The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Members Sworn
The SPEAKER (12:01): I have received the return to the writ which I issued on 26 October 2015 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of North Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Trent Moir Zimmerman has been elected.
Mr Trent Moir Zimmerman made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance.
The SPEAKER: On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for North Sydney.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes that on:
(a) 22 February 2010, on Q & A, the now Prime Minister said "My view is the market-based mechanism, the emissions trading scheme, is the most cost effective";
(b) 3 June 2010, on Sunrise, the now Prime Minister said "The Coalition does not have the best climate change policy, in my view";
(c) 8 February 2010, during a speech to the House of Representatives, the now Prime Minister said "Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale"
(d) 15 September 2015, on the PM program, the now Prime Minister said about marriage equality "I certainly think we should have a free vote and I’ve been very public about that"; and
(e) 7 November 1999, on Meet the Press, the now Prime Minister said about a republic "It needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote"; and
(2) affirms that:
(a) an emissions trading scheme is the most cost effective way to combat climate change;
(b) the Coalition does not have the best climate change policy;
(c) having the Government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale;
(d) the Parliament should have a free vote on marriage equality; and
(e) a republic needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote.
Leave not granted.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:06): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes that on:
(a) 22 February 2010, on Q & A, the now Prime Minister said "My view is the market-based mechanism, the emissions trading scheme, is the most cost effective";
(b) 3 June 2010, on Sunrise, the now Prime Minister said "The Coalition does not have the best climate change policy, in my view";
(c) 8 February 2010, during a speech to the House of Representatives, the now Prime Minister said "Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale"
(d) 15 September 2015, on the PM program, the now Prime Minister said about marriage equality "I certainly think we should have a free vote and I’ve been very public about that"; and
(e) 7 November 1999, on Meet the Press, the now Prime Minister said about a republic "It needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote"; and
(2) affirms that:
(a) an emissions trading scheme is the most cost effective way to combat climate change;
(b) the Coalition does not have the best climate change policy;
(c) having the Government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale;
(d) the Parliament should have a free vote on marriage equality; and
(e) a republic needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote.
Malcolm Turnbull has sold out everything he has ever believed in—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:08): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded?
The House divided. [12:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:18): Seconded! A prime minister who says one thing and does another is voting against—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:18): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:21): Mr Speaker, I will be guided by you, but I assume—given that we are in the period where there should be no divisions and so on, on substantive motions—that, if I now move that the motion be put, that will be done after the MPI?
The SPEAKER: No; under standing order—
Mr PYNE: My procedural motion be dealt with now, but the actual motion be dealt with after the MPI?
Mr Albanese: Sit down!
Mr Burke interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The members on my left will cease interjecting. Divisions are deferred, unless moved by a minister.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:22): I therefore move:
That the question be now put.
For the purposes of completion!
The SPEAKER: The motion moved by the Leader of the House is that the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133(c) the division is deferred until after the conclusion of the matter of public importance, later today.
Debate adjourned.
The House divided. [12:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (12:26): I present a revised ministry list.
TURNBULL MINISTRY 29 December 2015
Title |
Minister |
Other Chamber |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC |
Minister for Indigenous Affairs |
Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion |
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Cabinet Secretary |
Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos AO |
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Government |
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield |
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter Terrorism |
The Hon Michael Keenan MP |
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
|
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister |
Senator the Hon James McGrath |
|
Assistant Minister for Productivity |
The Hon Dr Peter Hendy MP |
|
Assistant Cabinet Secretary |
Senator the Hon Scott Ryan |
|
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (Deputy Prime Minister) |
The Hon Warren Truss MP |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
|
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
The Hon Julie Bishop MP |
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC |
Minister for Trade and Investment |
The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP |
Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
The Hon Steven Ciobo MP |
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC |
Minister for Tourism and International Education |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
|
Attorney-General (Vice-President of the Executive Council) (Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC |
The Hon Michael Keenan MP |
Minister for Justice |
The Hon Michael Keenan MP |
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC |
Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs |
Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells |
|
Treasurer |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Minister for Small Business |
The Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
Assistant Minister to the Treasurer |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
|
Minister for Finance (Deputy Leader of Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Acting Special Minister of State |
Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
The Hon Barnaby Joyce MP |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
|
Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (Leader of the House) |
The Hon Christopher Pyne MP |
Senator the Hon Arthur Sinodinos |
Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion |
Assistant Minister for Science |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Innovation |
The Hon Wyatt Roy MP |
|
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs |
Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells |
|
Minister for the Environment |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Acting Minister for Cities and the Built Environment |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Health |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash |
Minister for Aged Care |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash |
Minister for Sport |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash |
Minister for Rural Health |
Senator the Hon Fiona Nash |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Assistant Minister for Health |
The Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP |
|
Minister for Defence |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Julie Bishop MP |
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Acting Minister for Defence Materiel and Science |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Julie Bishop MP |
Assistant Minister for Defence |
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
|
Minister for Communications |
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for the Arts (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for Employment |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Christopher Pyne MP |
Minister for Social Services |
The Hon Christian Porter MP |
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield |
Minister for Human Services |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs |
Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells |
|
Assistant Minister for Social Services |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
|
Minister for Education and Training |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
The Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP |
Minister for Vocational Education and Skills (Deputy Leader of the House) |
The Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Tourism and International Education |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP |
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Mr Burke: On the list that has just been tabled, on the Prime Minister's web page Briggs and Brough are still there.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He will refer to members by their correct titles. The Prime Minister has tabled the documents.
BILLS
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Gifts) Bill 2015
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Procedure Committee
Government Response
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:27): I present the government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on provisions for a more family-friendly chamber and I ask leave of the House to move a motion relating to an amendment to standing order 257, in accordance with recommendation No. 1 of the Procedure Committee's report.
Leave granted.
Mr PYNE: I move:
That standing order No. 257 be amended to add paragraph (d) as follows:
(d) A visitor does not include an infant being cared for by a Member.
Very briefly, I am pleased to say on behalf of the government that the House of Representatives will now be the most family-friendly chamber of any parliament in Australia. No member, male or female, will ever be prevented from participating fully in the operation of the parliament, by reason of having the care of a baby. This has come about because it has been something of a family-friendly season in the House of Representatives in the last 12 months. I congratulate the members for Adelaide, Charlton, Higgins, Kingston, Kingsford Smith, Melbourne and Rankin, all of whom welcomed children to their families. The member for Kingsford Smith has had the particular blessing of adding twin girls to his family. As I, too, am a father of twins, who are now close to 16, which is not nearly as attractive an age as babies, I am sure I will work my way through it. On behalf of the government I congratulate the member for Kingsford Smith on joining that exclusive club. I recommend these standing order changes to the chamber.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:28): I stand to support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I am thankful for the work of the committee that has come back with the recommendations. It was a good consultative process. We have landed with a very sensible change to the standing orders. It will be a long time, and possibly never, before this job is truly family-friendly. But this is a significant way of trying to improve and deal with some of the challenges that have occurred in recent times.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2]
First Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:30): I ask leave of the House to present a bill for an act to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and for related purposes.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, to get on with the substantive debate rather than the procedural one, we will grant leave so that we can have the debate on the issue itself.
Mr PYNE: I am very grateful to the Manager of Opposition Business—surprised and grateful. I present the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and the explanatory memorandum.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I should explain, Mr Speaker, that my confusion about some of the readings of these things is that I now have multifocus in my lenses and I am getting used to looking up and down from the bottom to the top.
The SPEAKER: I had noticed from the chair!
Mr PYNE: So pardon me if I sometimes skip a line by mistake.
Introduction
Today I reintroduce the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.
The construction industry provides many jobs for workers in small business, large enterprises and contractors. It is critical to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia. The coalition government recognises the importance of an industry that is vital to job creation and essential to Australia's economic and social wellbeing.
This bill re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a genuinely strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law to protect workers and constructors and improve productivity on building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore.
This bill will reverse Labor's changes to the laws which underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before it was abolished in 2012.
The bill prohibits unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing, and coercion and discrimination. Penalties that are high enough to provide an effective deterrent will apply to breaches of these provisions. A wide range of effective remedies such as injunctions will also be available to the ABCC and persons affected by unlawful behaviour.
The need for the Australian Building and Construction Commission to be re-established
For many years, the building and construction sector provided the worst examples of industrial relations lawlessness. Then workplace relations minister in the Howard government, Tony Abbott, was prepared to tackle this longstanding bad behaviour and in 2001 established a Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. The final report of that royal commission provided compelling evidence of the need for reform in this industry. It found consistent evidence that building sites and construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. Projects were delayed, costs blew out and investment in our economy and infrastructure was being jeopardised.
Central to the royal commission's findings was industry lawlessness. It concluded that the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the building and construction industry represented a significant departure from that in the rest of the Australian economy. Witnesses reported criminal conduct, unlawful and inappropriate conduct, including breaches of the relevant workplace relations and work health and safety legislation and a disregard for Commonwealth and state revenue statutes. Inappropriate conduct was defined by the royal commission as 'behaviour that infringes the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a person's right of choice or other conduct which departs from recognised norms of civility and behaviour'.
The royal commission's findings publicly established what everyone in the industry had known about for years but previous governments had been unwilling or too intimidated to tackle. The Howard coalition government was prepared to step in and make the tough decisions required to clean up this sector. The establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005 provided a genuinely strong watchdog, dissolving the 1970s-style practices that plagued this industry. It was a strong, specialist regulator that enforced the rule of law applying to the building and construction sector.
While the ABCC existed, the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction industry significantly improved. For example, a 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector during this period found that:
building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent;
consumers were better off by around $7½ billion annually; and
fewer working days were lost through industrial action.
The former Labor government came under sustained pressure from building and construction unions to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Building Code that supported its work. The Labor government procrastinated for five years before the then workplace relations minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave in to union demands and abolished the organisation in 2012 and replaced it with a regulator with significantly reduced funding and powers. This saw the 'bad old days' return—wildcat stoppages, militant protests, demands from unions that their mates be employed on projects ahead of non-unionists and an increase in construction industry disputes to a seven-year high.
No-one needs reminding of the scenes we saw in late 2012, merely weeks after the Australian Building and Construction Commission was abolished: violence on the streets in the city of Melbourne, with militant union protestors—
Mr Nikolic: Shame!
Mr PYNE: It was shameful—intimidating the community and their supporters attacking police horses. We had workers on the site purchasing an advertisement in the Herald Sun with an open letter to their own union bosses asking for the blockades to stop. Images of these protests were seen on television screens around the world. What message did that send to national and international companies about investing in building and construction projects, particularly in Melbourne, or in Australia?
We saw the CFMEU grossly bullying nonmembers by creating posters labelling them—amongst other things—'scabs' and advocating that they be run out of the industry, in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders to end the protests.
We saw a violent dispute at the Little Creatures brewery site in Geelong, where union picketers were accused in court documents of making throat-cutting gestures, making threats to stomp heads in, workers who wanted to get on with the work being told they were 'dead', and shoving, kicking and punching of motor vehicles.
We saw union protestors threatening people with 'Colombian neckties' at City West Water in Werribee, where the dispute was so heated that workers had to be flown in by helicopter. The term 'Colombian neckties' came from the Colombian civil war of 1948 and involves slashing a victim's throat horizontally and pulling their tongue out through the open wound.
We saw CFMEU officials threaten to stop work on a Lendlease project in Adelaide if a union flag was not moved to a more prominent position.
The previous government was well aware of this type of behaviour in the building and construction industry and so was understandably reluctant to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, despite strong union pressure. It contracted Justice Murray Wilcox to review the industry, to buy time. Justice Wilcox recognised the need for, and the benefit provided by, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, stating in his report that 'the ABCC's work is not yet done' and 'it would be unfortunate' if the ABCC's replacement body 'led to a reversal of the progress that has been made'. But that is exactly what we have seen.
The Labor government, led by the now Leader of the Opposition, set up a severely curtailed version of the ABCC called the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate. As well as having its powers substantially curtailed, it faced significant reductions in funding and staffing of around 30 per cent. The inspectorate was hampered by quite novel restrictions on its ability to initiate or continue with proceedings if matters the subject of litigation had been settled by the parties. These amendments were introduced without any prior notice or forewarning by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the responsible minister. They are the equivalent of a person running a red light and causing an accident and then police being unable to charge that person with any offence, including running the red light, if that person has settled with the other person involved in the accident. These provisions are certainly contrary to former Prime Minister Gillard's views while she was the responsible minister in 2009. At that time she said, in relation to misbehaviour in the building industry, that 'each and every breach of the law is wrong and each and every breach of the law should be acted upon'.
These provisions in the Labor government's legislation were heavily criticised by the Law Council of Australia as giving primacy to the interests of private litigants over the application and enforcement of the laws of the parliament. The Law Council of Australia urged reconsideration of this provision and the community can be reassured that there is no such provision in the coalition government's bill.
The election commitment
In the government's policy to improve the Fair Work laws, the coalition government committed to re-establishing the ABCC to once again ensure the rule of law and productivity on commercial building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore.
We took this commitment to the 2010 and 2013 federal elections as a key policy. So important did we see this commitment that we also committed to re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission within 100 days of the parliament first sitting. This government was given a clear mandate by the Australian people to make this change.
The coalition government is committed to ensuring that the rule of law is maintained and that workers in the building and construction sector can go to work free of intimidation and harassment.
Mr Nikolic: Hear, hear!
Mr PYNE: Exactly. There is a lot of support for this bill on the government benches, as we can hear from the member for Bass.
As the Cole royal commission concluded a decade ago—
Mr Conroy: The masses behind you.
Mr PYNE: Well, I would rather have the member for Bass than the CFMEU. But you can take the CFMEU anytime; I will take the member for Bass.
Mr PYNE: As the Cole royal commission concluded a decade ago, the behaviour that we too regularly see in this industry marks it as singular. It is an industry in which conventional standards of commercial and industrial behaviour do not apply. Like in the textiles, clothing and footwear sector, special circumstances require special laws.
We also promised that a re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission will administer a code that will govern industrial relations arrangements for government-funded projects. This step will ensure that taxpayers' dollars are used efficiently. We also promised that we would work with state governments to ensure consistency with guidelines introduced by those governments who saw the urgent need to set up their own schemes in response to the Gillard government's abolition of the ABCC, led by the now Leader of the Opposition. A new statutory code has been developed that is intended to commence at the same time as the re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission.
Description of the bill
The main object of this bill is to provide an improved workplace relations framework for building and construction work to ensure that it is carried out fairly, efficiently and productively for the benefit of all building industry participants and for the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole.
The bill aims to improve the bargaining framework so as to further encourage genuine bargaining at the workplace level. Enterprise bargaining negotiations must be harmonious, sensible and productive work and should be tailored to the particular workplace.
The bill upholds and promotes respect for the rule of law and ensures respect for the rights of all building industry participants. The bill contains provisions to ensure that unlawful action, including unlawful industrial action and unlawful pickets, are dealt with appropriately. The bill includes the ability for the courts to impose significant penalties for individuals and organisations that participate in unlawful action.
The bill provides effective means for investigating and enforcing the law. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be able to exercise their power to obtain information quickly and effectively without being hindered by unnecessary bureaucratic red tape around the issue of examination notices. However, to ensure accountability and transparency, the use of these powers will continue to be reviewed and reported on by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Importantly, this bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry. It will ensure that the government's policy to deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century is delivered on time and on budget. This bill will create jobs and investment by ensuring employers and workers in the industry can get on with the job without fear of intimidation.
The definition of building work
The definition of building work in the bill includes off-site prefabrication of made-to-order components for parts of buildings, structures or works. The definition of building work also includes the transporting or supplying of goods to be used in building work.
This is a change from the previous ABCC legislation and is included to ensure that large resource construction projects cannot be indirectly disrupted through coordinated 'go-slows' on the supply of materials to those projects.
The extension to the Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf
The bill extends the geographic limits to the Exclusive Economic Zone and land above the continental shelf. This extension will bring the legislation into line with the Fair Work Act.
The structure of the ABCC
This bill will re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission to ensure the rule of law is enforced in the building and construction industry. The Australian Building and Construction Commission will be led by its commissioner, who will have the critical task of monitoring, promoting and enforcing appropriate standards of conduct by building industry participants and referring matters to other relevant agencies and bodies as required.
The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will also be responsible for investigating suspected contraventions of the law by building industry participants. They will also institute or intervene in proceedings in accordance with these laws and provide assistance and advice to building industry participants on their rights and obligations under designated building laws.
The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be supported by deputy commissioners, and by a statutory agency, to be known as the Australian Building and Construction Commission, comprising persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be the head of that statutory agency. The agency will be properly funded to ensure it can do its work—the funding taken away by the Labor government, led by the current Leader of the Opposition, will be restored.
Penalties
Changing the lawless culture of the building and construction industry requires strong regulation, a strong regulator and a level of penalties that will act as a deterrent to unlawful behaviour.
Higher penalties are justified in an industry that is so critical to Australia's economic performance. Building and construction organisations are well resourced and some show a blatant disregard for court orders and shrug off fines as 'simply part of the cost of doing business'.
Unlawful action
The bill makes it clear that unlawful action will not be tolerated and there are significant penalties for taking unlawful industrial action, or for engaging in, or organising, an unlawful picket. Safeguards are built into the legislation that ensure that the commissioner is able to separate unlawful and organised picketing aimed at disrupting building and construction work from legitimate protests.
The bill also reinstates civil remedy provisions in relation to coercion and discrimination and makes it clear that project agreements are unenforceable where the intention is to secure standard employment conditions relating to a particular site or sites covering employees from different enterprises. These types of project agreements inhibit genuine enterprise bargaining.
Coercive powers
The bill enables the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner to compel witnesses to attend an examination or to produce documents where he/she reasonably believes that the person has information or documents relevant to an investigation into a suspected contravention of workplace relations laws. These powers are needed to ensure the Australian Building and Construction Commission is able to carry out its investigations effectively and is a key tool for breaking down the historical and unacceptable 'culture of silence' in the sector. These kinds of powers are not novel and are also granted to a range of other Commonwealth regulatory bodies such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and Medicare.
The bill does, however, contain appropriate and effective safeguards to ensure due process and transparency in the use of these powers. The bill requires the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner to provide the Commonwealth Ombudsman with a report about the examination along with a video recording and transcript of the examination. At the end of each financial year, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is required to prepare and present to the parliament a report about examinations during the year. This will ensure public transparency and accountability and give the community confidence in the work of the ABCC.
Federal Safety Commissioner and the Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme
The government is committed to using its influence as a funder of large building and construction projects nationally to lead the way on improving work, health and safety standards and culture throughout the building and construction industry. For this reason, the bill retains the role of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Australian Government Building and Construction Industry WHS Accreditation Scheme.
Conclusion
The coalition government is committed to doing all that is necessary to reform the building and construction industry and to reinstitute the rule of law in this sector.
The coalition government wholeheartedly believes that workers deserve to be able to go to work each day without the fear of being harassed, intimidated or the subject of violence.
The former Labor government, led by the Leader of the Opposition, undermined confidence in the building and construction industry. Abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission has seen a return to lawlessness and an increase in the number of days where work is simply not being done in the industry.
Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry which is inefficient and unstable. The restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the code which supports its work is a critical reform for Australia.
The need for the ABCC and the case supporting its re-establishment is the same today as it was in 2013 when these bills were first introduced. If anything, the case is stronger today in 2016 for a specialist industrial regulator. The dozens of findings of court cases since 2013 highlight the issue of this industry ignoring industrial laws is as prevalent as ever.
The royal commission into trade union governance and corruption has reconfirmed and reinforced the findings of the Cole royal commission. Both royal commissions have identified systemic unlawful conduct in the building and construction industry, in particular the construction division of the CFMEU, including physical and verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse of rights of entry permits, secondary boycotts, breaches of fiduciary duty and contempt of court. Three separate royal commissions conducted over the past 40 years, including the Winneke royal commission in 1982, the Gyles royal commission in 1992 and the Cole royal commission in 2003, have identified similar conduct in the building and construction industry.
Dozens of court decisions since 2005 have highlighted the problems of a lawless culture. At the end of 2015 there were 78 CFMEU representatives either before the courts, the Fair Work Commission or both. Of the 50 cases before the courts, most relate to alleged breaches of right of entry, coercion and unlawful industrial action. The courts have imposed fines of over $6.9 million on the CFMEU and the officials for proven breaches of the law. It is clear, however, that despite these penalties the current laws not deter the construction division of the CFMEU from repeatedly breaking the law. In fact, the CFMEU seems to regard these current penalties as merely the cost of doing business.
The current system is simply not strong enough to be effective against the entrenched disregard for the law. The first step is to re-establish the ABCC as an independent specialist building and construction industry regulator with strong powers to enforce strong laws.
Justice Heydon said:
The sustained and entrenched disregard for both industrial and criminal laws shown by the country’s largest construction union further supports the need—
for a separate building industry regulator to enforce the law within the sector.
Given the high level of unlawful activity within the building and construction sector, it is desirable to have a regulator tasked solely with enforcing the law within that sector.
When the ABCC existed the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved. Following the abolition of the ABCC, ABS data shows that both labour and multifactor productivity in the construction sector have been flat following significant improvements during the period of the ABCC's operation.
The Productivity Commission's Public Infrastructure inquiry report of 2014 noted that a direct connection of lower industrial disputes to the operations of the ABCC is highly plausible and that the more stringent regime commencing with the establishment of the Building Industry Taskforce which preceded the ABCC is likely to have increased productivity for parts of the building construction industry. Justice Heydon concluded that these findings, particularly those in relation to the effect of the ABCC on industrial disputes support the continued existence of a separate industry regulator on productivity grounds.
There are some who would have us believe having a strong, independent workplace regulator to enforce industrial laws in the building and construction industry has no impact on productivity in the industry. However, as Justice Heydon put it:
…the logic of events indicates that the conduct of unions in imposing blockades and work stoppages has a negative influence on productivity.
Re-establishing the ABCC and the act it oversees is important to halting the ongoing slide into lawlessness that is facing the building and construction industry. These measures are essential to boosting Australia's productivity and to ensuring law and order prevails at our nation's building sites. I commend the bill the House.
Debate adjourned.
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pyne.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (12:56):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I also introduce the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. This bill deals with consequential and transitional matters relating to the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and other matters set out in the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.
This bill will ensure a smooth transition from the institutions, functions and powers created by the Fair Work Building Industry Act 2012 to the new regime established by the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. This bill also deals with residual operation of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 where necessary. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Privilege
The SPEAKER (12:57): On the last sitting day of 2015 the Manager of Opposition Business raised as a matter of privilege the statements in the House of the Special Minister of State in relation to matters concerning Mr James Ashby and the former Speaker, Mr Slipper. He presented to the House various material to which he had referred. The Manager of Opposition Business asked me to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests whether the minister's statements in the House from 23 November to 3 December 2015 had deliberately misled the House such as to constitute an offence of improper interference with the free exercise of the House of its authority or functions.
I have been able to speak to the Manager of Opposition Business about these matters, but I should also report back to the House on them. Deliberately misleading the House is one of the matters that can be found to be a contempt. While claims that members have deliberately misled the House have been raised as matters of privilege or contempt on a number of occasions, to date no Speaker of the House has found that a prima facie case has been made out. However, the House has agreed to refer to the committee such a matter in relation to the former member for Dobell. I have told the Manager of Opposition Business that on the information available to me the circumstances of the matters which he has raised would not justify a departure from the position that has been taken by my predecessors.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Economics
Report
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (12:59): On behalf of Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority annual report 2014 (third report)together with minutes of the proceedings, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.
Leave granted.
Mr LAUNDY: At our most recent public hearing with APRA, in October 2015, the committee learned of a number of actions the regulator had taken to reinforce potential practices across APRA regulated institutions in the financial sector.
The committee notes that APRA released a study on the relative capital strength of the major Australian banks against their overseas peers and also announced that effective 1 July 2016 it will increase the risk weight for residential mortgage exposures for banks that are accredited to use internal models to determine their capital ratios.
We also note from our discussions with APRA that the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) report and the work of the Basel Committee are likely to influence the capital requirements of Australian banks further and look forward to following the progress that is anticipated in this area.
Additionally, the committee notes APRA's continued supervision of the residential mortgage lending practices of ADIs in the current environment of heightened risk. However, the committee notes reports by the RBA that data problems regarding lenders' housing loans have emerged following increased supervisory scrutiny and will be investigating the matter further with APRA at future hearings.
In relation to superannuation, the committee will continue to scrutinise APRA on its oversight of the industry's implementation of prudential standards, particularly in light of the recent Stronger Super reforms.
The transition of responsibilities for the prudential supervision of private health insurance funds from the Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC) to APRA occurred from 1 July 2015 and the committee looks forward to observing the development of the prudential regime for private health insurers in the long term.
