow their prosperity and help them employ more people.
The other thing I want to talk about while I have the opportunity is how we are tackling the huge challenge of mental health, particularly for young people, in our local community. I have been campaigning for years around improving mental health services for locals, particularly for local young people. It is hard to measure but anecdotally we have twice the national average suicide rate for young people, and we should do everything in our power to address this enormous need across our region. That is why, again, I am very excited to announce that headspace has chosen the Lakes Centre in Caboolture as the site to develop a new headspace facility. This is something I have spoken to the health minister about over a very long period of time and I have campaigned very hard to have this space delivered in the new year. I have encouraged them to paint the building a bit quicker so that people can move a bit quicker, and very early in the new year headspace will be opening this new facility in the heart of our region, in Caboolture. This will provide the best quality care for young people and it will provide outreach to ensure that those people who really need high-quality care are actually getting it. This will make a huge difference in the lives of so many locals. I am very proud to say that headspace is making Caboolture home.
Recall of Samsung Washing Machines
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:43): I rise again today to highlight ongoing problems associated with the recall of certain Samsung washing machines. Since I first raised this issue in this place on 12 August I have been appalled to learn that over 144,000 Australian families are still at risk of what can only be described as, and has been described as, a bungled recall process. Despite a recall process which began over two years ago, alarmingly over 30 per cent of all faulty Samsung washing machines remain in Australian homes. Serious questions have been raised over the plastic bag and tape remedy approved by the New South Wales government.
Given what they believe to be the failure of the New South Wales government to identify the safety issues relating to the recall, a group of over 2,000 community members who have all been affected by this issue and who are compassionately assisting one another and seeking to draw on information that the community can use, took it upon themselves to raise funds to commission an independent report on the electrical grade plastic bag through electrical compliance consultancy QEC Global. The report was undertaken by Mr Marty Denham, a member of the Queensland Association of Fire Investigators and a member of the electrical standards committee.
In his report, Mr Denham stated that 'after reviewing the supplied documents, it is my opinion that the rework procedure is deficient'. He went on to note that the 'plastic bag and tape' fix applied to at least 63,300 faulty Samsung washing machines 'does not mitigate the ingress of moisture into the compartment of the washing machine containing the electrical connectors' and that 'the bag would not mitigate combustion from an electrical tracking fault at the electrical connectors'.
It is important to note as well that, according to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald:
The NSW Fire and Rescue spokeswoman said they had responded to 42 fires involving the machines since the start of the recall. Fairfax Media understands at least two involved already repaired machines.
This includes the Hudson family in Newcastle, who had their machine repaired by this New South Wales government approved rework only three weeks before it caused a fire that led to a total loss of $270,000 in August.
It is nothing short of miraculous that there has been no direct loss of life because of these fires. However, the untold devastation that these disasters leave in their wake is truly heartbreaking. It includes the destruction of cherished family possessions and children being taken to hospital suffering from the effects of smoke inhalation. Yet the New South Wales government stands by the 'plastic bag and tape' fix. Such tragedies are bad enough.
We in this place have an obligation to the citizens of Australia, to consumers. They should have a right to put on a load of washing and not have their house burn down. I call on the New South Wales government to act. I am grateful to the former Minister for Small Business, Mr Billson, for taking an interest in this matter as well.
Reid Electorate: Schools
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (10:46): Deputy Speaker, you know, as a local member yourself, that half your time is spent down here in Canberra and half back in your electorate, and the contribution you can make to your electorate in both places differs greatly. As I am heading out of this place in a couple of days, thank goodness, back to the electorate for a substantial period of time, it turns my mind to my two favourite parts of being a local member in my great electorate of Reid. The first is citizenship ceremonies, when you get to share with people the momentous decision that they have taken to make this great country a better place, listen to their trials and tribulations and the journeys that they have undergone to get here and look at the joy in their faces. The second is attending schools and spending time with our next generation of great Australians, the future of this country. It always strikes me—without missing, every time—that we are only temporary custodians of this country. We have a great role and responsibility to look after it in safe hands, in stable hands, to pass it to our next generation. I always get enthused at this time of year, being asked to attend—as I know all members do—so many end-of-year ceremonies to listen to the successes of the great children in my electorate of Reid.