Finally, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the chairman of the APRA, Mr Wayne Byers, and other representatives of APRA for appearing at the hearing on 23 October 2015. I also thank my fellow economics committee members for their continued support and input as well as the most capable secretariat staff who, as always, help us put these reports together. The next hearing with APRA is scheduled for 18 March 2016. I commend this report to the House.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Mr LAUNDY: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): 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
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (13:03): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (13:03): On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit I am pleased to present the following reports: Report 452 Natural disaster recovery; Centrelink telephone services; and Safer Streets program, review of Auditor-General reports Nos 24 to 50 2014-15 and report 453: Development of the Commonwealth performance frameworkand I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I present report 453 from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit entitled the Development of the Commonwealth performance framework. This report constitutes the JCPAA's first report into its oversight of the Department of Finance's development and advancement of the Public Management Reform Agenda following the passage of the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act.
The Commonwealth Performance Framework is part of a broader reform agenda and is designed to help improve the performance of Australian government entities while also providing stakeholders with the ability to better assess entity performance over time. Through the inquiry, the committee sought to ensure that the rules, directions and guidance that underpin the framework facilitated scrutiny and provided clarity to entities regarding performance monitoring and reporting expectations.
We found, overall, that the framework was robust and was an improvement on the previous system. We note that many performance information requirements have now been elevated to legislative rules or have been made official directions from the Secretary of the Department of Finance. We commend Finance on this achievement.
We did, however, find several ways the framework could be improved. We recommended that Finance provide better examples in its guidance to entities and that Finance develop a mechanism to centrally monitor, report and evaluate both the framework and the broader Public Management Reform Agenda.
We also considered several iterations of a proposed direction prepared by Finance seeking to change the way performance reporting information is presented to the parliament in portfolio budget statements or the PBS. Several public hearings on this matter were held and the committee sought to ensure that detailed performance information was required in the interests of transparency and to assist parliamentary consideration of the budget.
Accordingly, we recommended that the direction require:
that PBSs detailed performance targets or expected achievements
that, at a minimum, an entity's most recent annual performance statement be included in an entities PBS; and
that entities update their corporate plans as soon as practicable following the approval of appropriations by parliament.
We further recommended that Finance investigate ways that Senate estimates committees might be provided with updated draft corporate plans, conditional on budget appropriation, following the tabling of each budget proposal.
The committee will focus on entity compliance with Finance's directions and guidance, in this area, in the future and will seek to confer with Senate estimates committees to ensure that there is an improvement rather than a reduction in the quality of information made available to members and senators through the budget consideration and estimates processes. More broadly, the JCPAA will continue to oversee the development of the public management reform agenda and looks forward to continuing to work with Finance in this area over the coming years.
I would like to thank my fellow committee members and my deputy chair, the member for Charlton, and would also like to acknowledge the support of the secretariat. I would also like to thank the Department of Finance and the Australian National Audit Office for their focused engagement during the committee's inquiry.
Finally, I extend my thanks to the other agencies, organisations and individuals who contributed to the inquiry through submissions or by providing evidence at the public hearings. I commend the report to the House.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (13:07): I seek leave to add some comments.
Leave granted.
Mr CONROY: I briefly want to talk about one of the audits contained in this report, and that is the Safer Streets program, which was a $50 million election commitment from the coalition—and I understand that. But, unfortunately, it did contain some outrageous cases of pork barrelling, and to fund the program they took funding off some excellent projects that would have made Australian towns and suburbs safer, such as Sunshine in Melbourne. This program was particularly concerning because of the poor administration by the Attorney-General's Department. The ANAO found that 60 per cent of applications did not meet the eligibility requirements yet were still funded, 28 projects did not provide a quote yet were rated as satisfactory for financial information, and one project received funding for CCTVs that were installed 11 months before the project funding agreement was executed. The ANAO also found that the department did not manage its conflicts of interest at all well. These were concerns that were echoed during the committee's hearings, and I hope that the department lifts its game in this area.
Of the 81 projects that received funding, 78 per cent were in coalition seats and another nine per cent were in multiple electorates, which included coalition seats. So, 87 per cent of the funding of the projects went to coalition seats. The funding round was supposed to be restricted to only election commitments, yet seven projects where no announcements were made before the election received funding, including one in the electorate of the member for Petrie, where the only evidence was that the member for Petrie spoke to the minister in May 2014 and somehow received funding. Equally concerning was the fact that six projects were removed, of which four were subject to clear election commitments before the last election, and those four were all in Labor-held seats.
I do not dispute the ability of parties to make election funding commitments and for governments to commit and deliver that funding. The key issue is how you quarantine that funding from other funding streams so that you can deliver that election commitment without bringing additional projects in or excluding projects that were committed to. That is why there is a very important recommendation in that chapter about how the Commonwealth grant guidelines deal with this very complex issue that both sides of politics will face in the future.
I will finish by thanking the committee chair, the member for Groom, and the rest of the committee for dealing with these matters which are partisan in nature in a very constructive way of trying to take the heat out of it and ask how we can improve public administration of grants that were made in an election context. I also thank the secretariat for their always-excellent work. Thank you.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (13:11): I move:
That the House take note of report 453.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (13:11): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (13:11): by leave—I present executive minutes on reports 447 and 448 of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, and they have been presented.
DELEGATION REPORTS
NATO Parliamentary Assembly: 61st Annual Session
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:12): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 61st Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Stavanger, from 10 to 12 October 2015 and ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr SIMPKINS: I am pleased to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 61st Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which was held in Stavanger, Norway, in October last year. The Australian parliament sends a delegation to the assembly's annual session every second year, but there was no delegation in 2013 because of the timing of our election. The 2015 delegation was therefore an important opportunity to renew ties with delegates from other parliaments and to engage in discussions, many of which picked up themes from earlier meetings and considered recent developments. I had the honour to lead the delegation and was joined by Senator Stephen Conroy.
The assembly brings together legislators from NATO countries to consider security related issues of common concern and provides an important link between NATO and the parliaments of its member nations. There are 257 delegates from 28 NATO member countries and a number of associated observer delegations such as our own. Each delegation is based on country size and reflects the political composition of its parliament so that there is a wide cross-section of opinion. The assembly takes place over three days. During the first two days the five committees of the assembly meet to hear from a range of civilian and military experts on particular subjects and to consider draft reports prepared by the committees over the previous months. As the five committees meet simultaneously and as Senator Conroy and I were the only Australian delegates, it was not possible to cover all the meetings.
As a participant in the 2011 delegation to the assembly I note that many of the issues considered by that meeting continue to be of concern. The issues that dominated discussions were the threat from terrorism, particularly decentralised home-grown terrorism; increasing radicalisation of young people; the situation in Syria and Iraq and the threat from IS; the refugee problem; the reconstruction of Afghanistan; and Russia's increasingly aggressive foreign policy. To place the meeting in context, the assembly met only 10 days after the murder of police worker Curtis Cheng in Parramatta, and as the assembly opened on 10 October news was breaking of the bombing of the Ankara railway station, killing 102 and injuring 400. And a month later the Paris attacks occurred, leaving 130 dead and nearly 400 injured. Security issues and the threat of terrorism were never far from the discussions in the various meetings.
It was gratifying to hear that Australia's contribution to the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, and to the reconstruction effort, was acknowledged. The postwar situation in Afghanistan was the subject of a number of discussions. The delegation heard a compelling presentation from the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. It was noted that corruption has a direct impact on security by delegitimising the state; arousing public grievance and unrest; supporting radicalism; and damaging the state's ability to detect or respond to threats.
In Afghanistan one-third of households have to pay bribes for public services, totalling $1 billion annually; and four times as many Afghans as think the Taliban are the greatest challenge facing the country think corruption is the greatest challenge. Losing the battle against corruption inevitably means losing the battle in the field, and a short-term acceptance of corruption as a tactic to gain local cooperation will always rebound negatively.
Anti-corruption must be an intrinsic part of the objectives of any engagement, and governments and international institutions should only enter into an engagement if there is a political will to enforce meaningful oversight. Anti-corruption tools should be included in foreign policy and defence apparatus. State building should be a priority from the outset of any engagement, and participants should enter a conflict with a realistic and precise vision of the departure conditions.
A recurring topic in different meetings was Russia's increasingly aggressive foreign policy. To some extent this focused on the situation in Ukraine but also on what has come to be called Russia's 'borderisation' of other neighbouring republics as well. In addition Russia's increasing activity in the Arctic is of concern to neighbouring countries and more generally.
The discussion of the situation in Ukraine was of particular interest to our delegation given the shooting down of flight MH17 in July 2014; and, by chance, the report of the Dutch safety board into the causes of the crash was released the day after the assembly concluded. We took the opportunity to meet the Dutch delegation to discuss the recovery process and the investigation. Dutch delegates expressed great appreciation of Australia's role in the process and of the work of Foreign Minister Bishop and Australian officials.
The third day of the assembly is a plenary session, which is addressed by the president of the assembly and the Secretary-General of NATO, among others. Resolutions forwarded from the committees are also considered. The Secretary-General of NATO provides a response to all assembly recommendations and resolutions adopted in plenary sessions.
The three-day program was very intense but it was very worthwhile. Senator Conroy and I value the opportunity to participate in the discussions and to offer an Australian perspective on the issues being considered. Parliamentary perspectives are not always the same as the perspectives of government, and meetings such as this are an invaluable opportunity to strengthen relationships with colleagues from around the world and to improve our understanding of issues, which we can then pass on to our colleagues and constituents.
I would like to thank Paul Jeanroy of the parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office for his assistance in making the necessary arrangements and Ambassador Damien Miller and Second Secretary Rebecca Marshall for their advice and assistance in Stavanger. I would also like to thank our committee secretary, Richard Selth, for his efforts. Richard has been involved with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on several occasions. He uses that experience to great effect, and his excellent contribution to the report is greatly valued. I would like to thank the parliament for the opportunity to attend the NATO parliamentarians conference.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (13:19): I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Let me state at the outset that Labor fundamentally believes in the international humanitarian protection framework, the heart of which is the refugee convention. It is for this reason that we were concerned about the government's move at the end of 2014 to remove the reference to the refugee convention from the Migration Act. We also support complementary protection as an important part of the international protection framework. Complementary protection became Australian law in March 2012 as a result of the then Gillard government and the minister at the time, Chris Bowen. We supported the introduction of complementary protection in government. In opposition we have continued that support by opposing this government's attempt to repeal complementary protection, and we again oppose moves to water down complementary protection by opposing this bill today.
In May 2014 the government, as part of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, implemented the statutory refugee framework by codifying within the Migration Act the refugee convention and the existing state of case law in Australia. The effect of this change was to remove all references to the refugee convention from the act and to seek to limit the role of international court decisions in the development of Australian law. Labor opposed these moves at that time. We continue to hold the view that the refugee convention should play a critical role in Australian law and that references to it in the act were appropriate and represented good legislative practice.
The government said that its amendments in late 2014 codified in the act the obligations which exist under the refugee convention and codified the state of Australia's law in respect of refugee assessment processes. There was, however, no justification for taking this step. The government's stated reason for this was that, as jurisprudence develops in this area, they would want to have Australian courts' decisions determine the progress and path that our law takes rather than the decisions of international courts and other countries.
Labor's concern—which we made clear at the time—was that, in seeking to codify the law in this way, gaps would appear. By codifying the refugee convention and the case law there was a significant risk of creating new problems in our law, particularly in relation to considerations of behaviour modification and how that would apply to those seeking protection, or to the reasonableness of finding alternative locations within the country of origin. I note that considerations of this kind are exactly those that the government is now seeking to align across the statutory refugee protection framework and the complementary protection framework through this bill, which, of course, is of great concern to us.
There was no good reason for removing the refugee convention from the act, other than a sense of false nationalism which says that we do not want international courts to have a say on the development of our law. That is plainly silly. The government's justification was always an inherently flawed argument. International courts will always have a role, because our courts, in turn, will always refer to them, even with the legislative arrangements the government has now put in place.
At Labor's national conference last year, we stated that a future Labor government would restore all references to the refugee convention in the Migration Act. This bill before us today is effectively a consequential amendment to the removal of the refugee convention from the Migration Act, flowing that into the complementary protection framework. Accordingly, and consistent with these previously articulated positions, Labor opposes this bill.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (13:23): I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and other Measures) Bill 2015. I say from the outset that I had not intended to speak on this bill, but the events of the past few months, over the summer break—particularly in Europe, but also within our own country—have leant upon me, if you like, to add a contribution, because I think this ties into many other issues in Australia at the moment, including strong, secure borders. I say also that, as I move around my community, this is not an idle, one-off type of thought process. I am constantly approached by people who are increasingly concerned about what is happening in other parts of the world and what is happening in Australia. If they are concerned about our security and our future, then we should be, here, in this place.
The bill, I think, is relatively minor, as it addresses a fairly narrow issue, but it does lead to this broader discussion. The bill itself is aimed at changing the conditions affecting people who are not refugees, as determined under our Migration Act, but claim to be at risk of persecution if they are returned to their country of origin. The bill will clarify if the risk to the person is ubiquitous within their source country—that is, whether they are at threat at every point within that country or only at threat of persecution if they return to a particular point. It will exclude people who would be safe to return home if they were prepared to take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour. It will enable them to be returned to their country of origin if suitable protections are offered and rule out the claim of risk if it were deemed to be indiscriminate. The government has moved to act in this area because the recent court decisions have effectively lowered the threshold in Australia in assessing these claims. However, this issue is closely connected to the whole concept of secure borders, as I said at the beginning of this address.
To those first comments and the disaster that seems to be engulfing Europe at the moment: I do not claim to be a great foreseer of the future, but the day that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, came out and said that Germany would accept 800,000 immigrants from Syria, I said this would be the beginning of the end for her. I believe that, as this decision is unravelling in Germany at the moment, that is being underlined every day. As the Indonesians used to say to us at the height of the boat arrivals in Australia, 'You leave the sugar on the table; you leave the attraction.' And, of course, Germany saying, virtually, that they would take anyone who could reach their borders became an attraction to many millions of disaffected people who live not only in Syria but right through northern Africa and other areas of the Middle East.
Incidentally, Germany said that, while they would accept up to 800,000—with no understanding of how they would actually shut off the number at 800,000—they did not commit to full resettlement of that number; I think it was around 150,000. This heavy influx of population, this type of migratory pattern, is likely to lead to civil unrest. It has led to drownings, certainly in the Aegean Sea. It leads to unease in the community and, eventually, an inevitable backlash. Action born of compassion—I have no doubt the actions of the German Chancellor were born of compassion—is leading, unfortunately, to distrust and violence, not only within Germany but in Europe generally. I think this is only the beginning. It probably puts the whole fabric of the EU at risk.
It is worth considering the New Year's Eve riots in Germany, particularly around Cologne. We are seeing the pictures on our television. We have heard the locals have a say about how intimidated they are and how frightened they are for their future. It is difficult to see the German authorities being able to put that genie back in the bottle, as it were, so it is going to be a very difficult time for Germany and for Europe. We saw the attack on Charlie Hebdo 12 months ago in France, the attack on the train passengers that was foiled by two off-duty US army personnel, the widespread attacks in Paris in December—tragic, terrible attacks—and the New Year's Eve eruption of violence within Germany and other places.
It is not just short-term issues that the European community is concerned about, but the rapid changes that are occurring within their societies. Already more than 46,000 people have arrived in Greece this year—46,000 people in a month. Germany is thought to have had more than one million arrive in the last two years. This massive uncontrolled migration is simply unsustainable and it will alter the concept of what it is to be an individual country within the EU. Who would have thought that we would see the reintroduction of border controls between European nations? Who would have thought that Sweden would be attempting to send 80,000 would-be asylum seekers home? Who would have thought that Denmark—
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Prime Minister
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:30): The new Prime Minister had a biblical moment in the chamber this morning. No, the chamber did not recognise his divinity; instead, as parliament opened this morning, before the metaphorical rooster crowed, new Malcolm denied old Malcolm three times. The new Prime Minister denied his previous views on marriage equality, he denied his previous views on climate change and he denied his previous views on an Australian republic. We on this side of the House asked the new Prime Minister whether he knew the man who expressed those views on those important issues and his response was clear: 'Never heard of him.' Indeed, the manager of government business went so far as to gag old Malcolm from debating new Malcolm. It is understandable. It must be embarrassing for him to have a Prime Minister whose words and actions do not agree with each other, who says one thing and does another. It would almost be like having a Prime Minister who said he wanted to join the Labor Party and then turned around and joined the Liberals to pursue Tony Abbott's extreme ideological agenda.
Why does this matter? There could be a perfectly good reason for someone to change their mind: the facts could change; sometimes people grow: they see the light and the truth becomes clear. But, as Pontius Pilate said, 'What is truth?' Unfortunately for Australians who care about climate change, marriage equality or the republic, the new Prime Minister's truth flows not from his judgement about the national interest and what is right for our country but from the extreme right-wing votes he needs in the coalition party room to retain his own job.
Lyons Electorate: Bushfires
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (13:31): Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everybody in this place a happy New Year. Also, I say a big thankyou to all the people who have contributed their time and energy to supporting communities that were affected by fire and flood across Tasmania and around my electorate. I thank Geoff Harper and his team at the Tasmania Fire Service who worked on the ground and in emergency centres to provide constant updates to their website and through the media. I particularly thank the ABC for the valuable service they provide. To the interstate firies who came over and pitched in, I say thank you and I hope you can come next time for a visit. I thank Tasmania Police, Forestry Tasmania, and the Parks and Wildlife Service for ensuring visitors and locals were safe and for contacting and evacuating walkers and residents in danger. I would like to thank the State Emergency Service northern and southern regional managers, Mhairi Revie and Mark Nelson, and their teams who have worked around the clock to help those in need, as have TasNetworks and TasWater. I know their staff have put in long hours to get services reconnected to communities with significant damage to infrastructure.
I thank Liz Skirving and her team at Rural Business Tasmania for setting up a rural relief fund and those who have contributed. I thank the farmers who have offered feed and paddocks and to rebuild fences. I thank all the people in the emergency centres in the Meander Valley and the Glamorgan Spring Bay and Break O'Day municipalities, and the communities and individuals who have donated items for all the teams. I know the Rapid Relief Team was very welcome in the Meander Valley. I visited the communities in Fingal and St Marys on Saturday and it was— (Time expired)
Indi Electorate and Farrer Electorate: Child Care
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:33): Colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention an innovative childcare service that operates in my electorate of Indi and my neighbouring electorate of Farrer. It is a unique cross-border, two states and Commonwealth funded service providing child care to families who live in rural areas where there are not enough children to make centre based care viable. Beginning life as Farm Based Child Care, Early Years Child Care, which is now based in Wodonga, provides child care to over 330 families, 450 children, between 20 and 25 rural locations, in seven local government areas, four in my electorate of Indi: Wodonga, Towong, Indigo and Alpine.
Today I would like to acknowledge the work of Anne Bowler in establishing this service. Anne is also National President of the Association of Mobile Services for Rural and Remote Families and Children. This is the national peak body for 43 budget based funded mobile services. I would also like to acknowledge four longstanding staff and thank them for their work: Diana Baude, Marsha Adhern, Melissa Greenham Peak and Tamara Smith. Beginning their work with a certificate III, they have now qualified with their bachelor degrees in early years teaching. Members, I would like to point out today that this is an effective service designed for rural people to meet rural people's needs. It is mobile. It might cost a small amount more to deliver, but it truly does deliver and it needs to be protected.
Swan Electorate: National Ice Action Strategy
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:34): Local sports clubs will be part of a grassroots campaign to educate the community about the effects of the drug ice as part of the federal government's National Ice Action Strategy. The Good Sports program, which already promotes responsible consumption of alcohol in 7,000 sporting clubs, will receive an extra $4.6 million over four years to take the message about ice to those clubs. Locally, Good Sports has accredited sport clubs, including the South Perth Cricket Club and the Manning Rippers Football Club, so those clubs will be places where the message about ice will now be delivered. Last week I met with Manning Rippers Football Club president, Michael Tindall, CEO of the Greyhounds WA, David Hobbs, and Rod Bridge from Sideffect to discuss the new program being funded through the national strategy. The commitment of coaches, presidents, clubs and Mr Bridge bodes well for the rollout of this initiative in the electorate of Swan.
Rod Bridge formed the not-for-profit Sideffect after his 16-year-old son, Preston, died in February 2013 following his school ball after-party. Preston was a rising football star but died after he fell off a balcony after taking just one tablet of synthetic LSD known as 25inBone. Mr Bridge formed Sideffect to create a voice to educate and make others aware of the fatal danger of taking synthetic drugs. He has travelled to China and shut down ice labs in China and he is now in the process of putting some buses together to travel to schools to educate children in schools about the effects and dangers of ice. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:36): This is a Prime Minister and a government that will say one thing and then do another. The fact is that they just cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister has backflipped on so many issues and changed his position just to appease the extreme elements of his party and also to appease the Nationals. He sold out to become Prime Minister. We see it across a range of issues—in particular, in terms of climate change, marriage equality and the republic. In relation to climate change, for example, on 22 February 2010, on Q&A, the current Prime Minister said:
My view is the market-based mechanism, the emissions trading scheme, is the most cost effective.
On 3 June 2010, on Sunrise, he said:
The Coalition does not have the best climate change policy, in my view.
Well, none of that seems to matter now. The Prime Minister has completely changed his view. He has sold out on the issue of taking action on climate change. On marriage equality, the Prime Minister now talks about wanting an expensive plebiscite rather than having this parliament decide. We want the parliament to deal with the issue, and it could deal with it this week.
Of course, just recently we have also seen the Prime Minister walk away from his previous commitment to a republic. Indeed, in November 1999, the now Prime Minister said that the coming republic 'needs a Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote.' But now he is saying there is no rush—no rush at all; let's not do anything. He has totally backflipped on that.
The fact is the Prime Minister has built up a profile over a range of issues, and on all of those issues he has very shamefully backflipped. The fact is this Prime Minister will say one thing and do another.
Herbert Electorate: Industry Skills Fund
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (13:37): I wish to take this opportunity to highlight the tremendously positive assistance to innovative businesses through Industry Skills Fund grants, especially in my electorate of Tangney. One such example of an innovative and agile business engaged in the high-value-add sector is CLOUDNET Pty Ltd. Recently CLOUDNET Pty Ltd were successful in securing $96,750 of Commonwealth funding. CLOUDNET, trading as Cloudtrak, provide off-the-shelf and tailored GPS and fleet management solutions for commercial transport, mining and the private sector. The growth opportunity for CLOUDNET is to reposition themselves by diversifying into specialised areas within the electrical sector. The training will enable the contractors to continue to support the mining and coal-seam gas sector by meeting increased demand in instrumentation and control, hazardous areas, electrical engineering and safety systems. This Turnbull government recognises that having a skilled, well-trained workforce is crucial for businesses like CLOUDNET. That is why we are working in partnership with business through measures like the Industry Skills Fund.
Perth Electorate: Broadband
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:39): In December 2013 the Prime Minister said in this place:
… we remain determined to ensure our NBN connects those Australians with the worst broadband in priority.
This is still coalition policy, developed by the PM as communications minister—suburbs, towns and regions with the worst broadband would receive the highest priority on the NBN rollout. Is the Prime Minister doing what he said he would do? Let us look at some of my constituents' experiences. There is Greg from Embleton, whose internet consistently runs below one megabit, according to speed tests, which is stopping him from setting up his web-based home business. Or Catherine from Bayswater, who, like so many residents in the Bayswater black hole, cannot access ADSL at all, as she lives too far from the exchange. Instead, she runs off a 12-gigabyte per month mobile broadband plan for her entire family.
Neither of these suburbs are on the current three-year rollout plan, but the much better serviced western suburbs got a gig. Even today's The West Australian described Bayswater and North Perth as operating at Venezuela speeds, and the rollout in these suburbs will not be involved in the next schedule. So the Prime Minister may have handed on management of the NBN, but the people of Perth will not forget whose fault it is. (Time expired)
Herbert Electorate: Tenders for Townsville
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert—Government Whip) (13:40): Tenders for Townsville has a central aim: to give local people the best possible chance of getting a well-paid, sustainable job and career. Townsville is northern Australia's largest city. We have a diversified economy. We need to see local businesses secure a greater percentage of government work locally. If we alter the tender process to allow local firms to compete, Townsville can drive value for the taxpayer and enterprise for our city. Townsville people want to be able to participate in the delivery of infrastructure and services, proving along the way that we can deliver projects on time and under budget and meet any criteria set by any level of government. The business sector in Townsville wants to provide jobs and futures for Townsville people to ensure that our people buy houses in our city, buy their cars locally and send their kids to our schools—that they live and invest in and grow our community. If Townsville firms can have a real shot at government tenders, they will provide apprenticeships, traineeships and jobs at all levels—on the jobsite and in the back office—in our city. Townsville is different. We are a great city looking for a fair opportunity to compete. Tenders for Townsville is just one way that we can drive innovation and value and create employment and wealth for this country. I will continue to push for my city.
Prime Minister
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:42): I rise this afternoon to talk about our new Prime Minister and his penchant for saying one thing and, of course, then doing another. It is not a new thing. It began a long time ago. It certainly began with the NBN, as we have seen just now. Not only has the budget doubled, but also he has broken his promise to so many—a 2016 promise, I believe—for a deadline that is certainly not going to be delivered now. We know that it is not just in this space that he has said one thing and done another. In the environment space, the Prime Minister said that an ETS was 'the most cost effective' but, of course, he now believes something different and does something different. On marriage equality he believed that a free vote would get us into a space where we could move forward as a country; but now, of course, he thinks differently. He is going to do something completely different.
Of course, in the republic debate, and I know a lot of Australians are really sad about this, the confirmed republican is now going to stand back. Rather than join the opposition leader, which he once claimed was what this country needed, he is going to back away and stay silent. None of this is a surprise. Look at what we have had across the last month. Every time he gets an opportunity he wants to talk about innovation, but he will not fund education. You cannot talk about innovation, jobs of the future, the agility and performance of our students, and not put money where your mouth is. (Time expired)
Hughes Electorate: Moorebank Intermodal Terminal
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:44): Yesterday I attended a New South Wales state government Planning Assessment Commission hearing, at Bankstown Golf Club, into the Moorebank intermodal terminal. One thing that was very disappointing was that at this hearing they did not allow any audio recordings. If we are to have full transparency in our government, we must allow the media, or anyone, to have audio recordings of these hearings. Therefore I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record what I said at that meeting, and that was: if this Moorebank intermodal project is to go ahead, the Planning Assessment Commission must put on it the condition that any locomotive that goes to that intermodal out in Western Sydney at Liverpool must have the same tier 4 pollution standards as trucks.
We have a serious issue with particulate pollution out in Western Sydney. In the year 2008, it was estimated that 522 people lost their lives—died—because of particulate air pollution in Western Sydney. As to the plan to take trucks off the road and instead put those containers on locomotives: every container that we do that to will add to the particulate pollution—not by 10 per cent, not by 20 per cent, but by over 1,000 per cent. We cannot increase the particulate pollution in Western Sydney when already 522 people are dying every year.
Climate Change
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:45): If ever there was an example of the Prime Minister saying one thing and doing another, it is in the area of climate change.
Mr Laming: He's got you worried, hasn't he! He's got you worried!
Ms OWENS: Climate change does have me worried—thank you for the interjection. Climate change should have us all worried. And the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for years, has said, over and over again, that he is concerned about climate change and that he wants the best policy. He supported the Labor government in its policy to introduce an emissions trading scheme, and we all know, because we all heard him say it over and over again, that he believed that was the best method and the most efficient method to lower emissions.
Now that he is the Prime Minister he does not seem to care about climate change, and he certainly does not do what he said he would do or act according to the beliefs he demonstrated over many years. He says that emissions are reducing. They are not. The government released its latest emissions projections in December, and they show that emissions went up in the last financial year by 1.3 per cent—the first increase in 10 years. And that is a reason to be worried. That is a very real reason to be worried. They went up, for the first time in 10 years, by 1.3 per cent. And not only that; the projections that the government produced showed no decrease in sight. It is an upward trajectory—up and up and up, with no decrease in sight. It is projected to beat the peaks of 2005-06. (Time expired)
Afghanistan
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:47): It is a true privilege for any Australian to spend some time with our serving personnel in the Middle East—something afforded to me and two of my colleagues, Ann Sudmalis and Andrew Broad. We had a few senators tag along as well: Sue Lines, Sarah Hanson-Young and Jacinta Collins. What we learnt there was that Australia is playing an absolutely indispensable role. The future of global peace, for this generation, will rest in Middle East solutions, and in Afghanistan Australia is doing an incredible job. Many of our service personnel are very, very young. They spend six months away from home—in this case, away over Christmas.
But, in the broader picture, Australia is investing around $100 million a year to build the capacity of both the domestic police and the serving personnel of the Afghan National Army. This is critical to stability. The view we often see in the media—that things are falling apart in Afghanistan—is not correct. The Taliban are active in only 15 of the 200 provinces in Afghanistan. They have only about 10 per cent popular support. Since August, when there were around three bombings, there have only been five—one of which, tragically, was just yesterday; 20 locals were killed. But Australia is playing an indispensable role—if for no other reason, in avoiding the pure Americanisation of the region, which would lead to, I think, a suboptimal outcome were there not these other 44 coalition partners working in the Middle East, though, of course, only about $1 billion is invested by non-US coalition partners out of the $5.7 billion that is invested annually. Australians here are doing a great job.
Prime Minister
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:48): We have a Prime Minister whose word cannot be trusted. Previously he said what he thought would make him popular, but now that he is Prime Minister and in a position to deliver on his statements he backs away from them. Whether it is on climate change, the republic issue or matters of social justice, Prime Minister Turnbull has shown that he is empty rhetoric. Even worse, he now sides with and openly supports policies that he previously tore down. Anyone who previously saw Prime Minister Turnbull as a champion of their cause should be bitterly disappointed—none more so than the people who entrusted him with Australia's climate change policies, as the member for Parramatta has quite rightly pointed out.
Last year was the warmest year on record. Climate change is real and global temperatures are rising. The Paris conference highlighted that. Yet the Prime Minister sticks to a flawed policy that he previously criticised and that he knows pays big polluters to keep polluting the world. He knows it will not work, and he has seen reports to prove that. And he sees the current records, which show temperature records being broken all the time. It is a policy that he knows will leave Australia lagging behind other nations and burden future generations with his failure to act. This is a Prime Minister whose true colours are rapidly emerging.
Capricornia Electorate: Bridges Renewal Program
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:50): For people living in remote Capricornia, access to good roads and bridges is important to ensure better road safety and more efficient transport of agricultural products and livestock to market. That is why I am proud to announce that, following successful lobbying on my part, our coalition government is providing over $3.26 million to help replace three old bridges in the region. This includes $2.75 million to fix the dangerous Cherwell Creek Bridge in the Isaac Regional Shire. This total project will cost $5.5 million. In addition, there is $180,000 to replace Louisa Creek Bridge at Garnant in the Rockhampton Regional Council area. And there is a further $360,000 to help replace the old timber Sandy Creek Bridge on South Yamba Road north of Rockhampton. The total cost of the Rockhampton council projects is $1.36 million, of which the federal government is funding half.
Funding for these projects comes under the Commonwealth's Bridges Renewal Program to help replace existing narrow bridges in rural areas. This not only reduces the time taken to transport freight from farms and local industry but also increases productivity and economic profits and, importantly, dramatically improves general road safety for country travellers.
Prime Minister
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:51): We have a Prime Minister who says one thing and does another. Let us just take the issue of marriage equality. When he was the opposition leader, he was all for it. He advocated for it. In fact, he said that there should be a free vote on it. When he was the communications minister, he advocated for marriage equality, given the demographics of his electorate. Now that he is the Prime Minister, he is saying another thing. He says that we should let the people vote. There are calls from the other side saying we should let the people vote. What a sham that is, when their own members, their own conservative members, are saying they will ignore the result of a plebiscite. People in the other place are standing up and saying, 'It does not matter what the people say. We are still going to vote with our consciences.'
It is time that this Prime Minister did what he said he would do: let there be a conscience vote on marriage equality. The Prime Minister should show some leadership in the parliament and in the community, as opposed to trying to save his own job in the Liberal Party caucus room.
The people of central Victoria are very clear on marriage equality. They have spoken out a number of times about how they support marriage equality by taking out full-page ads in our local paper. Yet we have a senator in the other place saying that it does not matter what the local people say and it does not matter what happens in the Prime Minister's plebiscite, because she is still going to vote against it. It is time this Prime Minister stood up and stuck to his word. Stop breaking the hearts of all those progressive Liberals.
Chinese New Year
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (13:53): Gee it is nice to be back, ladies and gentlemen! Next week, across the electorate of Reid we will be celebrating Chinese New Year at numerous festivals, parades and celebrations. This year we celebrate the Year of the Monkey. The general image of people of this zodiac sign is of always being smart, clever and intelligent, especially in their career and their wealth. They are lively, flexible, quick-witted and versatile. In addition, their gentleness and honesty bring them an everlasting love life. Isn't that something we could all aspire to?
Chinese New Year is the most important time in Chinese culture. It is a time to celebrate the coming year, reflect on the past year, and spend time with family and friends. It is also a great time to remind ourselves of the incredible contribution that Chinese migrants have made to Australia over many generations, not just in my electorate of Reid, but throughout Australia. Migrants from China have enriched our communities and, through their hard work and commitment to education, the Chinese-Australian community has established businesses that are driving growth in our economy.
Of course, this year will be especially important for both Australia and China. The landmark China-Australia Free Trade Agreement will unlock substantial new benefits for Australians for years to come. There is much to celebrate this year, the Year of the Monkey. It promises to be a good one. I look forward to joining my community in celebrating. To all Australians of Chinese background, my family wishes you health, wealth and prosperity. As they say: Kung Hei Fat Choy.
Prime Minister
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:54): In a power grab for the top job, Prime Minister Turnbull has traded-off his past convictions and beliefs for his own personal gain. The evidence is clear. The Prime Minister says one thing to gain popularity, and then does the opposite to keep his conservative colleagues at bay.
Before wresting the top job, the Prime Minister said of the Liberal's climate policy: 'The Coalition does not have the best climate change policy, in my view.' We remember that. Here in this place, nearly six years ago to the day, he said:
Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale …
Rather than act on his beliefs, when he has ultimate influence over Liberal policy the Prime Minister has instead fallen in line to protect his own job.
The same goes for marriage equality and Australia as a republic. On 15 September 2015, just months ago, the now Prime Minister said about marriage equality: 'I certainly think we should have a free vote and I've been very public about that.' Then, days later, when he stepped in as Prime Minister he backed a costly plebiscite.
On a republic, the Prime Minister said: 'It needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a yes vote.' Today we have a situation where, instead of acting on his alleged beliefs, he falls in line again. Jeff Kennett certainly got it right … (Time expired)
Toowoomba Second Range Crossing
Vanguard Laundry
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (13:56): It is such a shame on such a beautiful day, with a bright start to the year, to hear this continual negativity from those who sit opposite, so I am going to talk about a few positive things that have happened in the wonderful seat of Groom, since we last attended this chamber. First of all, we turned the sod on the Toowoomba range crossing, a crossing that is vitally important to your electorate, too, Deputy Speaker Scott. It is a $1.7 billion road that is going to see 1,800 people employed in my electorate by the end of the year. That is what good government can do. When you strive to balance your budget, when you strive to make sure that you are doing what needs to be done to keep the economy going, the opportunities will be there. I know the range crossing has been a very long time coming, and there are still some who will not believe it until they actually see the dozers on the site. But the drilling has started and the work will begin soon.
The second matter is, of course, the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister of a $1 million grant to assist the Toowoomba Clubhouse to start the Vanguard Laundry. The Vanguard Laundry is there to assist people with mental health issues to get into meaningful work. It already has a foundation customer in the local hospital, but as well as the opportunities at the laundry we are also seeing opportunities for those people who come under the Toowoomba Clubhouse auspices to get work on the second range crossing. It is a win-win all around.
Prime Minister
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:57): After his five months in the job, Australians have had a pretty good opportunity to have a look at this Prime Minister. There is one thing they are surprised about: gone is the leather jacket of Q&A fame. Gone is the hipster, cool Malcolm, and now we have on display the Malcolm who will say one thing but then do the other. Whether it is climate change, marriage equality, the republic, or the ABC, he says one thing to win the affection of the Australian people, but when he is here and has the opportunity to do something he does the complete opposite. Who could forget the member for Wentworth standing in his party room and declaring, 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to climate change, and taking realistic action on climate change, as I am.' Well, he has the opportunity, and it is quite clear that he is not leading a party—or maybe he is leading one—that is not as committed to action on climate change as he is. He has said one thing, and he is doing the complete opposite.
I remember listening to an impassioned speech in Federation Chamber from the member for Wentworth when I introduced my bill to have marriage equality in Australia. He said, 'If I were given a free vote on this issue I would vote in favour of it, because I am in favour of marriage equality.' That was 'leather coat' Malcolm Turnbull. What we have is Malcolm Turnbull who will say anything and do anything … (Time expired)
Macquarie Electorate: West Portland Road Bridge Upgrade
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (13:59): I was pleased to announce last month that the West Portland Road bridge at Sackville in the electorate of Macquarie was selected under round 2 of the Australian government's Bridges Renewal Program. This program supports vital upgrades of local bridge infrastructure and underpins the government's support for local bridges. West Portland Road bridge at Sackville was selected for funding as the upgrade means that Hawkesbury residents will have safer and more reliable road access. The current single-lane wooden bridge will be replaced with a two-lane concrete bridge on improved alignment. I congratulate the Hawkesbury City Council on securing $920,000 in funding for the bridge.
The SPEAKER: The time for statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from parliament between 2 February and 4 February. She is in Europe attending the anti-Daesh coalition small-group ministerial meeting and the Syrian donor conference. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on her behalf.
CONDOLENCES
Deahm, Ms Margaret Joan (Maggie)
The SPEAKER (14:00): I inform the House of the death on Monday, 28 December 2015 of Margaret Joan 'Maggie' Deahm, a member of this House for the division of Macquarie from 1993 until 1996. As a mark of respect to the memory of Maggie Deahm, I invite all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death on 24 December 2015 of the Hon. James Carlton AO, former minister and member for Mackellar, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
We pay tribute today to Jim Carlton, a man who, all his life, sought to serve others. We heard in the ecumenical service this morning Christ's exhortation to do unto others as you would have them do unto you—the golden rule, a moral standard shared by people of all faiths and of none. Jim's life was governed by that commitment to others, the love of humanity. He served the public interest in many ways throughout his life, through the Liberal Party, through this parliament and through the Red Cross. He made an outstanding contribution to our party and the liberal tradition in Australia. He was a man of ideas who brought intellectual rigour to policy development and came to be respected far beyond the world of politics.
After a successful career in business, Jim rose through the ranks of the Liberal Party to become its New South Wales general secretary in 1971. It was in that capacity that I and many of my colleagues first met him, and he remained a good political mentor to me and many others throughout his life. He was elected to parliament as the member for Mackellar in 1977. He was the Minister for Health in the Fraser government and, after 1983, held several positions in the shadow ministry.
His background in management made him a passionate advocate of private enterprise and a natural leader of the 'dries', which, of course, included John Hyde and Peter Shack. As Fred Chaney said at Jim's memorial service:
The struggle between the wets and the dries in the Liberal Party was a struggle about how the economy should work, by greater or less government intervention. The great gift the Liberal Party gave to Australia during the 1970s and 80s was that struggle because it drew out the issues that were vital to Australian prosperity. What would serve Australia better, a more open economy or the maintenance of the old way of doing business?
Jim and his like-minded colleagues were on the right side of history and, indeed, ahead of the curve; and they paved the intellectual road for the reforms that came later under the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments and which have underpinned 25 years of continuous economic growth.
After retiring from politics in 1994, Jim served as the Secretary General of the Australian Red Cross until 2000. One of his signature achievements was to combine eight separate blood banks into a national organisation, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. He was awarded the Henry Dunant Medal, the highest honour awarded by the International Red Cross. He will be remembered by all of us across the political spectrum as a thoroughly decent, warm-hearted, generous man.
Jim's family was everything to him, and he to them. This is a hard life on families, as we know, but he and his wife, Di, were a powerful team, ensuring that Jim was always there for his children, even when duty called him away. On his last night, at the head of his extended family, Jim was in great spirits, swapping news and stories, sharing food and wine. It was 23 December and the Carltons had gathered for their famous biennial Christmas celebration. Jim died the next day, Christmas Eve, but he had one last gift to others. As the Carltons gathered for lunch after his death, determined that they would celebrate his life and the joy of it in the midst of their shock and loss, the hospital rang to say that Jim's liver had been successfully transplanted into another person.
If I may borrow another line of Fred Chaney's:
Jim was a politician who mattered. It was not being there that counted. It was getting the right answer for Australia. We owe him thanks.
And so we do. To Jim's wife, Di, his children, Alex, Freia and Rob, and their families, I offer the heartfelt sympathy of this parliament and our country.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): I join with the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the late Jim Carlton. I acknowledge, too, that many members of the government will feel a personal sense of loss with the passing of Jim. Jim Carlton was a gentleman and a gentle man. In the old chamber down the hill, and here in this place, he served the people of Mackellar, his party and our country with decency and distinction.
As a former health minister and shadow Treasurer and a leading economic voice in the Liberal Party for more than a decade, Jim Carlton was a deeper thinker and more thoughtful spokesman than most. In an era when many of his contemporaries were urging an adoption of a Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' world view, Carlton maintained a belief in economic policy as an instrument of equity. He rejected what he called the Darwinian policies of Thatcherite Britain and he was equally critical of the disastrous impacts of Reaganomics. Instead, his economic hero was the great German Ludwig Erhard, who advocated a market economy delivering social justice—or, as Carlton himself put it: 'I've only ever regarded economic issues as a means to achieving social outcomes.'
The Hawke-Keating ascendancy may have denied Jim more than a few fleeting months as a minister, but when he left the parliament to take up his new role as Secretary-General of the Australian Red Cross, he did so without a trace of bitterness or regret; only grateful thanks and good humour. In fact, in his farewell speech as the member for Mackellar, in response to many warm tributes bestowed by parliamentary friends and foes alike, Jim noted that his seat had only changed hands once in the preceding 44 years. He went on:
I am so moved by these remarks that I even considered not handing in my resignation, but I did see Bronwyn in the gallery and I did not want to cause any trouble there.
A wise man! Jim Carlton led a life of intellect, energy and integrity. He will be mourned and missed by many. We bid him a respectful farewell today. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:08): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question
Bannon, Dr John Charles, AO
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:09): I rise on indulgence to acknowledge the passing of the former Premier of South Australia, Dr John Bannon, AO. John was born in Bendigo in 1943 and educated in Adelaide. In the 1970s, he held a number of advisory roles in the Whitlam government and then served as a leader on both sides of the House in the South Australian state parliament. He is remembered as South Australia's longest-serving Labor Premier. During his decade in the job, he led the state through some of its toughest times. In his post-politics life, John's roles ranged from writer and academic to being a director of the ABC. He was passionate about history, classical music and cricket. He was a man with a love of tradition and yet a pragmatic reformer. My last meeting with John was in December in his capacity as chairman of the expert advisory panel on reform of the federation. At that time, just a few days before he died, he spoke with all of the wisdom of experience. He was clear, enthusiastic, committed, concerned and engaged about the issues of today and the challenges of tomorrow.
Many have noted the similarities between John's passion for marathons and his approach to life. His daughter Victoria said the advice he once gave her on long-distance running reflected his sense of obligation and his commitment to follow through on a promise. She recalled her father told her: 'You decide at the start how far you want to go, and that's how far you go. If you have to walk, you walk. Even if you have to crawl, you get there.
John Bannon will be remembered as a very honourable man—a man who was modest, self-effacing, caring and generous. To his family, we offer the condolences of this parliament and our nation for a life in service to Australia.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): On behalf of our Labor family, I pay my respects to a proud son of our movement and a great leader of South Australia. John Bannon was a man apart—an introvert in an industry dominated by extroverts, a traditionalist who modernised his state, a historian focused on the future, a distance runner who rose to the Premier's office at a sprinter's pace and a modest man with much to be proud of.
When John was just 16 his family was rocked by tragedy when his 10-year-old brother Nicholas got lost on a family bushwalk in the Flinders Ranges. Despite a massive search effort, his body would not be recovered for two years. This loss left a deep mark on John. Many friends believed that his famous unstinting determination was drawn in part from a sense of duty to his brother's memory.
As South Australia's longest-serving Labor Premier, John transformed the state into a competitive economy and Adelaide into a very modern city. Arguably, he was the father of the submarine industry in Australia when he brought it to South Australia. John Bannon cleared the way for mining work at Roxby Downs. Along with a casino and a grand prix, he gave Adelaide a new sense of itself and a new sense of self-confidence. John's belief in his state as a place worthy of big events did not end when he left office. It underwrote his 15 years as a member of the South Australian Cricket Association board. And just as his passion for progress drove his work on the National Indigenous Cricket Advisory Council, it drove his belief in better engaging remote communities through sport.
As the Prime Minister said, at John's funeral his daughter Victoria spoke of her father's lifelong love of running. Incredibly, between 1969 and 2007, he completed 28 Adelaide marathons—11 of them under the three-hour mark. Victoria asked how her father kept going. He replied: 'The decision to stop or keep going should never come up. You decide at the start how far you want to go, and that is how far you go. This is at the core, I believe, of the beliefs that made him, John Bannon, a great Premier, a strong reformer, a champion for progress. It gave him the fortitude and integrity to accept full responsibility for the collapse of the state bank when so many other individuals and events actually owned a share of the crisis.
John Bannon has earned his place in the pantheon of Labor heroes. He has served his state with honour and he filled every unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run. We remember him. We honour him. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect to the memory of John Bannon, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Carlton, Hon. James Joseph (Jim)
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (14:15): Mr Speaker, on indulgence, if I may, I am sorry you did not see me stand when we were speaking to the condolences of my predecessor, Jim Carlton. I did wish to speak about my friend and colleague, but I noticed that the motion was adjourned and you apparently did not see me rise. I note it has been adjourned to the Federation Chamber—and I will take that opportunity, if that is the will, to speak then—but I would not want anyone to think that I did not rise to speak of Jim Carlton, my predecessor and friend.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Mackellar. As she rightly points out, the motion has been forwarded to the Federation Chamber. I am very happy for the member for Mackellar to speak on indulgence now, as she represents the seat that Mr Carlton represented for so many years. I call the member for Mackellar.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is an emotional speech because Jim Carlton and I had known each other a long, long time—ever since he became the general secretary of the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales division, following Sir John Carrick going into the Senate. We became friends and colleagues. We had many thoughts which were similar.
He was all the things that the Prime Minister said about him: an outstanding mind and thinker, dedicated to the concept of what was known then as 'dry' economics—the 'dry' side of politics. But he was more than that. He was a person who cared passionately about other people. His connection into Papua New Guinea was well known to those of us who were close to him, and his care for those people as well. When he went to the Red Cross it was almost like a natural progression because it was, again, caring about people. But his was a sound head—one that had learned the skills well in McKinsey. He brought those principles into play in the New South Wales division and he gave a leadership that was different from his predecessor but still carried on the heritage and tradition which Sir John had established.
In his marriage to Di and with his gorgeous kids, he was a family man who, at every time, would be there for his family. Di was vivacious; she was loved in the electorate. She did many things that people still remember her for now, and Jim, of course, was a fine representative, following the Hon. Billy Wentworth, who was the first member for one of the seats which was known as a '49er seat', having been created in 1949. It has only had three members, and I am the third and followed Jim into that seat, where I like to think I have upheld the things that he did and have gone into the community and upheld things of which he approved.
We remained friends and we remained in touch with each other, and when I spoke with Di after his passing it was with that sense of joy of the family having been all together on that night. Di said that the last thing he said to her was, 'Don't forget to pick up the roast.' You see, he was always someone who was very connected into that family, and, of course, the thought that he was a donor was very much on their minds when he left the home in Avoca to go to the hospital.
His memorial service was a joyous one. There was much to celebrate about him, and all the people who took part spoke of him with an insight and a joy of having known him and of his being someone who had enriched their lives because they knew him. So afterwards, with a cup of tea or a glass of wine—whatever it was—everyone was swapping stories about the contribution that this man had made for his country, and there is nothing that one can do that is more important than what he so thoroughly believed in, which was to do something for his country. He was at one stage a shadow Treasurer, and he would have made a fine Treasurer. He did not have that opportunity, but the service that he did give as Minister for Health was important, even though it was not a long period in that ministry.
Jim has made a huge and lasting impression and left a wondrous legacy for this nation. I am the richer for having known him, enjoyed his friendship and having been able to acknowledge what I believe he has given to his country.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:20): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting indulgence to the member for Mackellar. I thank the opposition for also allowing that to occur.
Bannon, Hon. John Charles
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:21): by leave—I move:
That further statements by indulgence on the death of the Hon. John Bannon be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Natural Disasters
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:21): I rise to acknowledge the Australians who, living in the path of natural disasters, are facing a very tough start in 2016. While fire threatened the Great Ocean Road communities in Victoria and the beautiful south-west of Western Australia, Northern Territorians and Queenslanders and people in the Hunter in New South Wales faced floods. We think of those who are now sifting through the remnants of hundreds of homes and properties lost in Wye River and Separation Creek in Victoria
We particularly think of the people from Yarloop in Western Australia, whose town was destroyed by ferocious fires that burnt down homes, businesses and commercial infrastructure. It is hard to imagine the strength of their feelings as they decide whether to stay and rebuild or whether they will leave forever. We remember that in Daly River and in other Northern Territory communities and in the Hunter in New South Wales people are still cleaning away the mud and debris left by the floodwaters.