I just want today to pay attention to and thank the principals of some of the schools in my electorate. Unfortunately I cannot get to all of the ceremonies, as some of them are on this week, and we are down here. To Jacqueline Attard from Marie Bashir Public School, Elizabeth Bransgrove from Mortlake Public School, Paul Burgis from PLC, Mark Harris from Auburn North Public School, Catherine Young from Homebush Public School, Carmel Seeto from Chalmers Road School, Jacqueline Koob from Concord High School, Matt Lewis from Lidcombe Public School, Cathy Lucantonio from Croydon Public School, Dr Julie Greenhalgh from Meriden, John Kennedy from Homebush Boys High School, Deborah Bestulic from Holy Innocents' Catholic Primary School Croydon, Helen Elliott from All Hallows Catholic Primary School, and Gail Charlier from Drummoyne Public School; to these principals and, more importantly, to all principals in my electorate: I want to take an opportunity to thank you and, through you, your staff. You shape and mould our next generation of Australian leaders. It never ceases to amaze me that you not only look after their minds but instil in their hearts a great sense of social justice. It never ceases to amaze me that the questions I get asked in these schools are dominated by social justice. I think that stands us in great stead as a country moving forward.
To all the recipients of awards over the next three weeks: congratulations. To those who did not receive awards: work harder next year, and I am sure you will. To all the families through Reid, the teachers and their families: a heartfelt, happy, safe and merry Christmas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:50.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Office refurbishments
(Question No. 1068)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 August 2015:
What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on (a) office refurbishment, and when and where did this occur, and (b) the purchase and/or lease of office furniture.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014-15, the Department of Foreign Affairs spent $13,363,514 on refurbishment and $2,682,543 on furniture. Details of the office refurbishment are provided below.
Building |
Project |
Period |
Canberra - 20 Allara St |
Reconfiguration of Space - MOG Changes |
Oct 14-Jun 15 |
Canberra - 40 Allara St |
Reconfiguration of Space - MOG Changes |
Sep 14-Jun 15 |
Canberra - 44 Sydney Avenue |
Innovation Exchange |
Aug 14-Mar 15 |
Canberra - 44 Sydney Avenue |
New Office Fitout - MOG Changes |
Aug 14-Mar 15 |
Canberra -R G Casey Building |
Minor Works/Refits - MOG Changes |
Jul 14-Jun 15 |
Canberra - London Circuit |
Reconfiguration of Space - MOG Changes |
Aug-Dec 14 Dec |
Canberra -R G Casey Building |
Secondary Crisis Centre Refit |
Dec 14 – Mar 15 |
Canberra -R G Casey Building |
Reconfiguration of Level 3 South - MOG Changes |
Jul 14-Jan 15 |
Canberra -R G Casey Building |
Reconfiguration of Levels 2/3 North - MOG Changes |
Jul-Sep 14 |
Canberra -R G Casey Building |
Reconfiguration of Level 2 South - MOG Changes |
Apr-Jun 15 |
Canberra -R G Casey Building |
HV Evatt Library |
Apr-May 15 |
Northern Territory State Office |
Major Refurbishment |
Dec-Jun 15 |
Queensland State Office |
Major Refurbishment |
Apr-Jun 15 |
South Australia State Office |
Minor Refurbishment |
Mar-Jun 15 |
Tasmania State Office |
Minor Refurbishment |
Jul-Oct 14 |
Victoria State Office
|
Relocation - New Office Fitout
|
Jul-Dec 14 |
Victoria Passport Office |
Relocation - New Office Fitout
|
Jul 14-Feb 15 |
Western Australia State Office |
Minor Refurbishment |
Apr-Jun 15 |
QP Management Tender
(Question No. 1599)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $12,716.00 tender to QP Management for 'Provision of Hotel Rooms' (CN3293230), (a) why was accommodation sought, and (b) who stayed in the rooms, including the number of (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Accommodation was sought to attend the 2015 Africa Down Under Conference in Perth, as part of a DFAT managed international media visit. The Africa Down Under Conference plays an important role in fostering a positive partnership between Africa and Australia. Those who attended included political and business leaders, and representatives from the resources and energy industry. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs attended the event.
(b) Nine foreign journalists and two departmental staff stayed in the rooms. There were no ministerial staff.
Bureau of Meteorology
(Question No. 1745)
Ms MacTiernan asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 21 October 2015:
Has the Government commissioned any investigation into the practices of the Bureau of Meteorology in adjusting temperature records to achieve standardisation over time; if so, has the report been received by the Government, if so, (a) when, and (b) when will it be made public.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
No, the Government has not commissioned an investigation on this matter as an independent peer review and a Technical Advisory Forum have published their findings on the Bureau's methods for adjusting temperatures (known as homogenisation) and both found they reflect good practice.