For many, what should have been a time to relax and celebrate with family and friends was instead marred by personal tragedy. We pay tribute to their courage, their pragmatism and their indomitable spirit. Many of those people who lost property expressed a deep gratitude that they and their families are alive. Today, we also remember those who were not so fortunate and we express our sympathy and condolences to the families and the friends of the two Territorians who lost their lives in the Northern Territory floods and the two men who were killed in the fire in Yarloop in Western Australia.
We say thank you to all of those who helped in difficult and dangerous circumstances and who, through acts big and small, are helping people recover, repairing communities and restoring infrastructure. In particular, we say thank you to the firefighters and the other emergency personnel who gave up their time, courageously put their own lives at risk and coordinated the much needed logistics.
When Lucy and I, with the member for Corangamite, spoke with some of the volunteers who had fought the fires around Wye River, we were struck by the ability of the community to organise and help each other. Yes, there was a tragic loss of property. But there was also a real triumph in the way the community managed their response to the natural disaster, which had a force and power beyond human control.
Time and time again, Australians show grace under pressure and bravery in the face of danger, and rally without a second thought to help each other. As the member for Forrest pointed out, at the time of the Waroona-Yarloop-Harvey fires those brave firefighters were doing their best to save the homes of strangers while they knew their own homes were burning. Such selfless sacrifice and such constructive, instinctive optimism is the best of our Australian character.
Those selfless characteristics were on show again in the north of Western Australia on the weekend, when communities prepared for Tropical Cyclone Stan, and in Tasmania where the twin threats of fire and flood have wreaked havoc for emergency services and townships alike. Those characteristics of selflessness, courage, pragmatism and indomitability will all be on display throughout this summer and every summer wherever Australians face the worst that Mother Nature can throw at us.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): I rise to support the sentiments of the Prime Minister concerning Australians affected this summer by fire and flood. Yesterday was the first day back for 447,000 Western Australian schoolchildren, but 58 students from Yarloop Primary School began this year in unfamiliar surroundings, in different schools, after bushfires destroyed 162 homes in their town. Tragically, two lives were also lost in this blaze. On Christmas Day, along Victoria's iconic Great Ocean Road, thick smoke filled the skies over Lorne and flames roared down almost to the water's edge at Wye River and Separation Creek. Families and volunteers alike left tables set with Christmas lunch either to flee the fires or to fight them. One hundred and sixteen homes, many handed down from generation to generation, would be destroyed.
The floods in the Territory and the Hunter also caused significant dislocation, and as we meet in this place fires are raging in the ancient temperate forests of Tasmania. These forests, which we can trace back to the supercontinent of Gondwana and the time of dinosaurs, are burning even now. Thankfully, at this stage no lives or properties are at risk.
These fires at all points of our continent were started by lightning strikes—random, fickle shafts of fate that set in motion loss of life, the destruction of homes, farms, fences and livestock, and the reduction of some of Australia's most beautiful forest to ash and cinder. In the case of all three fires, it could have been so much worse had it not been for the foresight, the dedication and the courage of our emergency services personnel—so many of them volunteers. But for them, far more homes and lives would have been lost.
On behalf of all of us and all Australians, I want to thank them for their bravery, their steely resolve and their service. I extend the condolences of the House to all those who are still mourning the loss, due to natural disasters this summer, of someone they loved. I offer our promise as a party to cooperate and assist wherever we can to cut the red tape and to speed the work of rebuilding—helping families, farmers and local businesses to get back on their feet.
Floods and bushfires are an eternal part of life on our dry continent. They are fierce and fearsome, but they are no match for the combined spirit of the Australian people. When floods and fires wreak their devastation Australians do not surrender to despair; we rebuild; we reach out. We get on with it and we comfort and care for one another. We do not just endure; we prevail—and we will do so again.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:28): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the natural disasters over the summer be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Education Funding
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. At the last election voters saw coalition signs at polling booths that read: 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' When will the Prime Minister sign up to Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan, which will ensure that every Australian child gets the best quality education, no matter where they live?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right! Members on my left will not hold up signs. It is in breach of the standing orders. The attendants will collect them.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:29): As the honourable member knows very well, the government is investing more money in schools than ever before. We have implemented needs based funding and we have matched and we have exceeded the former Labor government's over the four years from 2014. We have committed record levels of funding at $69½ billion over the forward estimates, and that includes a record of $5 billion in funding for students with a disability. But despite a 100 per cent increase in Commonwealth and state expenditure on schools, in real terms, between 1988 and 2012, there has been an absolute and relative decline in student performance. This demonstrates that spending more money does not necessarily get you better outcomes.
School funding arrangements for 2018 and beyond will be subject to negotiations with the states and territories and the non-government education authorities. But, unlike the opposition, we will not promise the money first and, then, seek to negotiate the outcomes later. The Labor Party have no credibility at all when it comes to these big-spending proposals, as they have no way of funding them. They have no hope of funding them. Even members of the Labor Party do not believe they can deliver on their schools policy. The South Australian Labor Premier, Jay Weatherill, said of the Leader of the Opposition's education policy announcement, 'We haven't seen any coherent or sustainable way in which that is going to be funded.'
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL: This is the judgement of his peers. This is one of the leading figures in the Labor Party, the Premier of South Australia. He says of the policy the opposition leader has just asked me about, 'We haven't seen any coherent or sustainable way in which that's going to be funded.' If he has not seen it, why does the Leader of the Opposition expect anybody else to take it seriously?
We remain committed to schools funding that is fair, equitable, needs based and improves student outcomes. We are making sure it is being used where it counts: teacher quality, a better curriculum, parental engagement and in supporting principals to make local decisions about their local schools. And when we make promises we will be able to fund them. We will fund them—unlike Labor who make promises with no backing, no finance and no responsibility.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will not hold up the sign. The attendants have been asked to collect them.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Ms King interjecting—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Dobell, the level of interjections is far too high. The members for Griffith, Ballarat, Jagajaga and Adelaide, I have mentioned a number of times. I am mentioning it again, now, in case they did not hear over the noise.
Economy
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plan to grow the economy and generate new job opportunities for Australians? How does a strongly performing construction sector help create jobs and growth?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:33): I thank the honourable member for her question. We are living in times of unprecedented opportunity but they are also challenging times. The growth in the global economy, the opportunities that have been opened up, especially by the efforts of the trade minister, are enormous. Australians have never had greater opportunities—whether as families, as individuals, as businesses—than they have today. But we have to keep on ensuring that we are removing barriers to their industry, to their enterprise.
That is why we have opened up markets with the free trade agreements. Our response to the Harper review encourages competition and innovation. We are investing more than $50 billion in infrastructure. Our innovation agenda helps to create a modern dynamic 21st century economy, which prepares our children for the jobs of the future and ensures that all businesses—large and small, old and new—are positioned to take advantage of the enormous opportunities for growth.
The formula is working. Last year Australia generated 301,300 new jobs. Over 60 per cent were full-time. Youth unemployment is at its lowest rate since July 2013. Female participation reached a record high in the fourth quarter of last year: more Australian women in full-time work than ever before. Every lever of the government, every lever of our economic policy is directed at building on this strong performance.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL: One of the most important sectors, one of the biggest drivers of economic growth and jobs, is the construction industry. It directly employs more than a million Australians. The construction industry, the construction sector, does not need intimidation, thuggery or job-destroying industrial conflict. In recent years, we have seen the number of days lost to industrial disputes come down in most industries. That is good. Construction is the exception.
Today, the government has reintroduced the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], which will re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. A well-regulated construction industry will attract more investment. It will generate more jobs. It is good for the economy. It is good for workers. It is good for the members of the unions. This is a critical test of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. All of the evidence that came out in the Heydon royal commission demonstrated—incontrovertibly—that there is a massive cultural endemic problem.
Mr Dreyfus: No, it didn't!
Mr TURNBULL: In the construction sector we need an independent regulator. We need to bring it back for jobs and for growth.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will cease interjecting as will the member for Isaacs.
Education Funding
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. At the last election voters saw coalition signs at polling booths that read: 'The Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' So will the Prime Minister live up to this promise and restore the $30 billion in school funding that he has already cut and match Labor's investment, for the 'Your Child. Our Future' schools plan, dollar for dollar?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:37): I know it is always a rush, coming into question time—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: so many pieces of paper, and it is easy to get the question pack confused. The honourable member has just asked me the same question—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney, who I have already asked to stop holding that sign, is warned!
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:37): I am absolutely delighted to return to this subject about school funding, because I can tell you right now that we not only matched Labor's funding for schools for the four years of the funding agreement but we exceeded it. We exceeded it by $1.2 billion.
Mr Bowen: Mr Speaker, a point of order and point of clarification: the Prime Minister referred the question to the minister for education. The member for Sturt is not the minister for education. And does he indeed represent the minister for education in this House?
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will cease interjecting.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will cease interjecting. I am waiting to hear the Leader of the House on the point of order.
Mr PYNE: I am not surprised that the member for Adelaide does not want me to answer this question, because she was rather routinely dealt with when I was the Minister for Education. But I am also the Minister representing the Minister for Employment in this House, and therefore education has a very significant role to play in the employment of young people. As a consequence, I feel that I am very able—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The House will come to order! I commend the Leader of the House for an admirable try. We are going to move to the next question.
National Security
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on his recent trip to the Middle East and the United States and explain how Australia's ongoing military and humanitarian contribution is supporting the fight against terrorism?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for his question and note his strong and continued interest in and contribution to issues in this area of intelligence and security. During my first trip to the Middle East as Prime Minister I travelled to the United Arab Emirates, to Iraq and to Afghanistan, and I met there with some of the 780 personnel who are deployed in our ADF in support of the coalition to combat Daesh in Iraq and Syria and among most of the 250 who are working in the common cause in Afghanistan.
And can I say, as I know all honourable members would agree, that meeting these young Australians in the Middle East, serving our nation, is inspiring—their professionalism, their courage, their shining intelligence, their enthusiasm; it is really inspiring. We had some very valuable discussions. I got some very valuable feedback, particularly in matters of signals intelligence and electronic warfare. The contribution of our young men and women there is really making an enormous difference. I met with leaders there: the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates; the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr Abadi; and Dr Ghani, the President of Afghanistan.
In Iraq today, our ground force's contribution is second in scale only to that of the United States. We have in Iraq trained over 2,600 Iraqi army personnel, and that training work is continuing. The Prime Minister of Iraq expressed his very sincere thanks for the critical role Australian advisers played in supporting the retaking of Ramadi, which has been a critical boost of confidence for the Iraqi government in the battle against Daesh. Driving Daesh out of that city: it is maybe too soon to say it is a turning point; history may record in the future that it was, but it is a very important step. In Afghanistan, President Ghani thanked me for Australia's commitment and sacrifice in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Since 2001—it is our longest war—almost 26,000 Australians have served, and we are training there the future officers of the Afghan National Army.
Our contribution of course goes beyond defence personnel. We have provided, for example, over $190 million in response to the Syrian crisis since 2011 and $40 million to Iraq since June 2014. In the short time left, I will just note that in our discussions in Washington it was very clear that Australia's contribution is of enormous value to the coalition effort. It is deeply appreciated. Our contribution is appreciated. Our voice is heard and understood by the United States government, with whom we continue to work in the closest and tightest collaboration.
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister adopt Labor's policies on closing superannuation loopholes, tobacco excise, multinational taxation, scrapping the emissions reduction fund, the baby bonus and the plebiscite so that Australia can invest in the best-quality education for all our kids, no matter where they live or the wealth of their parents?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): The honourable member has given me a shopping list of some of his more recent policy announcements, and all I can say to the honourable member—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon!
Mr TURNBULL: is that we thank him for his proposals: all suggestions and proposals gratefully received.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is now warned.
Mr TURNBULL: Some of them are of higher quality than others, but we are having a good and constructive debate about taxation policy in particular in Australia. His colleague Jay Weatherill was on 7.30 Report last night, with the Premier of New South Wales, Mike Baird, endeavouring to find some common ground. And the calls that they make—that his colleague Jay Weatherill makes in the Labor Party—is that we should have a constructive debate and one that is thoughtful and detailed and one that is not full of shrill scare campaigns. So really, the opportunity—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga!
Mr TURNBULL: is now for the Leader of the Opposition. Apparently, unlike Jay Weatherill, he does not think it is a good idea to increase the GST. Well, a lot of people disagree with doing that—and that is perfectly reasonable. But there is a variety of views. And all of us, I believe, understand the fact that, in the absence of appropriate compensation, a rise in the GST would have a regressive nature. We all understand that and we have talked about that. The design of compensation, the design of any tax cuts—all of those things would be critically important. But what the honourable member should be doing is putting forward his own proposals if he does not like that.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable members' proposals raise a tiny amount of money relative to the budgetary demands. The honourable members claim that they raise $70 billion. They do not raise $70 billion. The honourable members claim they are going to get $70 billion out of the beleaguered smokers of Australia. Well, I do not think that is going to happen. The reality is that the Labor Party left us with a massive budgetary black hole—every Australian understands that. They refused to pass savings measures in the Senate, so they are doing nothing to assist in addressing that. They have proposed a couple of changes—increasing tobacco excise, which raises a relatively modest amount of money, and some changes to taxation of multinationals, which is highly controversial. Again, the amount of money would be very modest in the context of the challenges we face. Labor left a massive black hole, and what it proposes is just fiddling around the edges.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is now warned. I asked the member for McMahon to cease interjecting a number of times. The member for Fairfax.
Coalition Cabinet: Gender Equality
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Canadian Prime Minister is supporting a gender balanced cabinet because 'it is 2016'. Women received the vote in our country in 1902, yet there are still few women in cabinet. Talents and abilities are distributed equally. Domestic violence destroys our families for lack of role models. I do not accept that merit is not distributed equally. Will the government support gender equality in cabinet, with each gender entitled to a minimum of 40 per cent representation?
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned. The Prime Minister.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question and I note his interest in gender equality. All of us, I believe, would like to see more women in this parliament. Perhaps when the Palmer United Party gets together its slate for the next election there will be an equal balance between men and women on that list of candidates—and perhaps a future Palmer government could aspire to equal representation of men and women. There are now more women than before in our coalition cabinet; we now have five women in the cabinet. I can understand the honourable member's desire that there should be more, and I welcome that intent.
Speaking for the Liberal Party and the National Party, I can ensure the honourable member that we are committed to seeing more women in the parliament—in the House and in the Senate—and, as a consequence, in the ministry. We share that objective. But, as the honourable member knows, these changes cannot happen instantaneously. The Canadian Prime Minister was, of course, able to come into the parliament with a very large delegation of new members—a gigantic swing—and a very large delegation in his party room of women from which to draw his ministry.
Economy
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (14:49): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on how Australia is successfully transitioning from the mining investment boom to a more diversified economy? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative plans that would damage the national budget and hinder efforts to grow the economy and jobs?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:49): I thank the member for Solomon for her question. In our country's north, she is well aware of the great opportunities that we have in this country to continue to grow our economy and support jobs and growth going forward. As the Prime Minister said, these are exciting times but they are also uncertain times globally. At times like this we need to acknowledge and understand that and frame our policies to ensure that we can give Australians continued confidence in the growth and jobs of the future.
Our economy is transitioning and that is good news. Despite the very serious global headwinds our economy is transitioning. And it is Australians out there who are making that transition—from the investment phase of the mining boom to the more broad and more diversified economy. It is Australians who are doing it every day, and that is why this government is so focused on trying to back those Australians who are making those decisions every day—working, saving and investing.
That transition story is backed up today by comments by the Reserve Bank Governor, who said in his announcement on rates today:
In Australia, the available information suggests that the expansion in the non-mining parts of the economy strengthened during 2015 even as the contraction in spending in mining investment continued. Surveys of business conditions moved to above average levels, employment growth picked up and the unemployment rate declined in the second half of the year, even though measured GDP growth was below average. The pace of lending to businesses also picked up.
Last year there were almost 300,000 jobs created and retail sales were up. What we are seeing is an Australian economy that is growing at twice the rate of comparable economies such as Canada, which also has a commodities base. So despite those headwinds our economy is moving forward and transitioning.
Prior to the end of last year, we released a mid-year statement. In that mid-year statement, we released a very sober and honest assessment that growth will continue into the future but it will be a difficult challenge as we go forward. And we had sensible budget forecasts that realised growth will continue but, at the same time, to ensure the integrity of the budget we need to continue to get expenditure under control. And over the forward estimates expenditure is falling as a percentage of GDP from 25.9 per cent to 25.3 per cent.
You need to continue to control expenditure to keep the budget on the right path. Those opposite do not want to go down that path. What they want to do is tax higher to spend more. You cannot have lower taxes in this country if you want to spend more. The best guarantee against higher taxes is lower spending and, in these uncertain financial times globally, now is not the time to go down the tax, spend and borrow path that those opposite excelled at while in government and wish to bring back to the treasury bench.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned!
Mr MORRISON: This government will focus on controlling expenditure and supporting growth and jobs.
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to his claim a few moments ago that the $70 billion in savings identified and announced by Labor are 'modest and small'. Given the Prime Minister and Treasurer have also described Labor's $37 billion commitment to schools in the 'Your Child. Our Future' policy as 'large and unfunded', is the Prime Minister aware that $70 billion is a bigger number than $37 billion?
Mr Dutton: Swanny is back; why not ask him? I see you are back, Swanny!
The SPEAKER: The minister for immigration will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question. His technique of verballing, I am afraid to say, is not particularly effective. The claimed $70 billion in savings is a nonsense, and the honourable member knows that. The savings that the honourable member's party have announced do not result in $70 billion in savings, not by any measure. The items that they have hung their hat on—the increase in tobacco excise—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: and the rules on gearing that have been announced in terms of multinational companies—do raise billions of dollars, that is true; but, in the context of the budgetary challenges we face, they are relatively modest compared to the challenges we face, which run into tens of billions of dollars. The black hole the honourable member left us was a massive deficit. He left us a $50 billion black hole, which we have been seeking to address—as the Treasurer just described.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: What the honourable member's party has failed to do is assist, in any way, in dealing with that, blocking savings measures proposed by the government and proposing a little bit of extra tax here and a bit of extra tax there—but adding up to $70 billion it does not do at all. The honourable member knows that full well. It does not add up to that sort of money. It does not add up to a solution that we need to address the challenges which we face, and it certainly does not provide an answer to the need that all Australians are asking for, which is: what is the government going to do, and what would an alternative Labor government do, to drive jobs and growth? All we hear from the Labor Party is the same old tired formula: more spending, more borrowing and more tax.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: No solutions. They set us on this road of debt and deficit.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith has just been warned!
Mr TURNBULL: In this House we all recall when that began. We are seeking to turn back from that. And all we hear from the Labor party is obstruction, confusion and a denial of the reality that the mess in which they left us, the economic problems we face that they created—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: they are doing nothing to assist us in resolving.
National Innovation and Science Agenda
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister update the House on how the National Innovation and Science Agenda will give students and teachers the skills and confidence needed to embrace new technologies? How has the National Innovation and Science Agenda been received?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (14:56): I am very pleased to receive this question from the member for Hindmarsh, because, as he would remember—as would members of the House—the government launched its National Innovation and Science Agenda in December last year. It has been extremely well received, which I will get to a bit later in the answer to this question. Most recently, the minister for education, Senator Birmingham, and I, launched the first, quite small, part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda—but a significant part—a $7 million commitment by this government to support the University of Adelaide's program that delivers training for teachers in the digital space to encourage students into science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
As the Prime Minister said earlier in question time, despite the 100 per cent increase in spending on schools from the late 1980s to 2012, our outcomes have declined relatively and in absolute terms, but in science, technology, engineering and maths this is particularly pronounced. One of the aspects of the National Innovation and Science Agenda was an $84 million commitment to supporting STEM subjects and teachers in schools. On 22 January, we announced the first spending commitment, as part of the $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda, at the University of Adelaide in the member for Hindmarsh and my home state—$7 million to expand the University of Adelaide's program that teaches teachers online about encouraging STEM in schools.
The National Innovation and Science Agenda is a transformative document. It is a $1.1 billion commitment across 24 different measures that will transform our economy as part of the transition and as part of dealing with the uncertainty in the world economy that Australia is meeting at this time. It has been well received—very well received. The Australian Industry Group said:
The Government is leading from the front in forging the cultural changes necessary to embed innovation more deeply in our national consciousness and in our economy.
Simon Talbert, the CEO of the National Farmers Federation—and farmers are naturally innovators in the same way as they are naturally environmentalists, because they are forced to change their circumstances to meet the needs of their farms and, as a consequence, they have been at the forefront of innovation in our economy for a couple of hundred years. Simon Talbert said:
Today’s announcements facilitate better commercialisation of innovative ideas and research outcomes and in an agriculture context this will mean more farm-ready technology available more quickly.
This means more jobs; it means more growth. It means the commercialisation of the research that we do so well in Australia. It is good for the Australian economy and it helps us meet the headwinds that we face in the world economy.
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:59): My question is to the Treasurer. Australian workers pay $176 billion in tax every year, but ATO data reveals one in four public and foreign companies earning over $100 million in Australia pay no tax at all. Why is the Treasurer determined to hit workers with a 15 per cent GST, which will put up the cost of everything, instead of making large corporations just pay their fair share of tax?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:00): What would happen over the course of the next couple of years under the proposal of those opposite is that Australians would pay more tax and income tax. I have heard nothing from those opposite which has expressed any level of empathy with Australians who would have to pay a higher level of income tax into the future. I have not heard an argument for compensation for those Australians who work every day and who will have to pay higher taxes.
I come back to the issue the member has raised. Last year in this place we passed the multinational anti-avoidance tax legislation. That is what we passed—legislation that makes multinationals pay tax on the income they earn in this country.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned. The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: You would think that those who have gasbagged about this for so long would have supported that legislation. They voted against it. They voted against laws in this place to make multinationals pay their fair share of tax. It was legislation that was to double the penalty, and it has done that. This went into force on 1 January, despite the fact that those opposite voted against new laws in this country that crack down on multinational tax avoidance. The reason for that is that the shadow Assistant Treasurer wants to follow his pet project of some system which is going to punish overseas investors for investing in infrastructure in this country and that Treasury advises the government is a bad idea that will cost jobs and prevent growth.
We worked with international organisations for years, we got ahead of the curve and we put legislation through this parliament to make sure multinationals pay fair tax in this country. As a result, the 30 companies we were looking at last year have now grown to 80.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Fraser will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: They have more than doubled because of the laws that were passed by this government and which were opposed by the Labor Party in this place and in the other place.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Herbert that he has been warned.
Mr MORRISON: When it comes to the next election, the Australian people will look through the veneer of the statements being made by those opposite and they will see the lettuce economics of higher taxes, higher spending and more borrowing and the just absolute smokescreen and puff of wind when it comes to these things those opposite say they are so concerned about. When it came to actually voting for something that would enforce the law in this country and make multinationals pay their fair share of tax, those opposite turned to absolute lettuce.
Trade
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister inform the House how the Japan-Australia free trade agreement is proving beneficial to our exporters? How do this and other free trade agreements with our trading partners help create jobs and growth in the economy?
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:03): I thank the member for her question, and I note that the member's electorate of Capricornia comprises so many agricultural enterprises well equipped to take advantage of the new free trade agreements. On this its first anniversary the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement has already delivered exceptional gains for farmers and exporters.
Over the last year, export values for both chilled and frozen beef grew by a remarkable total of more than a quarter of a billion dollars. The export value of beef tongue, a popular dish in many Japanese restaurants, increased by 75 per cent to reach more than $52 million. Export sales of bottled wine experienced growth of 11 per cent. Bulk wine tripled in growth. There has been a more than tenfold increase in export sales of fresh table grapes. Shelled almond exporters have experienced similar results. Export sales of frozen shrimp and prawn increased 90 per cent, rolled oats increased up to 62 per cent, oranges are up 77 per cent and asparagus is up 44 per cent. These are remarkable increases from established markets across the board. We have seen similar gains through our FTA with Korea.
In other recent developments, our historic free trade agreement with China entered into force on 20 December, before Christmas. As a result, more than 86 per cent of our goods exports, worth $90 billion, are now entering China today duty free. Also just before Christmas the 163 members of the World Trade Organization agreed to abolish all agricultural export subsidies, something that has bedevilled our industry for decades and decades. This remarkable agreement will bring an end to more than $15 billion of agricultural subsidies, phasing out export subsidies on beef, pork, sugar, lamb, dairy, wheat, rice, wine, fruit, vegetables, processed foods and also cotton. Again, this is another major win for Australian farmers and will give a lot more confidence to investors and farmers alike on our agricultural prospects.
I am also pleased to confirm that tomorrow I will travel to New Zealand to formally sign the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a deal covering almost 40 per cent of global GDP. This offers enormous prospects for driving growth and jobs in Australia. We have made some important gains, but there is a lot more to be done. Our aggressive trade agenda is a central part of our strategy to drive new sources of growth and job creation in this post-mining-boom period.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Documents were released today under FOI relating to the former Special Minister of State's involvement in the Ashby affair. On 2 December last year the Prime Minister said the former Special Minister of State would only be stood down if there were 'new developments'. Given the Special Minister of State was stood down on 29 December, Prime Minister, what are these new developments?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:07): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member would be aware that the former special minister advised me that it had become apparent that police inquiries would not be completed before the parliament returned in February. So I announced on 29 December last year that he and I agreed that he stand aside as a minister pending completion of those inquiries. He has not, of course, been charged with any offence. There was no requirement under the Statement of ministerial standards that he stand aside, but he has done the right thing, recognising the importance of the government maintaining an unwavering focus on jobs, economic growth and national security.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:08): My constituency question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Minister, how will our amendments to the Water Act 2007 help with the crisis my irrigators and food manufacturers now face in the Goulburn-Murray irrigation districts as water prices in the temporary market soar over $300 per megalitre? How will the amendments help rebalance the Murray-Darling Basin Plan so it genuinely delivers a community, economy and environmental balance of interdependent interests?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for her question. I note the work that she has done over such a long period of time for the people in her constituency and the very capable analysis that she has, having a PhD in economics and also having started her life with study in anthropology. It means she might help us understand those on the opposite side!
It is incredibly important that we had the review into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This has brought about a range of changes that are going to assist us—most importantly, the requiring of five-yearly reviews of the socio-economic impacts of the basin. I know that the member is absolutely focused on those socio-economic impacts, because it is the two million-plus people who live in the basin who need their rights reflected and need their rights respected. It is these people who will drive growth and jobs. It is these people who put the product on the boat. So it is only proper that we get a proper assessment of the assumptions that were initially delivered in the plan and we make sure that we are delivering back to them the outcome that secures their future so that we can continue to be the benefactor of their work, of the product that they produce.
Also, we have made sure in this review that the former anomaly where profits from the trading of water, which would in the past go to purchasing more licences, exacerbating the problems, has changed. We can use that money for such things as in-stream measures and works to alleviate our requirements for buybacks. We know that the more water that you buy back, the more it has a direct correlation to the socio-economic detriment of towns such as Shepparton, where you are.
We also want to reduce the regulatory burden and minimise the red tape for farmers, and this is part of the review process. Water prices in this area have been very volatile, but they have been affected by a range of issues such as the hot and dry season conditions. Storages across the basin have been low at times, and, consequently, seasonal allocations are low. This is particularly the case for general security water entitlements in New South Wales. Most owners of water entitlements—irrigators—are using limited allocations on their own properties, leaving little excess water to put on the temporary market. But we have been aware of this, and we are looking very closely at it. If there are unreasonable fluctuations in markets, we must make sure that we have proper market conditions, not people exploiting the market.
This is part of a process in which I am proud to work with all members of the Murray-Darling Basin to make sure that we are diligently delivering back to the basin the sort of future that we have delivered in the past.
Special Minister of State
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please tell the House which members of his executive have informed him or his office that they have been contacted by the Australian Federal Police in relation to the Ashby affair?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:12): I thank the honourable member for his question.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave the House under standing order 94(a). He has been warned twice.
Mr TURNBULL: As the honourable member would be aware, the Federal Police have sought assistance from the member for Longman and the member for Sturt—in addition, of course, to the former Special Minister of State.
Lindsay Electorate: Roads
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (15:12): My question is to the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects. I note that, for many years, infrastructure in Western Sydney has been neglected. It is under this government that we are finally seeing investment in infrastructure in Western Sydney. Two key roads in my electorate include the Werrington Arterial Road and the Northern Road, where amazing work is being done. I ask the minister: can you please outline the plan for infrastructure in Western Sydney and how this is going to facilitate the massive population growth that we will see in our region?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (15:13): I thank the member for Lindsay, who is, of course, an extremely effective member and advocate for the needs of Western Sydney and for her constituents in the electorate of Lindsay. The population of Western Sydney is going to rise from two to three million people over the next 20 years. The member for Lindsay is a very strong advocate for the transport and infrastructure planning which is necessary to meet the needs of Western Sydney. The Turnbull government is doing more than just planning; it is delivering on infrastructure for Western Sydney. Just a few days ago, we announced $6.7 million for the Northern Road intersection upgrade in Lindsay. This forms part of the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. In fact, there is an enormous amount happening when it comes to delivering infrastructure in Western Sydney to meet the needs of constituents in Lindsay and right across Western Sydney. For example, construction is underway on the Bringelly Road and on stage 1 of the Northern Road upgrade. Route identification is underway on the M12 motorway, which will go to the Western Sydney Airport. Early next year work will commence on stage 3 of the Northern Road, with major upgrades of intersections at the M4, at Glenmore Parkway and at Bradley Street.
The Turnbull and Baird governments are working together on the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. There is $35 million from each government for developing and constructing road improvements to alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow along Mulgoa Road and Castlereagh Street, adjacent to the CBD of Penrith. Indeed, in the most recent round of black spots announcements some $400,000 was allocated to the electorate of Lindsay across five projects. It is enormously important that we have a plan for infrastructure in Western Sydney—and we do. It is enormously important that we deliver on that plan, and the Turnbull government, working with the Baird government, is delivering on that plan. And it is enormously important that we have effective, hardworking advocates for their electorate like the member for Lindsay.
Mr Turnbull: It being 16 minutes past three, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Independent Auditor
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:16): In accordance with the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present a report by the Independent Auditor entitled Australian National Audit Office—Report by the Independent Auditor—Review of communications processes—Performance audit.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of 2015-16
The SPEAKER (15:16): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2015-16 entitled audit report No. 13, Performance audit—Managing compliance with visa conditions: Department of Immigration and Border Protection; audit report No. 14, Performance audit—Approval and administration of Commonwealth funding for the East West Link project: Across entities; audit report No. 15, Financial statement audit—Audits of the financial statements of Australian Government entities for the period ended 30 June 2015, including a correction; audit report No. 16, Assurance review—2014-15 Major Projects Report: Department of Defence; audit report No. 17, Performance audit—Design and implementation of the first funding round of the Bridges Renewal Programme: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; and audit report No. 18, Performance audit—Qualifying for the Disability Support Pension: Department of Social Services; Department of Human Services, including a correction.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:16): I move:
That the reports be made parliamentary papers.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:16): One of the reports that has just been tabled is a devastating report—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler needs to—
Mr ALBANESE: I am speaking to the motion.
The SPEAKER: He needs to speak to why the reports should be made parliamentary papers.
Mr ALBANESE: Yes. It certainly should be made a parliamentary paper, because it is a report into the disastrous East West debacle in Melbourne—and I note that, in the form in which it was moved in this chamber, they tried to hide what it was. And why wouldn't you? It shows that there was—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Grayndler should know that, if he wishes to take advantage of what is usually a routine matter, he will need to spend the entire period of his 10 minutes explaining why this question should be put to the parliament about making these reports parliamentary papers as opposed to any other kind of paper. If he had perhaps given me notice of this I might have made an arrangement for him to be able to talk on this matter with his shadow counterpart, but he has not. He does need to make it very clear why, technically, these reports should be parliamentary papers under the standing orders and what that means, as opposed to dealing with the substance of the reports.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House. I listened to his point of order. He would have heard that I made that entirely clear at the start. The member for Grayndler needs to show why the reports must be made parliamentary papers.
Mr ALBANESE: Absolutely. For the benefit of the Leader of the House, it helps if a report is made a parliamentary paper so that people can read what is in it. That is the point. Why they want to hide this report is that it says, for example, 'Consistent with this situation, departmental advice—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I am really loath to take a point of order on the former Leader of the House, because I know how experienced he is in these matters, but there are of course many ways of obtaining a report. One of them of course is to make it a parliamentary paper, which connotes certain privileges to that paper. What the member for Grayndler needs to debate is why this should be made a parliamentary and what that means, rather than other methods of making reports part of the Hansard, for example, in terms of tabling them. He is not doing that. He is in fact talking to the substance of the motion and now trying to pretend that the government is hiding the report, when in fact we are making it a parliamentary paper so that it will not be hidden from anybody. Even the member for Grayndler would be able to find it.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House. I uphold the point of order. I made that ruling very early on. The member for Grayndler is entitled to speak on why documents should be made parliamentary papers.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will not interject while I am making a ruling. He is warned. The member for Grayndler heard my ruling at the start and the point of order I have upheld. He has a very narrow opportunity to speak as to why the reports should be made parliamentary papers.
Mr ALBANESE: It is absolutely within my rights to speak to a motion about why it should be made a parliamentary paper so that it can be available to members of parliament. This has been an issue, Mr Speaker—and you would know full well—of some controversy. The reason that it is significant is that we are talking about transparency. That is why it is important that it be made a parliamentary paper. It is important that the taxpayers of Australia know—as they do through this report—that the department recommended against the funding of the East West Link. The department found—and it is found in the Auditor-General's report—that neither stage 1 nor stage 2—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to take points of order that chew up the member for Grayndler's time. That is the last thing I would seek to do. But it is really very important—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will come to the point of order.
Mr Pyne: It is very important, Mr Speaker, that he abide by your rulings. You have indicated to him that it is a narrow debate and he needs to talk about the technicalities of parliamentary papers, and he is not doing that.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I assure the Leader of the House that I made my ruling very early, I have upheld his point of order, and I am listening very carefully to the member for Grayndler.
Mr ALBANESE: Before members of this House vote on whether or not it should be made a parliamentary paper, on a motion moved by the Leader of the House—and I am surprised that he now seems to be opposing the motion that he has moved—and supported by me, it is important that they know—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will come to the substance of the motion.
Mr ALBANESE: It is important that they know what is in the paper before they decide whether or not it should be published. This goes to transparency. It goes to the fact that this Auditor-General's report—and I speak as a member of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee of the House of Representatives—finds very clearly that there is an absolute abuse when it comes to—
Government members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: It absolutely has things to do with it, because I wrote to the Auditor-General, requesting this very audit take place. It was only because of—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler has strayed in responding to the Leader of the House. The members for Aston and Gippsland will cease interjecting. I would urge the member for Grayndler not to respond to interjections from the Leader of the House or any other interjections.
Mr ALBANESE: Indeed, that is reasonable. I certainly think your suggestion that we ignore the Leader of the House is a good one.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will not misrepresent the Speaker, either, if he wishes to keep speaking.
Mr ALBANESE: The report states very clearly that neither stage 1 nor stage 2 of the East West Link project required Commonwealth funding in 2013-14. It then says:
Advance payments on or before 30 June 2014 would increase the deficit for 2013-14 but improve the reported position for later years.” ...
It went on further in the report to say that departmental advice to ministers—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler needs to confine himself as to why the document should be a parliamentary paper.
Mr ALBANESE: The reason it should be made a parliamentary paper and available for discussion, including debate right now, is that we are talking about $1½ billion of taxpayers' money, on which the report found that the Victorian government—the then coalition government, which received this money—received interest of $49 million. That is $49 million that was given to the Victorian government that could have been paid off the deficit which they have created. The report shows very clearly that that is the case. That is why this whole debate is about transparency—and this is why it is an ongoing issue, Mr Speaker, because, as a result of the punishment of the people of Victoria for electing a Labor government, Victoria is now receiving some nine per cent of national infrastructure spending and investment, even though it is 25 per cent—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler is now straying from the substance of the motion.
Mr ALBANESE: That is why this report must be made a parliamentary paper.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you have been very generous to the member for Grayndler and I think that is probably because of his experience in this place. Talking about the Victorian state government and the relationship between the Commonwealth and the Victorian governments is hardly—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for Isaacs that he has already been warned. I am listening to the point of order from the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: relevant to the debate about whether these particular audit reports should be made parliamentary papers.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The point that the Leader of the House made is correct—which is why I ask the member for Grayndler to bring himself back to the substance of the motion.
Mr ALBANESE: I personally agree with the Leader of the House; I am doing so on this occasion because it is important that every Victorian and every Australian taxpayer should have access to this paper. That is because they are missing out on infrastructure investment—nine per cent, in spite of the fact they are 25 per cent of the population. In addition to that, the fact is that this report shows what a shambles the federal government's infrastructure program is. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Science) (15:26): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Education Funding
The SPEAKER (15:26): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The importance of properly investing in education for Australia's future.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (15:27): I rise to debate the issue of the importance of properly investing in education for Australia's future at a time when we know that in the past week about 3.7 million students have flooded back to classrooms all across the country. In every single one of the electorates that we are privileged enough to represent in this place—and I can guarantee that every member of this parliament would agree—every single one of those 3.7 million children deserves to have a great education. The thing is, every member of this parliament can say that but only one side of this parliament is actually prepared to stand up and do something about it. Some members of the Australian community may still be shocked by that, and I can understand that, because we were told time and time again before the last election that things would be different. We were told by the member for Sturt:
You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.
That is what the government was saying before the election. They were also saying—and we might remember this—that 'they were on an absolute unity ticket when it comes to school funding'. That was their pre-election promise. Indeed, in question time today we were reminded of the huge signs that were up at polling booths across Australia—when voters went into the polling booth the last message they received from the Liberal Party was a sign that stated 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar'. What a farce that turned out to be—an absolute broken promise, a lie, in the lead-up to the election.
We saw the extent to which this has been trashed over Christmas. Some people may have been busy, because the government decided to wait until the period between Christmas and New Year, when they decided to take out all the trash, and they got the education minister to stand up and confirm that Prime Minister Turnbull intended to dump the Gonski reforms, but, more than that, to cut $30 billion of funding from our school system over the next 10 years. That is why they waited until between Christmas and New Year, because, far from a unity ticket, $30 billion will be cut from our schools if the government is re-elected.
In terms of context, we can have a debate about what big numbers are and what relatively moderate numbers are. Let's talk about what $30 billion ripped out of our classrooms would look like. This is the same as cutting one in every seven teachers in our classrooms or the equivalent of stripping, on average, $3.2 million out of every school in every state and every territory. Let's talk about the impact of that. Of course, that would mean fewer subject choices; less support for students with disability; literacy and numeracy programs being cut; learning support being cut; and less support and training for teachers. We know this is not just about what the Labor Party is saying. The education sector themselves know how devastating the government's plans and the government's deceit would be for them. We have seen the National Catholic Education Commission come out and say that, if the government's policies proceed, 'fees will increase, schools could close and the quality of education will be compromised'. Far be it from it just being Labor politicians who are standing up to talk about the impact of these cuts. Even the Prime Minister's mate, Premier Baird, in New South Wales, came out and said that their education policy was a 'kick in the guts'.
Once again, it has fallen to Labor to do the important work on education. That is a challenge that we on this side are absolutely up for. We know just how important it is to our nation's future that we get our school system right. We know it is important for equity in our community, that it is important for closing the gap in opportunity that different children have and that it is important for this nation's future economic growth. We know that it is absolutely vital, if we are going to ensure that Australians have the skills they need for the jobs of the future, that we get school reform right. That is why, last week, Bill Shorten announced the 'Your Child. Our Future' policy. Our schools policy will start with undoing the damage caused by this Turnbull Liberal government. We will honour the six-year needs based school funding agreements that have been signed with the states. We will go beyond that. We will provide long-term certainty for schools by reversing the government's school cuts across the next decade. This policy will invest targeted resources in the students of today so that we can have the growth, the jobs and the strong economy of the future. I should of course say that this is fully costed and fully offset by sensible savings which have already been announced.
This investment will be targeted to the needs of individual students, no matter what community they live in, no matter what school they go to. This is not just about completing the Gonski reforms; this is about bringing about permanent change to our school and education system. We know that needs based funding will make sure that the students who will benefit the most get the support they need: students from low-SES backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with disability, students with limited English, and students in small schools in regional, rural and remote areas. For every single child, it will mean a strong focus on their needs. It will mean more individual attention for every single student. It will mean better trained teachers, more targeted resources, better equipped classrooms, and more support for students with disability and special learning needs.
This is not just about money. This policy is based on evidence, transparency and accountability. It is remarkable that we have heard in recent days those opposite having the gall to shriek that this is about throwing around money. We know that, actually, it was the government who, when they came to power, stripped out all accountability mechanisms within the federal school funding system. We know that it was the previous minister for education, the member for Sturt, who declared that federal schools funding to the states and territories would, from now on, be 'no strings attached'. What that meant is that the government did absolutely nothing to ensure that federal investment reached our classrooms and was not just hived off to prop up state budgets, let alone reached our classrooms and was directed towards the programs that we know get results. The former minister dismissed concerns about this and about the proper use of federal school funding by stating, 'At the end of the day, that is a matter for those sovereign jurisdictions.' That is a federal minister entirely wiping his hands of any responsibility for what federal school funding would actually be used for. They dumped the requirement on the states to show how money was being used to improve results. They walked away from all accountability, all transparency. We say that we will bring it back. We will make sure we have the resources and the support we need in our schools and in our school system, but we will also make sure that those resources go towards evidence based policies which we know make a difference to every child's learning.
The truth is that money does matter. The government can throw around lines about money not mattering, in a desperate attempt to distract from their $30 billion worth of cuts, but we know that targeted resources mean extra learning programs, that targeted resources mean new opportunities and a real difference to results. They mean certainty so that schools can plan. They mean improved literacy and numeracy through early intervention and targeted support. They mean better quality teaching and professional development for educators. And they mean real engagement with parents—not just slogans thrown around by those opposite—about their children's learning. They mean better support for students with disability, which is absolutely vital not just to those students and their families but to those classrooms, those teachers, those principals and those school communities. And targeted resources will mean better skilled and more capable principals.
We know that Labor's needs based funding is already making a real difference. I have been to schools around the country and seen the impact that this additional support is having. Whether it be in speech pathologists, in new programs to support literacy, in more English coaching, in homework and lunchtime tutors, this makes a real difference. This government has no vision for the future of our country, no plan for the future of our classrooms and nothing to offer our schools except the biggest cuts in Australian history that they are proposing in ripping out $30 billion.
I was proud to stand alongside the Leader of the Opposition to outline that we have a real alternative and a real vision for ensuring that every child in every school in every state and in every territory will get the education that they need and deserve and that our country needs and deserves for them to have. Ultimately, we are wasting our time in this parliament if all we do is talk like those opposite and do not get real about school funding.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Minister for Vocational Education and Skills and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:37): I welcome the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance. All members of this House would agree as to the importance of education, as we all want our kids to do well at and beyond school. We realise that education is vital if we are going to generate the jobs of the future, have the skilled workforce to fill the jobs of the future and remain an internationally competitive economy.
But Labor's approach to school funding is all backwards. Their policy—probably more rightly called 'Your Child. Your Debt'—is to just commit to borrowing and spending huge amounts of money without worrying about how the money is going to be spent. They do not worry about the way in which it is spent. They just borrow and spend and borrow and spend and hope for the best. The reality is that Labor have no idea how they are going to pay for their latest promises. They left the budget deep in the red. They have blocked our attempts to return the budget to surplus and now they are proposing to add another $37 billion to the debt mountain that they created—spending that will only drive the budget further and further into deficit.
The matter for debate today is about properly investing in education for Australia's future. But how about balancing the budget for Australia's future? Without a strong economy and a budget that is under control it will be impossible to make the long-term investments in services such as education that will be needed to set us up for the future. Funding for education does matter, but what you do with that funding matters even more.
Labor's approach ignores the need for school autonomy. Labor's approach ignores the need for better teachers and ignores the fact that restrictive industrial relations arrangements in schools are not delivering optimum outcomes. It ignores so many of the key factors that contribute to educational outcomes. These factors are not addressed in Labor's policy. Australian parents want to know that the funding that is spent on education delivers the best possible educational outcomes for students, whether they be high-performing students or those students who are struggling in the classroom.
The government is investing record levels of funding in Australian schools. Commonwealth funding for schools is some $69.4 billion over the four years to 2018-19. This is an increase of some 27.3 per cent since 2014-15. It is important to remember that the Commonwealth is not the primary funder of Australian schools. This responsibility sits with the states and territories. Regardless, the federal government is committing record funding, which is growing each year.
But despite the total funding for schools across Australia continuing to increase each year, regrettably educational outcomes continue to decline. We have been increasing funding. From 1987-88 to 2011-12 Commonwealth, state and territory spending on education increased by 100 per cent in real terms. While student enrolment has only grown by 18 per cent over that period, outcomes have been declining. Australia is not a low education spending country. The OECD has examined results across countries around the world and found that where there are comparable funding levels education outcomes are not necessarily comparable. Those results are sending a clear message. They are sending a message that the way you spend the money is vitally important.
This government understands the importance of teacher quality, school autonomy, parent engagement and having a rigorous curriculum and it understands that these factors are vitally important and making a real difference to student outcomes. That is why the government has focussed on this under its Students First program. We are also spending record amounts of money on assisting students with a disability to ensure that they can maximise their performance within the school system and achieve their potential.
The government's record spending on education in schools is also spread across other education sectors. We are providing more than $16 billion in annual funding for tertiary education. We are seeing record numbers of students enrolling in Australia's universities. We are investing $6 billion in vocational education each year. These are major investments in the future of Australia to ensure we have the workforce we need and that our young people can maximise their potential.
We are investing in early learning so that families are supported in ensuring that their young children get the early childhood education, and we are investing in child care so that families can access the child care that they need in order to participate in the workforce. We are investing almost $40 billion over the next four years in early learning and child care. That is an increase in funding of some $3 billion. A significant investment in early learning is a significant investment in the future of our nation.
While the coalition government is making record investments in education, Labor's record on education is not so good. On school funding, Labor took the well-intentioned ideas of David Gonski and turned them into a dog's breakfast of side deals and one-off arrangements. The previous government's negotiations with education authorities around Australia resulted in special deals with an indefinite and complex transition, which compromised what was intended to be a fair, consistent and needs-based model.
Only five jurisdictions signed up to the National Education Reform Agreement and only three have bilateral agreements—and even these have different implementation arrangements to the Commonwealth in providing their corresponding contributions. Current funding is based on historic levels and inequities between states, which is impacted and compounded by different transition paths. Some states were significantly disadvantaged because they had historically invested more than other states and territories.
It is vitally important that we have quality policy development in this country, but what we have seen from Labor's latest policy, or excuse for a policy, is basically three pages that fail to define how this is going to be paid for and fail to define where this money is going to come from. It is some sort of nirvana of taxing overseas companies and some sort of nirvana of placing the burden of future education spending on the smokers of this country. They are funding a very expensive program with a very indefinite income stream. It is a plan with little detail; it is a plan with no information about how it will be funded and paid for. The people of Australia want better schools and they want better education outcomes, but they want it done in a way that is credible. This is not a credible policy; this is a policy created by an opposition leader who is absolutely desperate to take the attention off his foray in the lettuce aisle and his poor performance. Who could forget the performance of the opposition leader discussing grocery spending in the lettuce aisle?
Our policies will work. They are being implemented. Our contribution to school funding will continue to be based on strong evidence to ensure quality education outcomes. Our future policy with the states and territories will be based around sensible negotiations to maximise the outcomes for students. It will not be a policy of bludgeoning the states and territories into agreeing to deals, as the Rudd and Gillard governments did. Labor's policies are policies of the past—just more spending without understanding what really works: the borrow-and-hope approach.
The shadow minister wants to talk about the importance of properly investing in education. It is unfortunate that her party has no idea how to achieve that goal. Just splashing money around will not lead to better results. We need sensible investment, we need improvements in the quality of teachers, we need the engagement of the school community, we want parents engaged in the education process and we want autonomy for schools. These are the sorts of measures that can make a very real difference; these are the sorts of measures that can improve the outcomes for students. The coalition is all about ensuring that we have a strong economy that can provide the services of the future. The coalition is all about ensuring we have good education outcomes into the future. Our policies are policies for the future. The Labor Party has policies of the past.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:47): I am very glad to have heard from the minister representing the minister for education. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister forgot him in question time, but it is good to give him a go. It is really important that we are talking about schools, but it takes more than just talk to deliver good outcomes in schools. We need good policy that has accountability and, importantly, invests in every child. That is what Labor has put up. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of talk from the other side, but no plan whatsoever. Indeed, we had some illusion today when the minister representing the minister said, 'There will be future policies.' How about the Liberal Party just stick to the policy they went to last election with? For members' interest, this poster was at the polling booth: 'We will match every dollar for dollar.' So, if it is not about money, why were these put up? I could table this because it would be of use to other members, but I will leave that for the end and will see if they accept tabling. That was their policy.
We have heard a lot from the minister representing the minister for education about how much the agreements were not of interest to the Liberal Party. Why then did the opposition leader before the last election—the Prime Minister who is now the former Prime Minister—say, 'We will honour the agreements that Labor entered into.' If they were such bad agreements, why did the Liberal Party commit to entering into the agreements? Of course, what they wanted to do was say that there was no difference between Labor's great policy on schools and the Liberal Party's policy, but they came into government and they quickly cut $30 billion from our schools.
There was a lot of hope around the place when there was a new Prime Minister. He was friends with David Gonski, so maybe he would actually enact the recommendations of the Gonski agreement. Indeed, the Prime Minister boasted about how they were great friends, so it was very confusing and disappointing to school communities around Australia when the education minister came out at Christmas and said, 'No, no, we are sticking to our old policy. We will continue to cut $30 billion out of schools and ensure that students around Australia are not properly funded.' What we have seen is the Prime Minister being absolutely wedded to the cuts made by the Liberal Party, despite going to the last election with an alternative plan.
We heard about future policies. My challenge to the Liberal Party is: once again commit to Labor's policy because it is good policy. It is policy that will invest in a needs based funding model, it will deliver to every student in this country, it will ensure that we have better teachers and it will invest in our teachers in our classrooms. Importantly, it will need accountability from the states and accountability from the school systems. We know that the former Minister for Education let the states off the hook when it came to accountability with education. We have vision and we have plans for good outcomes as a result of our education policy. We want to see 95 per cent of year 12 students complete year 12. Year 12 is the passport to their future and we will work to deliver that. We want to lift our international standards and get into the top five countries around the world. This is what we want to see. Labor has a clear plan for the future of schools in this country. Instead, we hear from those on the other side, the government, a whole lot of talk and absolutely no action—no action to improve our schools, no action to improve our teachers and no action to invest in the future. The Prime Minister might want to talk about innovation, but unless he invests in the students of this country we will see no improvement and we will continue to slide backwards. So my challenge to the Liberal Party is: invest in schools. Keep to your promise at the last election and maybe make that promise at this election. I doubt the Australian people will trust you.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Science) (15:52): I am delighted to be speaking on today's MPI because I, along with my coalition colleagues, understand the importance of education for the jobs of the future. That is particularly what I would like to speak about today. We have heard from the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, who spoke broadly about education and the funding commitments of this government. I would like to speak about education in the context of the jobs of the future—our need to increase STEM skills and the action that the government is taking to address the significant skills shortage that we have in the STEM areas.
I would like to start with a few statistics. It is always good to set the scene so that we understand what the problem is and what we need to do to at least start addressing some of these significant issues. We do not know exactly what the jobs of future are going to be—that is well recognised—but we do know that three in every four jobs of the future are going to require STEM skills. We know that jobs requiring STEM skills grew 50 per cent faster than other jobs between 2006 and 2011. This is certainly going to continue in future. We also know that, despite this, employers are having great difficulty in employing people with the skills that they need to undertake these jobs. We know that demand for workers in information and communications technology doubled between 1999 and 2012, but during that period applications for tertiary ICT courses declined. At the same time there were fewer students studying science and maths subjects at school than there had been before.
There are some interesting statistics to support the point that I have just made. If we compare the number of students studying maths and science in 1992 and 2012—effectively, over a 20-year period—we know that there were 30,800 more students in year 12 in 2012 than in 1992, but there was a significant decrease in the number of those students who were studying science and maths. There were 8,000 fewer physics students, 4,000 fewer chemistry students and 12,000 fewer biology students. So, at a time when the number of students in total increased, there was a significant decrease in the number of students studying those science subjects.
We also know that there was a drop in the number of students taking intermediate and advanced maths, but there was an increase in the number taking the less advanced levels of maths. Whilst that is a positive, it indicates that we do have a problem with students not taking the higher level maths but going for the less advanced. It becomes a real problem if those students are going to go on and study science and maths at university, because they do not have the core skills that they need to be able to undertake those courses. They are immediately in a position where they have to undertake bridging courses or courses in maths just to bring their skills up to the level they need to do courses such as engineering.
We know that there is an issue. I am conscious that I have only a five-minute speaking spot on this MPI. There is so much that I could say on this subject. I want to move to the actions that this government is taking to address the significant skills shortage. In December last year the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science launched the National Innovation and Science Agenda. For those who have not read it, I do encourage you to look in depth at this agenda, and to look specifically at what we are doing to meet the skill needs of the future. We have committed a total of slightly over $112 million to preparing our workforce for the jobs of the future. That comprises some new initiatives—time is running away from me at the moment, so I will need to be brief—including $51 million to equip our young Australians to create and use digital technologies, over $13 million to expand opportunities for women in STEM and $48 million to inspire STEM literacy.
So it is not correct to say that we are not taking action. We are taking action. We are focusing on the skills of the future and making sure that we are putting money into addressing the skills shortage that we have now, so that over time we will have a skilled workforce here in this country.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (15:57): A number of important things happened in January while some of us were out of phone and television range. I want to talk about three in particular today. The first was the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where a number of world leaders and some of the best thinkers in the world explored the impact of what is known as the fourth industrial revolution—a period of extraordinary change. The main theme of the meeting over that week or so was rising inequality caused by this massive change and the rapid increase in technology—how some would move with it but many would be left behind. It is a major problem around the world and a major problem for this country, because we know that for several years now our school system has not been keeping up with what we need to do to prepare our children to live in the world which is developing around us as we speak.
Two other things happened. When you talk about the future and about innovation, you have to talk about education. Between Christmas and New Year our Prime Minister recommitted to cutting the Gonski funding and committed to reducing funding for education by $30 billion—a $30 billion cut to education. In contrast, towards the end of the month, the Labor opposition recommitted to the Gonski funding in full, reinstating that $30 billion and ensuring that our children are prepared for the future.
The debate that we are having today is quite instructive in terms of what the government's policy is. They said before the election they were committed to Gonski. They said, 'No change—you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school under Liberal as you would under Labor.' They adopted Labor policy before the last election but they scrapped it immediately after. They recommitted that scrapping again just after Christmas. Today, in this House, after 2½ years in government, we get the minister representing the minister for education saying they will be announcing some education policies soon, and they will be good ones. Two and a half years in government! Children do not wait for you. Children grow older every day. And the skills they learn today are the basis of their life. They do not wait. Two and a half years—when you knew the education system needed improving! They do not wait 2½ years while you sit on your hands. To have a minister representing the minister for education walk into this House and say, after 2½ years, 'We will have good policies soon,' is an absolute disgrace.
Then we had the minister for science get up immediately after and say, 'We know education's important.' Well, of course! Great. Of course it is important—we all know that. Every parent knows that. Every child knows that. They know education is important. Then she said, 'We know we need to address the skills needs of the future.' After 2½ years in government, that is the best she can do—they know they need to do something!
They came to government on a lie: that they were going to match Labor's funding on Gonski. They came to government on a lie. They recommitted to that lie in December, and now, 2½ years into their term, we have the minister representing the minister for education and the minister for science, two incredibly important areas if we are going to build Australia's future—if you want to talk about innovation and jobs for the future, these are two of the most important portfolios—and what do they say? 'We'll get around to it soon. And it'll be good—when we get to it, it'll be good.' This is after 2½ years.
Labor is in opposition, and we have done the work. We did the work before the last election, through an extraordinary consultation process known as Gonski that went for several years of serious community consultation, so that that program is owned by our schools and our parents and our teachers; it is owned by them. And we have, without any doubt, recommitted to funding it in full—to reinstating that $30 billion that this shambolic government has withdrawn from our education system, and to ensuring that our children get the future that they need.
I say this to the people opposite—and I know that many of you have small people, children, in your lives: you cannot sit on your hands for 2½ years when it comes to education. It is not acceptable to say before an election, 'We commit to this great program,' and then to say afterwards, 'Oh, actually, no, we don't, and for 2½ years we're just going to sit on our hands and do nothing.' It is not good enough. The children who were born when you were elected are already 2½ years older. Children who started in grade 1 when you were elected are about to enter grade 3. You cannot wait. Do something! It is not good enough to say you will, after 2½ years— (Time expired)
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): If the member for Lyons wants the call, perhaps he shouldn't interject before he seeks it! The member for Lyons has the call.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:02): Thank you, Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. I do not pretend to be an educationalist, but, having been a student over many years, and now the father of two boys—one who is going into year 11 this year, who started his school year on Monday, and a younger son going into year 8—I have a particular interest in this area.
If I think back to my own experience, I think of course of those great teachers who I had during my education, whether it was in high school or in primary school. I can still remember the name of, for example, Mrs Plaisted, who was my grade 1 teacher at East Launceston Primary School—she was a fantastic educationalist—as I can remember those people who taught me at college.
It goes to the very point that the Labor Party is missing in this debate: that we have been putting more money into this sector—into education. And that is right and it is proper. In fact, over the last four years, funding for education under this government has increased by nearly 30 per cent to the states—remembering that the Commonwealth funds about a third of schools in this country; it is the responsibility of the states. But what has not changed are the outcomes. If they are not changing, we must go back to first principles and look at what we are doing that is not right. There has been more money than ever before going into education. They claim that money has been cut. It was never there. You cannot cut something if it was not there. Over the forward estimates, we matched—in fact, we increased—what were the commitments of those opposite when they were in government.
I have been in this place a short time, but the ability of the Labor Party to rewrite history has been a staggering revelation to me since I have come to this place. There never was a magic pudding. There never was a commitment beyond the forward estimates from those opposite. I note now, though, after the 'year of ideas', that there is a plan by those opposite to fund education. How they are going to fund that was highlighted today in the Australian Financial Review by Economics Correspondent Jacob Greber. He says:
Leading budget experts say Labor's plan to use higher tobacco taxes to pay for fast-growing social programs is misguided and potentially unsustainable.
The Labor opposition expects to raise $47.7 billion over 10 years …
And he calls into question the veracity of those numbers. I would also ask: who is going to pay for it? Well, it will be the poorest. It will be the most vulnerable people in our communities who will be paying the tobacco tax; not to mention that tobacco—though we know the evils of tobacco well and truly—is a legal substance.
Yet, by the policy that has been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, we will be driving more people to look at illegal alternatives. And I think there will be no taxation raised from that. So I think that the numbers that have been highlighted in the Financial Review as being very, very dodgy are probably even more dodgy, because we are driving people into illegal substances, that have who-knows-what in them, that will have no ability to fund the health services, undoubtedly, that smoking makes us pay.
With respect to the plain paper packaging that was so lauded by those opposite: it has made it easier for those criminals, those people who are involved in supplying these, sometimes under duress—and this is the fact. These are problems with public policy.
Labor's approach to education seems to be one of command and control. They want more control in Canberra, taking it away from school principals, who know best, from parents having an input into their children's education—that parental engagement—and, of course, from having a robust curriculum that is relevant and appropriate for the needs of a modern Australia.
Over 12 months ago I was very pleased to announce that a primary school in my electorate, the Evandale Primary School, just outside of Launceston, was the only school in Tasmania that had participated in the Early Learning Languages Australia application. I know that the prep and grade 1 students at Evandale Primary School benefited enormously from the additional money that is going into STEM funding, as was highlighted by the previous speaker from our side. (Time expired)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:07): The member for Lalor greatly appreciates being acknowledged. I stand here today as the member for Lalor to speak about education, something that is very close to my heart, as most people in this chamber understand. I spent many years—27 years—in state schools in the western suburbs of Victoria, so I stand here not as someone who once went to school and had a favourite teacher, but as someone who actually understands education, the transformative nature of education, and what schools need in order to support them in their work to make our schools the best schools internationally.
There is no doubt about the importance of this matter of public importance. There is no doubt, because we have slipped down in those rankings. Those opposite would like to say that we have slipped down in those rankings despite an enormous amount of money being thrown at education. Well, I have some news for you: health care costs more and my house costs more—everything costs more. Giving raw figures in this debate is disingenuous. At least go to a percentage of GDP, folks, if you want to have an argument about economics, because this is an argument about economics. Educating our children to the best of their ability, to extend their capacities, is an economic policy. It is about the future of our economy. It is about ensuring that all our children have access to the economy. That is what we are talking about here. This is not airy-fairy. This is real. It is about the future of this country. It is about our capacity to compete in the international economy. This is about the global economy, and we are slipping behind because other countries are taking this issue seriously.
My predecessor, the former member for Lalor, our former Prime Minister, understood that. She understood it because she represented an electorate where many of the children are from disadvantaged backgrounds, where disadvantage is compounded in our schools by the number of students from a disadvantaged background who appear in a classroom at preps. She understood that. She understood that we needed to make that investment, that we needed to invest to ensure that we were building the best schools and had the best teachers. These are not just teachers who can pick up a program and deliver it, but teachers engaged in their profession who could grow their skills and their knowledge about their subjects and about the way kids learn, and make that a continually improving cycle. That is what this debate is about.
This debate is about returning Australia to the forefront as educational leaders internationally. This debate is about taking what we know works, giving the funding to ensure that every child, in a needs-based, sector-blind model, gets what they need in the classroom. This is about equity for prosperity. This is about ensuring that our system meets the definition of an equitable system, because the equitable systems in the world have the best student outcomes. In that sense this is simple: high equity, high outcomes; low equity, poor outcomes. That is how this works. The people who work in our schools understand that. They know this.
In Victoria they have been working on improving these things since the national partnerships funding came through, many years ago. Last week I stood beside the shadow minister for education, Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, and I stood beside Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and it was the proudest day of my life as I stood beside a former colleague, Principal Moira Findlay, of Iramoo Primary School, which is one of the most disadvantaged schools in the state of Victoria and in the country. Over the years the school has improved its students' outcomes, because investments were made in the school. They made a concerted effort and brought the whole school community together with an improvement focus, with the money to support it.
They have coaches for their primary school teachers—coaches in literacy and in numeracy, coaches to ensure that every teacher in the school is supported in their professional development, and coaches who help them to monitor every child's standard, and where that child can get to. Then they get busy and make it happen. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (16:12): I agree with a lot of what the member for Lalor has just said. I think we all want to empower teachers, have better teacher quality, have teachers actually engaging with students rather than just running off lesson plans, and ensuring that young children who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are raised up in prosperity. They are all things that everyone in this House can agree with. The issue is one of how we get there. Unfortunately, the knee-jerk reaction from the Labor Party is always just to throw more money at it—and a lot more money at it. What they do not do is budget where the money is coming from. We have heard that it is going to come from $40-a-packet cigarettes, but I do not know that that is ever going to go down with the electorate, and that we are somehow going to reap a whole heap of money from companies like Google and Apple, even though there is absolutely no plan as to how we are going to get that funding. So it is pie-in-the-sky stuff that is going to be unfunded and is going to require us going further and further into debt.
If you want to see a great example of how the Labor Party last threw money at the education sector, without any significant outcome in terms of learning, have a look at the Building the Education Revolution plan. It was basically about schools having money thrown at them to build school halls and tuckshops, which in some cases they did not need, at the expense of other things they did need. It turned out that these were very high-cost projects which were a massive waste of public money, and that was found out through reports by the Auditor-General and numerous reports about the epic fail of the program.
I went to one school in my electorate, where I was shown by the principal the new BER stage they had gotten built, and then they showed me a building right beside it, which was about three times as big as the BER one. The difference was that they had built it themselves with their own raised money, but, as soon as the BER government one came along, the one that they built through the BER was actually double the cost of the one that they had funded themselves. It just showed how throwing money at a problem does not fix it; in fact, it created more problems because the cost of the construction of those buildings went up. I can go through the figures in Queensland. Labor's own task force found that, in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, state schools overpaid for buildings by more than 25 per cent on average compared to Catholic schools.
Ms Butler: Not in Queensland.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: It was in Queensland. BER projects in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria overpaid for buildings by more than 25 per cent on average compared to Catholic schools and by 55 per cent compared to independent schools. The Australian, reporting on the subject back in 2011, reported:
The third and final report into the BER, conducted by former investment banker Brad Orgill, has found Victorian and NSW have not delivered value for money for public schools under the program with public schools charged an average of up to 60 per cent more for school buildings, despite no differences in quality.
I could go on and on about this waste of taxpayers' money that the Labor Party has engaged in when it comes to the education sector. Another article from The Australian, from August 2013, notes:
… in the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010, Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources.
Let's move onto Labor's plan. It has already been panned by experts. Megan O'Connell, policy program director from the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University, one of our premier education policy institutes, wrote just the other day:
The plan has sound aims of creating a high-quality, high-equity education system. However, by treading the safe path, Labor's plan will not produce the learners we need for our future prosperity.
We know that the old Labor pattern of just throwing money at it has not worked in the past because, as education expenditure has increased, our academic results have fallen. We can see that because, from 1987-88 to 2011-12, Commonwealth and state and territory spending on education increased by 100 per cent but student enrolment only grew by 18 per cent and student outcomes declined. (Time expired)
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:18): Isn't it just a classic example of a party who are so out of touch with people in Australia sending their children to independent schools, public schools and Catholic schools. How out of touch they are with the schools that are doing it tough. This is going to be a funding issue, yes, but it is a funding priority issue, and that is what those opposite have failed to acknowledge. Throughout this debate, they have just said, 'Our government cannot afford it. This is too expensive and we cannot afford it.' That is just rubbish. The government have decided not to prioritise education and put it at the top of the list.
Let's talk about some of the things they have prioritised since they have come to government. Let's talk about the $45,000 that has been spent by the foreign affairs minister's office to replace IT equipment lost. Meanwhile, schools in my electorate struggle to scrape together $5,000 to buy the IT equipment they need so that their students can get a decent education. We are talking about primary schools like Maldon and Dunolly—our small public primary schools that would have benefited from the Gonski reforms if they were implemented in full, not just for the first year after the election but as per your promise on election day: 'We will match Labor dollar for dollar.' That does not mean for the first year or for the second year; it means every single year. In electorates like my electorate of Bendigo, that is an extra $200 million for our schools—our independent schools, our Catholic schools and our public schools. As Labor said, your postcode should not determine your educational outcome. Labor said every single school student, regardless of their parents' income and regardless of their postcode, should get the resources they need to ensure they get a great education. The government have decided not to prioritise this. The government are saying they cannot afford it, but they can. They have just decided not to prioritise education funding and they have dropped it down the list.
Another standout example—and this one is a cracker: the government will prioritise buying books for themselves. They will prioritise building their own libraries within their own offices. Let's just take the Attorney-General as an example. He spent $15,000 to custom build his own shelving in this place to house his $13,000 taxpayer-funded collection of books. I cannot find a school in my electorate—and I have called them—that has $13,000 allocated this year to be able to buy library books. They do not. They are scraping together every dollar they can to stretch their funding for teacher aids and for sporting resources. They say, 'If only I had a cheque for $13,000 to spend on my library books or $15,000 to maintain my library space.' The government will prioritise their own personal libraries but not the libraries of our primary schools, particularly those in regional areas and in low-SES areas.
The Gonski funding was critical because it was needs based. It ensured our schools in towns in low-SES areas, where parents can least afford the extra costs, got the dollars that they needed. I am not sure if many members went to a primary or secondary public school and asked them what the cost of books was this year. Schools are doing it tough. Bendigo Senior Secondary College has asked parents to pay $1,000 for its book list. That is before the voluntary contributions. One thousand dollars—imagine that with a 15 per cent GST on top of it. This is a government that just does not care about our public school system or our Catholic school system. This is a government that puts its own priorities first and not the priorities of our schools.
The Gonski funding also would have helped students with a disability—loadings to make sure that every student with a learning difficulty or a disability got the funding that they needed. This government seems to think that the current system is fair. It is not. Too many students who are on the autism spectrum miss out on critical funding to help them get the education they need. This government said one thing before the election to get elected; now, after the election, it is doing another. If it was serious about prioritising education funding, it would put the dollars back and put education on the top of the list. It would not be ranting that it cannot afford it. It cannot afford not to do it.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:23): The reality with this debate on the matter of public importance—and I have listened to the contributions of people on both sides—is that the Labor Party have no meaningful way of funding their promises. The Australian people understand that the announcement made last week was the first salvo in a series of promises that this reckless opposition will make this year with no meaningful way of paying for them. When the Australian public see an opposition pledge of additional funding of $37.3 billion over 10 years with no meaningful way of paying for it, they completely discount it. We have seen from the Labor Party that they are completely unreconstructed. They do not believe that they did anything wrong in those six years of government when they took $20 billion surpluses to $50 billion deficits and when they took $70 billion in net assets to over $300 billion in net debt. The Labor Party have not learned their lessons. You cannot constantly put these pledges on the credit card, because who pays for it?
Who will be the people responsible for the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt racked up by the former Labor government? It will be our children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, we are now in a position where this generation will not be the one asked to repay this debt; it will be our children and grandchildren. How reckless it is for the Labor opposition to be making these pledges when they know that there is no meaningful way of paying for them out of current revenue. Putting it on the credit card is not an answer. Putting it on the credit card will be the mantra of the Labor Party this year, whether it is in education, in health or in any number of funding pledges this year. I am telling you such pledges will be completely discounted because the average Australian understands that you cannot borrow from tomorrow's generation to pay for today's.
Those on the other side arrogantly lecture us as though we have never walked into a school before. Not a week goes past that I do not spend time in my schools. I have wonderful relationships with all of my schools. Of course every single organisation in the country, whether it be a school, a not-for-profit organisation, a business or a government department, has a budget to manage, and budgets are difficult to manage. But a government cannot constantly put these sorts of funding pledges on the credit card—on the never-never—because you will ultimately be discounted and people will not take you seriously. This pledge has not been taken seriously because there is no way to pay for it.
I say to those opposite: we know that there are many, many ways that we can improve schools around Australia. We know that greater principal autonomy and higher teacher standards deliver a bottom-line result for our students. So let us engage constructively in what we can do to help our principals run their schools, because who knows their schools best? The principals, the teachers, the local community, the school boards know what their community needs the most. I know that does not work for many of you who are beholden to the education unions, who want a command and control-style approach. But for once in this debate let us look at what is best for individual schools. That local control by principals and school boards is one wonderful way of doing that.
Also, teacher standards are something that we must constantly engage in. We must support our principals and our education departments in lifting those standards. I remember in my time at school—and I know everybody thinks they are an expert on schools because they went to school—the people who had the greatest influence on my life were the wonderful teachers who saw teaching as an absolute vocation. They were not teachers because they had to be; they were teachers because they wanted to be. They could have been anything. They could have earnt a lot more money doing other things. That is the hallmark of wonderful teachers today. But I am telling the Labor Party: I am sorry, this pledge has failed, because you have been completely discounted by the Australian public. No-one believes you can fund it; no-one believes you can pay for it. And that will be the hallmark of all of these salvos over the year—$4½ billion for this, $16 billion for foreign aid. I congratulate the education minister on his work. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The time allotted for the discussion has expired.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Debate resumed on the motion:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes that on:
(a) 22 February 2010, on Q & A, the now Prime Minister said "My view is the market-based mechanism, the emissions trading scheme, is the most cost effective";
(b) 3 June 2010, on Sunrise, the now Prime Minister said "The Coalition does not have the best climate change policy, in my view";
(c) 8 February 2010, during a speech to the House of Representatives, the now Prime Minister said "Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale"
(d) 15 September 2015, on the PM program, the now Prime Minister said about marriage equality "I certainly think we should have a free vote and I’ve been very public about that"; and
(e) 7 November 1999, on Meet the Press, the now Prime Minister said about a republic "It needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote"; and
(2) affirms that:
(a) an emissions trading scheme is the most cost effective way to combat climate change;
(b) the Coalition does not have the best climate change policy;
(c) having the Government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale;
(d) the Parliament should have a free vote on marriage equality; and
(e)a republic needs a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition working together to promote a Yes vote.
The House divided. [16:32]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (16:40): As I was saying, who would have believed that Denmark, of all places, would be removing valuables from asylum seekers to force them to contribute to the cost of supporting themselves, and that Germany would be promoting a people swap deal—a people swap deal not so different to the Gillard government's proposed, and eventually illegal, deal with Malaysia?
I do not pretend to have the answers for Europe. I do not know what I would do if I was in their position, but clearly what they are doing now is causing great concern within their society. We should not kid ourselves about the consequences. The consequences, if Europe ignores those factors, will be that their politics will lurch to the extremes. The extremes are an extremely dangerous place to be for any good democracy. We must have faith in our ability to manage our individual nations. Our people must have faith in the governments that manage our nations. If populations are concerned about their safety then our institutions are under threat and our democratic stability is under threat.
The bills today are but a small part. They reinforce our secure borders policies and our ability to be one of the three most generous nations in the world when it comes to the resettlement of refugees. This allows us, for instance, to accept 12,000 extra Syrian refugees over the next period of time. It allows us to run what is probably one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world. As I said, these bills are but a small part of that, but they do mesh into that much bigger concern that is enveloping the world at the moment. Here in Australia we should be aware of those overseas experiences that I have listed throughout my speech, and of their possible ramifications for a country like Australia.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:42): I speak in opposition to this bill because at its heart it is cruel. It is a cruel piece of legislation and it is inconsistent with Australia's international obligations on the rights of the child and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees convention. This bill concerns complementary protection. Complementary protection, of course, is where a person seeks the protection of the Australian government through a particular type of visa because they may not be a refugee as defined in our migration laws. They may not fit the category of refugee in our migration laws, but they cannot return home to the country from which they have fled because there is a real risk that they would suffer physical harm were they to be returned.
If they were returned there is also a significant risk that Australia may breach our non-refoulement obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the convention against torture, to which the Australian government and the Australian people are signatories. The examples of cases which may come under the guise of complementary protection include honour killings. They include forced marriages, sending women back to countries where they may be put into a situation of having to enter into a forced marriage, and, of course, female genital—sending a young woman back to a nation from which she has fled because, under custom and so-called tradition in the village that she may have fled from, female genital mutilation is undertaken, routinely.
In my view, people fleeing those situations—in particular, young women—should not be forced back to those countries. That is not consistent with Australian values. That is not consistent with international conventions that Australia has become a signatory to. Complementary protection was introduced into our migration system by the former Labor government in 2011. We did that because there were, increasingly, circumstances under which people seeking protection in Australia did not fit the legal definition of a refugee, under our migration laws, but deserved the protection of the Australian people and assurance that we were not forcing them into harm's way by sending them back to situations such as those I have just mentioned.
In 2014 the Abbott-Turnbull government introduced the resolving asylum seeker caseload bill. That sought to remove references, in our migration laws, to the refugee convention. Here we have an Australian government seeking to actively remove references, in our domestic laws, to a convention that Australia has been a signatory to since the end of World War II. They did this to try to limit the role of those international treaties, in court decisions, in Australia. This is because there have been a number of cases where refugees and potential refugees have been treated inhumanely by this government and have sought relief in courts throughout the country and have been granted that relief. They have been granted decisions in their favour. The minister for immigration did not like those decisions, so he sought to remove reference to the refugee convention from domestic laws.
In my view, that is not Australia being a good international citizen. That is not a case of Australia upholding human rights. That is not a case of Australia meeting the obligations that we have signed up to through international conventions and laws. That is why Labor is opposed to the passage of this legislation. In fact, Labor seeks to do the opposite. At our national conference in the middle of 2015 we adopted a platform, when it comes to migration and asylum seekers, that reinstates references to the United Nations convention on refugees into our migration legislation. We have done that because it is a Labor value. We believe that Australia should be a signatory to those conventions. We should play our part when it comes to resettling refugees and providing people fleeing persecution with protection.
If we are going to do that—and do that earnestly—it involves ensuring there are references to those particular pieces of international convention that Australia is a signatory to in our migration laws. This bill is a consequential set of amendments resulting from the removal of that refugee convention from the act. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Migration Act to align the complementary protection statutory framework with the statutory refugee framework, as recently amended by the resolving asylum seeker caseload act.
The bill will, in effect, provide: protection is only available where there is a real risk of significant harm that relates to all areas of a receiving country; protection is not available if an applicant could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid a real risk of significant harm—you could drive a truck through that and it is going to be something that will, no doubt, be subject to litigation in various courts throughout the country; protection is only available where the real risk of significant harm is faced by someone, personally, rather than being an indiscriminate risk of harm faced by the population, generally; protection is only available if effective protection measures are not available to an applicant through a state or non-state actor; and the ability of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to preclude merits review will be expanded to include an unsuccessful complementary protection applicant on character grounds.
This bill has the potential for certain problems—in particular, with regard to considerations of behaviour modification and how that would apply to those seeking protection on the basis of sexual preference or the reasonableness of finding alternative locations within the country of origin. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its report on this bill, noted:
There are divergent views as to whether or not under international human rights law an 'internal flight option'—the ability to find safety in one part of your home country—negates an individual's claim for protection against refoulement. The weight of evidence would suggest this is not the case.
In removing the requirement that the minister must be satisfied that it is reasonable for a person to relocate to an area of their home country, the bill would result in a person being ineligible for protection even though it may not be reasonable for them to relocate internally.
This would leave such individuals subject to refoulement in breach of Australia's international legal obligations.
There it is, in the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, in their own words: the operation of this act may leave 'individuals subject to refoulement in breach of Australia's international obligations'. For that reason, there are serious doubts about the merits of this legislation.
Although the explanatory memorandum clarifies it is the government's intention that this provision is concerned with reasonable modifications, the parliamentary joint committee expressed concern about the compatibility of this amendment with Australia's international human rights obligations
It said:
The obligation to protect against refoulement is not contingent on the oppressed avoiding conduct that might upset their oppressors. The courts have found that persecution does not cease to be persecution simply because those persecuted can eliminate the harm by taking avoiding action within the country of nationality.
So, again, there are serious doubts about the operation of this bill and its effect on international obligations to which Australia is a signatory. That is why Labor is opposed to this bill.
It is a fact that the Australian success story is built on migration, and a lot of that has been humanitarian migration. In the wake of World War II, Australia opened its doors to the persecuted who were fleeing the aftermath of a devastating world war. Australia took refugees from the Indochina conflicts of the seventies and eighties, and now, of course, they are coming from the Middle East. Humanitarian migrants have become some of Australia's greatest business leaders, political leaders and sportspeople. It is because of our support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the convention that Australia has been able to take such refugees, provide them with protection and see them go on to flourish: to run businesses and to become leaders in communities, political leaders and sporting champions in our country. This bill seeks to water down Australia's commitment to those conventions and in doing so to diminish that great tradition we have had in Australia of providing humanitarian protection for people consistently with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees convention.
So, in conclusion, I am opposed to this bill, because potentially it is seeking to send people back to dangerous situations, in breach of Australia's nonrefoulement obligations under those international conventions and covenants. Labor has produced a policy that Australians could be proud of, were we to be elected, in which we offer greater support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we commit to restoring into our migration laws that reference to the international conventions to which Australia is a signatory, and, importantly, we will end the moral shame of children in detention as quickly as possible. It is for these reasons that Labor is opposed to this bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:55): It is a great pleasure this afternoon to rise and speak on the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This is another piece of legislation that this coalition government is introducing to ensure that we maintain strong protection of our borders, and any debate about migration in this country must start with the tremendous effort and the enormous contribution that migration has made. It has made this nation a better place, a stronger country and a more prosperous country than it otherwise would be.
If we go back to 1945, there were about 7.4 million people living in Australia. Over that past 70 years, seven million people have migrated here from almost every corner of the world. Over that past 70 years we have almost had more people migrate to this country than were actually citizens of Australia back in 1945. And we know from the last census, in 2011, that one in four people in Australia were born overseas. If you look around the world, it is hard to think of a nation that has had such successful migration over so many years and that has added so much to the prosperity of the nation. Why have we achieved this? We have achieved it for a few reasons. Yes, we say we are a multicultural nation, but above that—more important—the aim of our migration has been assimilation and integration. For every generation, for every group of migrants that came to Australia, we held out those Australian values that they adapted to, including respect and equal rights for women, freedom of religion, freedom to change your religion—or freedom not to practise any religion at all—freedom of speech, and equality under the law. These are the values that have built a tolerant, diverse and harmonious society that has made Australia the best country in the world to live in.
In my electorate, only last weekend we had celebrations for Chinese New Year. But we did not just have the Chinese community celebrating the new year by themselves; we had the celebration at Moorebank Sports Club, with all of the local community there celebrating. It was the same with our Diwali celebrations in my electorate at the end of last year: it was not just the Indian community celebrating Diwali; Australians from all backgrounds and all walks of life joined in and celebrated Diwali with our Indian community. That is what has made Australia this great country. It is because we are trying to integrate together, to try to live together as one nation and share each other's customs and cultures, But, foremost, our Australian culture, our Australian customs, are front and centre of that.
Back in 2006, a decade ago—in fact, Australia Day 2006, a little more than 10 years and one week ago—the then Prime Minister, John Howard, said, when he was talking about national security:
It’s also about having a far sighted, strong, well thought out defence policy. It is also about having an uncompromising view about the fundamental right of this country to protect its borders. It’s about this nation saying to the world we are a generous open hearted people taking more refugees on a per capita basis than any nation except Canada, we have a proud record of welcoming people from 140 different nations. But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
That must be the way that this nation determines its immigration policy. We have seen the results when people think that is not correct—perhaps a soft, leftist, green view of the world, where the words of Mr Howard were somehow considered politically incorrect. We saw the results of that during the past six years of the Labor government. We had chaos and confusion on our borders when 50,000 people came here, mainly sailing from the island of Java down to Christmas Island. That undid the confidence we had in our migration program. Thankfully, the coalition government came in and, against all predictions, was able to implement policies that stopped the boats and restored order to our borders and our migration program.
We have seen what is currently happening in Europe, where they have not followed the policies of John Howard. They thought they could have open borders. We have seen chaos in Europe. Germany is a nation that has almost impaled itself on political correctness. What do you expect to happen if you open your borders and allow 800,000 fit young men to migrate into your country who do not speak the language and have different attitudes about how you treat women? And now we see social chaos in Europe because those countries have not decided who comes to their country and the circumstances in which they come.
Although we have had great success with our migration policy for many decades, there are some cracks appearing. There are people who have migrated to this country and taken all the benefits and opportunities this country has to offer, yet they have been prepared to engage in terrorist acts against this nation. We have seen female genital mutilation on the rise in this country. We must clamp down on these things. We must accept that we have some problems in our migration system. If we are going to continue to be the great nation of migrants in the future, we cannot do it if we allow these cracks to grow wider. And that is one of the things this legislation addresses.
Specifically, this bill amends the statutory framework in the Migration Act 1958 relating to the determination process for people seeking protection on complementary protection grounds, as distinct from the refugee framework in the Migration Act. Complementary protection is a category of protection for people who do not qualify as refugees but who also cannot be returned to their country of origin as there is a real risk that they would suffer significant harm that would engage one of Australia's significant non-refoulement obligations under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Why is this bill necessary? This bill is necessary because there have recently been several instances where persons have been found to meet the criteria for non-refoulement on a wide range of grounds, including selling adult movies in their home country and drinking or supplying alcohol in countries which punish those activities, despite the fact that the government, consistent with our international obligations, did not intend for such cases to be covered by the legislation.
There have also been several cases of persons found to meet the current complementary protection criteria—that means they are allowed to stay in Australia—who have been involved in serious crimes in their home country or are fleeing their home country due to their association with criminal gangs. So when the member for Kingsford Smith says at the dispatch box that Labor opposes this legislation, what they are opposing is the right of this nation to say to someone who was part of a criminal gang overseas or involved in serious crimes in their home country, 'Sorry, you don't qualify for Australian citizenship. You'll return to your home country.' And the member for Kingsford Smith's idea that this would somehow allow women in fear of female genital mutilation to be sent back to their home country is complete and utter nonsense. We have already had too many instances of female genital mutilation this country, and we need to crack down on it. This country will not send young women back home where they are at risk of having that barbaric and medieval practice forced upon them.
Specifically, this bill will provide that a real risk of significant harm to a person must relate to all areas in the receiving country. It must clarify that a person must face a significant risk of significant harm in the receiving country rather than risk that is purely indiscriminate. It will clarify that a person will not face a real risk of significant harm if protection measures are available to the person through state or non-state actors in the receiving country. And it will clarify that a person who can take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid significant harm does not face real risk of that harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to a receiving country. The practice of female genital mutilation does not fall into that category, but those who come to this country who try and use complementary protection measures as the reason and who are involved in criminal activity or in criminal gangs is what this legislation is addressing.
Finally, this legislation closely aligns the current statutory complementary protection and refugee frameworks in the Migration Act. The bill restores the government's intended interpretation of Australia's complementary protection obligations. This is necessary to ensure they are consistent with Australia's international obligations. Only those who are in need of Australia's protection will be eligible for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds. This bill strikes the balance between giving those who need protection on those complementary grounds and ensuring we keep our borders safe and this nation secure. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:08): Our reputation as an open, generous country is at risk. It has been at risk and under pressure for a number of years now, as the old parties have fallen into lockstep on matters to do with how Australia responds when people come here from overseas seeking our help. We see that in practice now, with people and children locked up in island prisons—or prison islands. We see it where kids, including kids born here, are spending their formative years in detention. We are seeing it to the point where children are now—according to one report and one analysis of what is happening in some of the centres—self-harming every couple of weeks.
One refugee advocate told me recently that in a detention centre in Australia there is now a six-month-old baby that the doctors have started referring to as 'the baby that does not smile'; not because the family does not love it, but because the parents themselves are so full of anguish and desperation as result of being locked up—not having committed any crime, but with no way out—that they themselves are suffering from depression and anxiety, as you would expect. Now, as a result, there is a young baby, who is six months old—probably closer to about seven or eight months, now—who is known as 'the baby that does not smile' because it is not getting its parents smiling at it and so the kid is not smiling back. That is what we are doing to children now. As someone who is the extraordinarily proud father of a seven-month-old, I live for those moments when my child smiles at me, and to think that our system is breaking children—and that that is a deliberate intent of it, because it is put there as a deterrent measure—is something that shames us.
I know that there will be debates and that there will continue to be debates about how best to deal with people coming in from overseas seeking our help, but I refuse to believe that the only choice is between child abuse and what the government says, which is letting people die at sea. There has to be a better way than what we are doing at the moment. When people are coming here seeking our help—including kids who have done nothing wrong other than, perhaps, be part of a family that is fleeing violence or fleeing war, including in many instances those wars where we, as Australians, send our troops overseas to fight—instead of the government turning its mind towards asking, 'What would be a better way?', it does not ask that question. The government does not ask: 'How could we look after children and families who just want to come and seek a better life and flee from persecution?' The government says the opposite. This government says: 'How can we make the situation in Australia so bad that it is almost as bad as the conditions that people have been fleeing?' The government says: 'How we can get to the point where people say, "I do not want to go to Australia, because they will lock you up," or, "because they will send you back into harm's way," so that they never make the journey in the first place?'
We have seen it with refugees. We have seen the approach that this government and the previous government have taken, which is breaking people's lives. We are now seeing it with another category of protection that is offered to people who come here called complementary protection—and that is what the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015 is about. It has been known for many, many years and it is recognised in international law that there are people who will come here who might not fit the strict definition of a refugee but who meet other tests and other obligations that Australia has signed up to, such as: they may be arbitrarily killed, have the death penalty carried out on them, be subject to torture, be subject to cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. Some examples of that include things like honour killings against women or female genital mutilation, or perhaps exposure to some kind of genocide that is happening in other parts of the world—the kinds of acts that we would all condemn. What our laws have said is that someone who might not be a refugee but who could well be killed or could well be tortured or harmed physically if we send them back is someone that we can accept here, because that is what we have signed up to, voluntarily.
What is the government's approach? The government's approach is to time and time again say, 'We want to take that category of protection away or at least render it meaningless.' Firstly, they came in here and tried to repeal these complementary protection provisions and then they came in here and said: 'We recognise that is not going to get through parliament, so we have another idea. How about we make it so that everyone who is coming here has to prove that it is more likely than not that they are going to suffer a risk of torture?' So, if it is 51-49—if there is a 49 per cent chance that they might suffer risk—well, that is acceptable for us and we will send them back. They were sent packing on that. So now they have come back with this bill, which is going to make it nigh on impossible for someone who genuinely wants to claim complementary protection to do so in many of the instances in which they would have been let in here before.
The government is going to make it so that, under this bill, there is a new provision where they have to show that there is a particular risk that they will personally face and that they are at greater risk of that kind of persecution than others in the rest of the population. What does that mean? As one eminent professor, Jane McAdam, said:
At its most extreme, it could be argued that this provision would permit return—
so you could send someone back—
even where a whole country were at risk of genocide, starvation or indiscriminate violence, which would run contrary to the fundamental aims and principles of human rights law.
In other words: if you are coming here seeking help and you cannot prove it is just you that the government is after in your home country—if there is a whole swathe of people who are facing the risk of genocide or torture and not just you—and you cannot prove that you are at greater risk than others around you, you cannot come into Australia. That is what the government wants to say.
The government go further. They say: 'Not only that, but you have to prove to us that everywhere else in your country has exactly the same level of risk facing you and the others.' Just think for a moment about what that means in practicality. The test until now has been: is there a place nearby or somewhere else in your area that you could go to get away from the persecution? If so, you have to do that first. Many people would say that is fair enough. But now, the person who is seeking help has to prove that everywhere else in the country that they come from has the same risk and it is affecting them in a way that it does not affect others.
Think about anyone in Australia at the moment. What knowledge do each of us have about the specifics of what is happening on the other side of the country at any given moment in time? How could we talk specifically about what the weather is like in another part of the country, let alone what the political conditions are like there and what life is like on an everyday basis? That is what we are asking of someone who is coming here seeking our help. They may be fleeing, they may not be educated and they may just want to live a safer life. We are now saying: 'Firstly, you have to prove it is you in particular that they are after and not, perhaps, all the people in your race in that country; it has to be something about you. Secondly, you have to prove to us that everywhere else in the country is exactly the same for you.' That has been roundly condemned as an attempt by Australia to get out of the obligations that we voluntarily signed up to. That is exactly what it is. That is exactly why this bill should not pass.
The government is going out of its way to make Australia's detention centres, its detention system and its migration system as bad as the places that people are fleeing from so that they will choose not to flee in the first place. That is what this is about. It is about creating Fortress Australia and creating a mean Australia so that people will not choose to come here in the first place. That makes us weaker, because we should be celebrating the fact that Australia is a land of hope for people, that Australia is a beacon of democracy, freedom and stability, and that that is why people who do not enjoy those things want to come here. Instead, we are saying, 'No, we'll do the opposite. We'll create these little places around the country that are just as bad as the place that you're fleeing so that you won't want to come here in the first place.' That diminishes all of us. There must be a better way. It stands in stark contrast to what the government is happy to do for business and people who have money. If you are a big international investor, you can come to Australia and buy up parts of the country. If you have a big project that you want to have here, you can bring in heaps of people from overseas to work here at lower than Australian wages and we will not even assess you or test you anymore as a result of legislation that passed the parliament a little while ago under our free trade agreement. Move across borders as much as you like if it is about making money and if it is about exploiting people, but, when it is about people coming here seeking help, we are going to shut the door on you.
This is one of the first tests that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is going to face: whether there is any real difference in substance between the hairy-chested approach taken by his predecessor, Tony Abbott, on the question of compassion for refugees or whether it is exactly the same policy dressed up a bit differently. It is disappointing in that respect that one of the first cabs off the rank is to introduce a bill that is going to make it harder for people who are at risk of torture or women who might be facing honour killings to come here and seek our help. There will be some other tests coming in the next couple of days. There will be some other tests coming when the Prime Minister has to decide what he is going to do with the 37 or 38 babies that were born here and what he is going to do with the kids who are going to school here in Australia and are just part of families who want to seek a better life—whether he is going to send them back to Nauru. The tests are coming as to whether the Prime Minister has the courage to say Australia is an open and generous place.
There is a better way. There is a much better way than saying, 'Let's make Australia or parts of Australia as bad as the places people were fleeing.' No-one who is paying attention to this issue would think there are simple solutions. Of course there are not. Of course it is complicated. There are many reasons why people move around the world. We have to think about many things when we think about how to best deal with it. But to suggest that we are just going to close the door is the wrong way of going about it.
When we look around our region, we see that we are one of the rich countries in our region, we see that there are countries on our doorstep that are bearing a much bigger proportion of the refugee movement around the world than we are, and we see people languishing in camps in places like Indonesia and Malaysia. There are all the crocodile tears that are being cried by some members of the government over deaths at sea and wanting to stop them. The reason so many people jump on a boat from those centres and come here is that they have lost hope and they think Australia is not taking people anymore. Along comes a people smuggler who says, 'Give us a bit of money and I will stick you on a boat,' and they do it. I would probably do it if I were stuck in a camp as a genuine refugee for five or 10 years and felt there was no other way out. This is increasing the desperation that those people are going to feel. This is going to increase the desperation that people around the world feel when they are trying to find a better place to live. This kind of approach is not going to stop deaths at sea; it is just going to make those deaths happen somewhere else. This kind of approach is not about giving people a better life—it is about making Australia a meaner place.
I hope that the government will have a rethink in this an election year and decide to take a break from the usual election-year politics of beating up on refugees, beating up on people whose skin colour is not white and who just want to come here to seek a better life. I hope we will take a break from that, and I hope that the politics of refugees does not become an election issue in the same way that it has in the past. I hope we will break from this approach, stop proposing bills like this one that make Australia a meaner place, and instead consider what we can practically do to put in place solutions where we can take a fairer share of the burden, stop closing our door, admit we cannot have everyone coming here but work out what the happy medium is, and put in place a system that gives people hope, stops people risking their lives at sea and makes sure that we have an Australia we can all be proud of.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (17:23): I rise to give my support to the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill, which my colleague and friend the Minister for Immigration tabled in the House late last year and which in some ways rounds off the legislative journey to stop people smuggling that began almost three years ago when the coalition government was elected. The issue of illegal boat arrivals bewildered the previous Labor government and shone a spotlight on its incompetence and incapacity to deal with the big issues that affected Australians. After Labor's reprehensible decision to kill off the Pacific Solution, the floodgates opened up to unauthorised vessels, with literally tens of thousands of illegal arrivals making their way to Australia.
First and foremost, the journey these people took was extraordinarily dangerous and put at risk not only the lives of those on board but also the safety of the Navy personnel charged with trying to save them when their boats hit troubled waters off our north-west coast. Estimates of how many died at sea are by their very nature imprecise, but it is estimated that anywhere between 1,300 and 2,000 died over a five-year period. It has never been properly explained why Labor killed off the Pacific Solution. I guess it is impossible to explain a move that was so short sighted, so lacking in judgement and so bereft of good sense as to be almost beyond comprehension. But that is what the previous Labor government did: it killed off a policy that was extremely successful and replaced it with nothing. I suppose it is sheer genius from those opposite.
Labor's policy sent a message to people smugglers that they were able to resume their human trafficking trade into Australia that had effectively ended in 2001. Let me provide some figures that show the extent of the previous Labor government's stupidity in this space. In 1998, according to figures from the Parliamentary Library, 200 people arrived in Australia by unauthorised boat. The following year there were 3,721 unauthorised boat arrivals. In 2000 2,839 people arrived and in 2001, the year the Pacific Solution was introduced, 5,516 people arrived by unauthorised boat. Then something remarkable happened. Directly as a result of offshore processing and the Pacific Solution, the flow of unauthorised boat arrivals slowed to a very slight trickle. In 2002 there was one; the following year, 53; the next year, 15; then 11; then 60.
We then saw the election of Kevin Rudd and Labor. The numbers increased to 148, 161, 2,726 in 2009, 6,555 in 2010, 4,565 in 2011, 17,204 in 2012 and 20,587 in 2013. By any measure it was an unconscionable policy fail that, through clear-sighted policy implementation, took the coalition government less than 12 months to turn around. Since July 2014 there has not been a single successful unauthorised boat arrival in Australia. Operation Sovereign Borders has been an unmitigated legislative success. This is in stark contrast to the opposition's policy blunders. Our clear-sighted vision to stop the boats, to stop the terrible tragedies in Australia's northern waters, has put an end to the ambiguities and mixed messages the people smugglers took from the Labor Party's incoherence. The coalition's policies are not just about boat turn-backs and short-circuiting the people smugglers' business model. They are multifaceted and continually evolving. This will ensure they continue to meet the challenges that arise now and into the future of maintaining a strong border protection regime.
That brings us to the bill we are debating today. The Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill follows on from the passage of the 2014 legacy act and the 2015 Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Act. In his second reading speech, the immigration minister described the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015 as:
… the final instalment in a package of legislative reforms that implements the government's election commitments to ensure a more effective and efficient onshore protection status determination process.
The measures in this bill are a continuation of the government's protection reform agenda which are delivering a more effective and efficient onshore protection status determination process. The bill will amend the statutory framework within the 1958 Migration Act in so much as it relates to the determination process for people seeking protection on complementary protection grounds, as distinct from the refugee framework in the Migration Act.
To explain the context in which this is framed, I found an extremely informative study online from the University of New South Wales which backgrounds migration protection measures and the reasons why they are a part of Australia's migration regime. It explains that:
Since … March 2012, asylum seekers processed in Australia have been able to claim protection on broader grounds than those contained in the Refugee Convention, reflecting Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
These obligations are the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since 2012, Australian law has been aligned with comparable provisions in the European Union, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Mexico as well as refugee systems in Latin America and Africa. The University of New South Wales says that the measures:
… introduced greater efficiency, transparency and accountability into Australia's protection regime. Prior to March 2012, Australia was unable to guarantee that people who did not meet the refugee definition in the Refugee Convention, but who nonetheless faced serious human rights abuses if returned to their country of origin or habitual residence, would be granted protection.
A refugee is defined as someone with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. However, a person may face the prospect of serious human rights violations in their country of origin but not satisfy the definition of a refugee. This may occur, for example, if the harm they face is not for one of the five refugee convention grounds. Complementary protection describes a category of protection for people who are not refugees but who also cannot be returned to their country of origin as there is a real risk that they would suffer significant harm that would engage one of the obligations I referred to earlier.
The amendments in this legislation will align the statutory complementary protection framework with the statutory refugee framework, as inserted by the legacy act in 2014. Without these amendments there is an inconsistency between the two frameworks in the Migration Act. Under the current protection visa process, a person may not meet one of the elements of the refugee test relating to internal relocation alternatives, effective protection or behaviour modification. However, they may satisfy the complementary protection test because those same elements are currently not aligned. By closely aligning the statutory complementary protection and refugee frameworks in the Migration Act, the bill will restore the government's intended interpretation of Australia's complementary protection obligations. This is necessary to ensure that, consistent with Australia's international obligations, only those who are in need of Australia's protection will be eligible for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds.
The technical amendments in the bill will ensure that the existing provisions in the Migration Act work as originally intended. They will not change the substance of the amended provisions. The bill clarifies the interpretation of various concepts in the Migration Act used to determine whether a person will face a 'real risk of significant harm', so as to give rise to our non-return obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is necessary as there have been instances of several people having been found to meet the complementary protection criterion on a wide variety of grounds. Some of the examples given included selling adult movies and drinking or supplying alcohol in countries which punish those activities, despite the fact that the government, consistent with our international obligations, did not intend for such cases to be covered by the legislation. There have also been several people who have met the complementary protection criteria where they have been involved in serious crimes in their home countries, or are fleeing their home countries due to their association with criminal gangs.
Specifically, the bill will provide that a real risk of significant harm to a person must relate to all areas of the receiving country. It clarifies that a person must face a personal risk of significant harm in the receiving country, rather than a risk that is purely indiscriminate. The bill clarifies that a person will not face a real risk of significant harm if effective protection measures are available to the person through state or non-state actors in a receiving country, and it clarifies that a person who can take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid significant harm does not face a real risk of that harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to a receiving country, provided that the behaviour modification would not conflict with their identity or core belief system.
The technical amendments in the bill will clarify the reference to 'protection obligations' in the act by specifying the source of the obligations and will clarify that the 'country' referred to in subsection 5H(1), which outlines the meaning of 'refugee', is intended to be the same country as the 'receiving country' in subsection 5(1).
It will align the statutory provisions relating to protection in another country with the definition of 'well-founded fear of persecution' in section 5J of the act, and will amend subsection 36(2C) to remove duplication between paragraph 36(2C)(b) and subsection 36(1C) in the act, which both operate to exclude an applicant from the grant of a protection visa on character-related grounds.
In addition, it will amend subsection 336F(5), which authorises disclosure of identifying information to foreign countries, to include information pertaining to unauthorised maritime arrivals who make claims for protection as a refugee and fall within the circumstances of subsection 36(1C) of the act. Beyond that, it will also amend subsection 502(1), which allows the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to personally make a decision that is not reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to apply to persons who have been refused a protection visa on complementary protection grounds for reasons relating to the character of that person.
Finally, it will amend subsection 503(1), which relates to the exclusion of certain persons from Australia, to apply to persons who have been refused the grant of a protection visa on complementary protection grounds for reasons relating to the character of the person, all of which are quite reasonable, in my view. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (17:38): I join other Labor speakers in speaking in opposition to the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015. In a sense it is difficult to know where to start in responding to the contributions of government members in the debate on this bill, perhaps with the exception of the member for Solomon, who did turn to some of the provisions of the bill before the House. So perhaps I will start by saying this: it is so telling that government members had so little to say on the provisions of the bill before us—significant provisions that raise real issues of human rights, as well as practical consequences for vulnerable human beings. I wonder if this is another sign of the sophistication in policy debate our new Prime Minister promised us, but of which we have seen so little.
I said that the member for Solomon did turn to some of the provisions of the bill, but in doing so I am not quite sure that she advanced the case of the government. In referring to the work and the submissions of UNSW, I think she will find that the regime she was complimenting was in fact Labor's complementary protection regime, the regime this bill, if enacted, would go quite some way towards dismantling. Given the significance of these issues, it is not good enough that government members have made contributions to this debate that are really about the recital of rhetorical talking points, rather than dealing with the significant issues that are presently before the House.
The member for Grey made some wide-ranging reflections on the governance of Germany, and made a terrible and I think disturbing conflation between acts of terror and people seeking asylum. Of course, people seeking asylum are in many cases, in the world as it is today, fleeing terror. But he is right to look at the wider context and the challenge it poses in a world where 60 million people are forcibly displaced. This is a world where there is no place for self-satisfaction.
Last week Human Rights Watch issued its yearly report, the 2015 report. This makes troubling reading for human rights, right around the world, and for what it says about Australia when it comes to how we treat those seeking asylum here. It is troubling also to read today about reports on people in our care, in Nauru. While those issues are not directly on point, it is very challenging for anyone to read the circumstances of a five-year-old boy who may be forcibly returned to a place where he apprehends he may face significant harm.
So, as we grapple with the moral and the practical challenges of dealing fairly with those seeking asylum here, we should and indeed must also consider our wider obligations to vulnerable people around the world. The member for Melbourne's contribution, which I was in the House for most of, was unhelpful in some respects, I think, particularly in also cleaving to his rhetorical devices, with references to the 'old parties', and claims of superiority flowing from that. That is particularly offensive, because it is only Labor that is grappling with these great moral and practical challenges. But the member for Melbourne did make one important point. The circumstances with which we are faced set out a great challenge for all of us here, not only to be better in Australia but to be exemplar as to be champions of human rights abroad.
So it is in this context that I rise to speak on the bill before the House, a bill that comes before us today in effect by reason of the removal of the refugee convention from the Migration Act, the principal act, as a consequence of the passage of the caseload act. That was a bad law, and this bill would compound its damage. The removal of the convention is not the only ill that we should be concerned of—it is also the limitations, through the passage of that bill, again compounded here, but through the limitations of the role of international law, through treaties and case law.
Let me be clear, as the shadow minster was. Labor supports the international framework for protection, so Labor strongly opposes the changes that are before us, which took place in that bill, and is committed to restoring the convention, in substance and in detail, in terms of reinstating those references into the principal act. This, like the matters before us, is not simply a technical matter, although these questions before us do raise a number of concerns in relation to good, indeed proper, legislative practice, but also in relation to certainty of application, and some consequential matters. It is unclear whether unintended and perhaps deeply unfortunate consequences might flow, especially in relation to the changes going to the behaviour modification limb.
Of course, the matters before us go literally to questions of life and death. When we talk about complementary protection we are of course talking about whether we are to return people who have sought our help back to the places from which they have fled—people, as the member for Kingsford Smith reminded the House, who may be subject to honour killing, forced marriage or female genital mutilation.
When Labor put in place a statutory complementary protection regime, this was welcomed and endorsed by stakeholders such as international as well as Australian human rights agencies, legal bodies, churches, refugee and asylum advocates, and many NGOs, as demonstrated in the relevant Senate inquiry before that bill was passed. The importance of this framework remains today. This is why bodies like the Law Council of Australia join Labor in opposing this legislation. At the very least, government members should pay careful attention to the views of the Law Council. They should also have regard to what David Manne of the Refugee and Immigration Law Centre has said:
These provisions run the very real risk, if they pass into law, of seeing people sent back to extremely dangerous war zones.
We have heard very little to rebut this expert opinion. It follows that we should be hearing from the government a credible—indeed, compelling—case for change. We have not, of course; we have just heard triumphalist rhetoric.
This legislation is intended to align the statutory framework recently adopted in relation to refugees with that for complementary protection so that protection would be extended only where there is a real risk of significant harm extending across all areas of a country, where effective protection measures are not available at all in the receiving country, and where reasonable steps cannot be taken to modify behaviour so as to avoid a real risk of significant harm. This is qualified such that it does not extend to the modification of behaviours fundamental to identity or where there are conflicts with innate or immutable characteristics—but I will come back to the meaning of that qualification later. Through this regime, the risk must be faced personally rather than as a generalised risk within the receiving country. This is also a point to which I will return. Lastly, consistent with the attitude of this government's criticism generally, the regime would enable the minister to preclude merits review. This would be expanded so as to include unsuccessful complementary protection on character grounds. These limitations are significant and they are excessive. Concerns arise in respect of all of these limbs and the mechanism reducing access to merits review.
Labor in government introduced a regime of complementary protection in 2011, reflecting the views at that time of the UN Human Rights Committee—that is, we put in place a new statutory ground through which protection visas could be granted. This regime recognises that there are people who are not refugees but who, nonetheless, are entitled to protection because they cannot be safely returned to their home country. We have an obligation that we have entered into of non-refoulement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the convention against torture. I recall that the coalition, when they were in opposition, opposed such a statutory scheme on the basis that this was a 'softening'. What appallingly inappropriate language given the stakes. I note that, in this regard, the government have progressed somewhat in that they have apparently abandoned their earlier plan to completely abolish the statutory framework for complementary protection. This is a step forward, but we have before us a very thin justification for those measures, which are before us in a significantly watered down and important regime. It is extraordinary, the world being what, sadly, it is today, that Minister Dutton could suggest that the existence of a consistent pattern of mass violation of human rights would not meet the relevant threshold. As Mat Tinkler of Save the Children has said in response to this contribution of the minister:
Australia must not take a simplistic, isolated attitude to what is increasingly a global complex issue. At a time when more than 60 million people worldwide have been forced to flee their homes from conflict, persecution and mass human rights violations, now is not the time to further tighten the rules and limit life-saving protection.
He is right; the minister is wrong.
The Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest, unlike the minister's contribution, has been very instructive in relation to the bases by reason of which it is said this bill is warranted. It details a long and confused history of attempts to legislate in this area by the government, leading up to this bill, and refers to three bases. Firstly, it remains that, while it has been asserted by the minister that this bill relates to the implementation of election commitments, no such commitment can be identified. Secondly, it is said—and the member for Solomon touched on this—that consistency is required with the statutory framework applicable to refugee protection, but it does not say why this should be so. Indeed, I am particularly indebted to the Bills Digest for reminding me that the government previously sought the opposite. They previously sought to make amendments to the opposite effect through the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014. That is very agile, I guess. Any excuse will do when it comes to limiting human rights. Thirdly, it is said—and this is a matter that was touched upon briefly in debate—that there are some issues in relation to unsuitable persons being afforded protection here. If this is in fact presently a problem, there is no evidence before us in support of this, merely some assertions. The non-refoulement obligation, of course, is absolute and flies in the face of this proposition. I note that the statement of compatibility that came with the bill asserts that the provisions of it are consistent with Australia's non-refoulement obligations, but it is very difficult to see how this can be so. I see that the Law Council of Australia has disagreed very forcefully. I find their submission persuasive, much more persuasive than the efforts of the minister.
I will touch briefly on some of the considerations going to the particular limbs set out within this legislation, firstly that going to the issue of internal relocation. In this regard, while the explanatory memorandum seeks to clarify the effect of this series of provisions, it really does not. There is a deplorable uncertainty here, particularly given the consequences for human beings. I read with interest the view of Professor McAdam from UNSW, that body referred to by the member for Solomon, which speaks very clearly against the approach embodied in the legislation before us. I note in this regard also the concerns of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which go to the issue of refoulement and make the point that to rest on departmental policy, as we would effectively be required to do here, is an insufficient safeguard. Regarding the limb which goes to the question of effective protection, again we have a significant change in circumstances where the case for change has simply not been made out and very real concerns have been expressed by experts in the area—again by Professor McAdam, in this case in a joint submission with Associate Professor Michelle Foster, which refers to the many practical issues which cloud the operation of these provisions, in particular the role of non-state actors. There is also the issue of modification of behaviour, a terribly Orwellian concept. Here again the explanatory memorandum purports to reassure, but real issues remain, particularly when it comes to the question of employment, which is not an issue the government appears to have explored effectively, and concerns also arise in respect of the effective reverse onus that is imported through the bill. Lastly, we have the exclusion provision. The parliamentary committee expressed significant concerns with that, and rightly so.
Let me state again my firm opposition to the bill. The bill before us contains some very significant changes. They have not been accompanied by any meaningful justification. They contain further significant departures from our international obligations and, indeed, from the international protection framework that we should be an exemplar of. But, fundamentally, I am opposed to this bill—like the shadow minister and my Labor colleagues—because it raises the very real prospect of sending people who have sought our help back into harm. That is something we cannot do.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:52): I am very pleased to thank members for their contributions to this important debate on the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This bill is a continuation of the government's protection reform agenda to deliver a more effective and efficient onshore protection status determination process.
Following the passage of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014—the legacy act—in December 2014 and the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Act 2015 in March last year, this bill amends the statutory framework in the Migration Act relating to the determination process for a person seeking protection on complementary protection grounds. 'Complementary protection' is the term used to describe a category of protection for people who are not refugees but who also cannot be returned to their country of origin because there is a real risk that they would suffer a certain type of harm that would engage Australia's international nonrefoulement obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Specifically, the bill will amend the Migration Act to clarify the interpretation of various concepts used to determine whether a person will face a real risk of significant harm so as to give rise to a nonrefoulement obligation under the ICCPR or under the CAT. These amendments will provide that a real risk of significant harm to the person must relate to all areas of the receiving country. It will: clarify that a person must face a personal risk of significant harm in the receiving country rather than a risk that is purely indiscriminate; clarify that a person will not face a real risk of significant harm if effective protection measures are available to the person through state or non-state actors in the receiving country; and, finally, clarify that a person who can take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid significant harm does not face a real risk of that harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to the receiving country, provided that the behaviour modification would not conflict with their identity or core belief system.
These amendments will more closely align the complementary protection framework in the Migration Act with the current statutory refugee framework, as inserted by the legacy act. Without these amendments, there is an inconsistency between the two frameworks in the Migration Act. In particular, under the current statutory protection visa process, a person may not meet one of the elements of the refugee test used to determine whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution relating to internal relocation alternatives, effective protection and behaviour modification. However, they may then be found to satisfy the complementary protection test because those same elements used to determine whether a person faces a real risk of significant harm are currently not aligned. The bill addresses this inconsistency. In doing so, it will ensure consistency in decision making and continued public confidence in Australia's capacity to assess protection claims, consistent with our international obligations.
The bill is consistent with Australia's international obligations and will not result in people of genuine need of protection being returned to danger. The government will continue to comply with these obligations. Australia remains bound by them as a matter of international law. The bill will not alter the criterion for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds under paragraph 36 2(aa) of the Migration Act. Furthermore, the bill does not amend the risk threshold for assessing Australia's nonrefoulement obligations under the ICCPR and the CAT. The 'real chance' risk threshold for assessing complementary protection in the Migration Act will remain intact. It currently applies to both the refugee and complementary protection contexts, and is not amended in either context by the bill.
The amendments are necessary as, since the introduction of complementary protection into Australia's protection visa processes in March 2012, various judicial interpretation issues have arisen and resulted in the broadening of Australia's complementary protection obligations. As a result, there have been instances of several persons having been found to meet the complementary protection criterion on a wide variety of grounds, such as selling adult movies and drinking or supplying alcohol in countries which punish those activities, despite the fact that the government, consistent with our international obligations, did not intend for such cases to be covered by the legislation. There have also been several persons who have been found to meet the complementary protection criteria where they have been involved in serious crimes in their home countries, or who have been fleeing their home countries due to their association with criminal gangs. The bill will, therefore, restore the government's intended interpretation of the complementary protection provisions in the Migration Act.
The bill also makes several technical amendments to the statutory framework in the Migration Act relating to protection visas and related matters. These amendments will ensure that the existing provisions in the Migration Act work as originally intended and will not change the substance of the amended provision. I commend the bill to the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [18:02]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Rob Mitchell)
Third Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:07): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (18:08): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's report entitled Thirty-third report of the 44th Parliament: Human rights scrutiny report.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr RUDDOCK: by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Thirty-third report of the 44th Parliament.
The committee's report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the parliament between 30 November and 3 December 2015 and legislative instruments received from 13 November to 10 December 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of three responses to matters raised in previous reports.
Twenty-four new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns. The committee will seek a response from the legislation proponents in relation to three bills, as well as further response on a number of legislative instruments. The committee has also concluded its examination of two bills.
The report includes the committee's continued consideration of a number of instruments made under the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 and the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. The committee, in considering 30 instruments made under these acts, has focused its analysis on measures that freeze the assets of designated persons or prevent declared persons from travelling to or entering or remaining in Australia. These instruments expand on the operation of the sanctions regime and so, to assess whether the instruments are compatible with human rights, it is necessary to assess whether certain aspects of the sanctions regime are compatible with human rights.
The committee recognises the importance of acting in concert with the international community to prevent egregious human rights abuses, and agrees that laws designed to prevent such abuses pursue a legitimate objective under international human rights law. In other words, when you are dealing with terrorist issues and people may be associated with those matters there is a legitimate interest. The committee acknowledges the information provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and her advice that in her opinion the sanctions regime only imposes limitations on human rights that are proportionate. However, notwithstanding this advice, the committee considers that further specific information is required to conclude that the process of the designation of persons under the sanctions regimes is proportionate to the stated objective.
While the committee is unaware of anyone in Australia that has been affected by these measures, I note that the committee's mandate is to examine acts and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights and whether legislation could be applied in a way that limits rights. It is on this basis that the committee has applied its usual analytical framework to engage in constructive dialogue with the minister in relation to this matter.
This report also includes the committee's consideration of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015. Schedule 3 of the bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act to provide that in assessing a full-time study load for youth allowance or Austudy, two or more courses of education cannot be aggregated to satisfy the undertaking full-time study requirement.
The committee considers that this amendment engages the right to social security and education, a proposition accepted by the bill's statement of compatibility. However, the committee does not believe that the statement of compatibility sufficiently justifies the limitation for the purposes of international human rights law, and, as such, we have sought additional advice from the Minister for Social Services on this point.
Lastly, the committee concluded its consideration of the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2015 in this report. Schedule 1 of the regulation increased the costs in all fee categories by 10 per cent for all proceedings in federal courts. This includes the costs of commencing an application or appeal and the costs for hearing an application or an appeal. The committee noted in its previous report that this engages or may limit the right to a fair hearing because it may prevent access to justice for some individuals.
Of course, the imposition of reasonable fees in relation to court proceedings does not, of itself, constitute denial of access to justice so as to limit the right to a fair hearing. Nevertheless, the committee sought advice of the Attorney-General as to whether there is any ability for an applicant to seek to have the court fees waived if the fees could effectively prevent them from accessing federal courts.
The committee welcomes the advice provided by the Attorney-General on the availability of fee exemptions, waivers and deferrals available for individuals suffering financial hardship. In the light of this information, the committee considered that the regulation does not indiscriminately prevent access to justice, and is likely to be compatible with the right to a fair hearing.
As always, I encourage my fellow members—those who have been kind enough to wait—to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Thirty-third report of the 44th Parliament to the House.
BILLS
Migration Legislation Amendment (Cessation of Visa Labels) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:14): I rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Cessation of Visa Labels) Bill 2015. The bill is enabling legislation to give effect to the government's decision to formally discontinue the use of visa labels in Australia. A visa label is placed in a passport as physical evidence of someone holding a visa for Australia. Australian governments of both persuasions have been phasing out the requirement for visa labels in passports since the late 1990s. However, travellers have still had the option of requesting a label for their passport.
In 2012 the former Labor government introduced a package of legislative reforms to further discourage the use of visa labels, including a 'visa evidence charge' for those people who requested a label. The coalition increased the visa charge in July 2014. These charges have significantly reduced the number of visa labels issued. For example, in 2011 approximately 100,000 labels were issued per month. By comparison, in August 2015 only 2,816 were issued. The use of digital systems has also made the labels unnecessary, and the majority of visa holders travel to and reside in Australia without a label in their passport.
As part of the phasing out of visa labels over the past several years, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has consulted with industry stakeholders and we have been advised that they are supportive of the changes. In August 2015, the government introduced an amendment to the Migration Regulations that effectively ended the use of visa labels. This legislation will now give statutory effect to ending the use of visa labels, and that is why Labor supports this bill. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:16): I thank members for their contributions to this debate, especially the member for Corio on that very stately and timely speech with excellent cadence and rhythm. Followers of his speeches will note that he always has a very timely approach to his speaking.
While every non-Australian citizen intending to enter and/or remain in Australia is required to have a valid visa, the Australian government does not require a person holding a valid visa to have a label attached to their passport. Australian visas are stored electronically and linked to a passport enabling visa holders, registered Australian organisations and airlines staff to check visa details online. The bill repealed the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Act 2012 and amends the Migration Act 1958 to repeal provisions relating to visa labels. Provisions being repealed by the bill no longer have any practical effect. This is a result of amendments made to the Migration Regulations 1994 by the Migration Amendment (Visa Labels) Regulation 2015 on 1 September 2015, which removed the ability of visa holders to request and pay for a visa label as evidence of a visa.
Amendments to the migration regulations together with the measures in this bill complete the implementation of the government's policy of label-free visas. The changes are in accordance with the government's regulatory reform agenda. In summary, I believe the bill deserves the support of all members and I commend the bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:19): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (18:20): It is a privilege to rise on this important piece of legislation, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015, which relates to digital radio and digital radio reform. Digital radio has been a reality for Australians since 2009. On 1 July 2009 commercial digital radio services were set up in the metropolitan licence areas of Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.
Designated community radio broadcasters joined the fray and began their digital services, in these areas, in May 2011. Adding to these services, digital radio trials in Canberra and Darwin mean that around 64 per cent of the Australian population live in areas covered by digital radio transmissions. The legislation that regulates these broadcasts, namely, section 215B of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and section 313B of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, need to be constantly reviewed to ensure the rules and standards that govern digital radio are working as intended.
To this end, the Minister for Communications is required to have a statutory review process conducted and, over the last couple of years, a discussion paper and consultation process have been conducted. In July 2015 the government released the report that emerged from these reviews, and the bill we are considering now draws on some of the recommendations of that report. Whilst the matters in this bill are uncontroversial and will attract the opposition's support, we note that this bill has not enacted a number of other recommendations, things that may require a greater level of scrutiny before we agree to support them. We look forward to early engagement with the government as it prepares any further amendments to the regulatory structure for digital radio arising out of the digital radio review or any other reviews that the government may conduct.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (18:22): I rise today to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015, which has its focus on stripping away some of the red tape that has been applied to digital radio transmission since its rollout in this country back in 2009. It is fair to say, I think, that digital radio is yet to capture the hearts and minds of radio listeners in the same way that, say, the introduction of FM radio did in in the 1970s, significantly impacting listeners' habits.
As I will talk about in a minute, Solomon, and indeed the Northern Territory as a whole, is yet to get digital services almost seven years after their introduction in the five mainland state capitals. That said, I do not see a strong groundswell in customer demand for the service, which suggests to me that radio audiences are generally happy with the existing analogue AM-FM services. But the technology is out there, and I am extremely hopeful that as a consequence of this bill digital radio will be coming to Darwin and Palmerston in the not-too-distant future. Having said that, I am also aware that the rollout of digital radio should be driven by the market and that the role of government in this space is to provide the regulatory regime to allow this to take place. That is what the Turnbull government is hoping to achieve with the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill.
Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth have had digital radio services for some years, and while Canberra and Darwin have had trials, we still do not have regular digital radio services on our home or car radios. Of course, national services such as the ABC's music-oriented Double J are available digitally and even via our digital televisions, but Darwin does not have the extra capacity that a localised digital service can deliver. As it now stands, the Northern Territory has a vibrant radio sector that caters to our remote communities, regional towns, Alice Springs and the two cities Darwin and Palmerston, both of which are in my electorate of Solomon.
I will provide a quick run-down of these services by way of illustrating the strength of the commercial, community and public broadcast sectors in Solomon. Bear in mind that the combined population of Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area is approximately 130,000. Music enthusiasts in the Top End are well catered for through the Grant Broadcasters Hot 100 as well as the dance-techno station KIK-FM. In addition to music, Hot has a commitment to local news and broadcasts local and national bulletins throughout the day. Hot's sister station, Mix FM, provides—as its name suggests—a mix of current affairs and music. The station