The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN‑SAT) dataset is an important part of Australia's official climate record used to monitor climate change in Australia and is the Bureau's primary homogenised dataset. In August 2011, the Bureau convened a panel of international experts to undertake an independent peer review of the methods and procedures used to develop the dataset. The peer review expressed overall confidence in the Bureau's practices and considered them to be among the best in the world.
One of the recommendations of the peer review was for the Bureau to establish a Technical Advisory Forum, comprised of respected external scientists, statisticians and stakeholders, to periodically review progress on the development and operation of the ACORN-SAT dataset and advise on further possible developments.
In January 2015, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment announced the establishment of the Technical Advisory Forum. The Forum members were appointed for a three-year period to meet annually and advise the Bureau on the development and operation of the ACORN-SAT dataset. The Forum met for the first time in March 2015. The Forum concluded that the analyses conducted by the Bureau reflect good practice in addressing the problem of how to adjust the raw temperature series for systematic errors and that homogenisation plays an essential role in eliminating artificial non-climate systematic errors in temperature observations, so that a meaningful and consistent set of records can be maintained over time.
Information about the peer review, the Forum, including its report and the Bureau's response, is publicly available on the Bureau's website on Australia's long term temperature record at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/.
Department of Finance: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1765)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on
10 November 2015:
Were there any instances of fraud or theft detected by the department from
(a) internal sources, or
(b) external sources, that resulted in a cost to the department in 2014-15; if so, (i) what fraud or theft took place, (ii) when did the fraud or theft take place, (iii) what was the cost to the department of this fraud or theft, and (iv) what is being done to prevent the fraud or theft occurring again.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
((a) (i) – (a) (iv))
(i) There were two (2) instances of internal fraud* that resulted in a cost to Finance in 2014-15:
(ii) One (1) relating to dishonestly claiming leave entitlements and one (1) relating to dishonestly over reporting working hours. A fraud incident will usually occur over a period of time, therefore specific dates for each incident cannot be provided. Both instances of fraud occurred in 2014-15.
(iii) The total cost to the department for the instances of fraud was $9,816.42, of which $6,070.34 has been recovered. Recovery action for the remaining amount ($3,746.08) is ongoing.
(iv) In accordance with Finance's Fraud Control Framework, fraud control arrangements are regularly reviewed and updated to accommodate lessons learnt from previous incidents, as well as changing responsibilities and technology. This includes strengthening existing controls and implementing treatment strategies: including strengthened ICT security arrangements, enhanced training and awareness, targeted audits and improved processes for detecting and preventing fraud. The implementation of fraud control arrangements is actively monitored by governance committees as is the level of fraud activity.
((b) (i) – (b) (iv)
There were no instances of external fraud* that resulted in a cost to Finance in 2014-15.
*Note: The definition of fraud against the Commonwealth includes theft, so theft is not reported separately.
Department of Employment: Departmental Hospitality
(Question No 1846)
Mr Pat Conroy MP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 10 November 2015:
What sum did the department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio spend on the supply of alcoholic beverages in 2014-15, and for what purpose(s) was the alcohol purchased.
Minister Pyne - The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Where appropriate, official functions include catering, which can include beverages in the form of soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. For the financial year 2014–15 there was no expenditure specifically for the supply of alcoholic beverages by the Department of Employment. It would not be possible to make a reliable estimate of the amount spent on alcoholic beverages. Where official hospitality included a beverage component it included an amount per head for all beverages, with alcoholic beverages not separately itemised from soft drinks.
Department of Employment: Ministerial Hospitality
(Question No 1881)
Mr Pat Conroy MP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 10 November 2015:
What sum was spent on replenishing the Minister's drinks cabinet in 2014-15, on what date were such purchases made, and what was purchased.
Minister Pyne : The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Minister did not have a 'drinks cabinet'. All hospitality was provided as set out in the Ministers of State Entitlements Handbook, published by the Department of Finance.
Department of Employment: Communications Technology
(Question No 1917)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 10 November 2015:
In respect of global roaming costs for Ministerial staff on information and communications technology devices since 8 September 2013, can the Minister provide an itemised list of costs incurred, including but not limited to (a) date of use, (b) call or data type, (c) location of use, (d) length or size of the call or download, and (e) cost per call or data download.
Mr Pyne: The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Department of Employment does not track the specific item of global roaming costs for mobile services it provides. To identify and calculate these costs from the invoices received for mobile telecommunications since September 2013 would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources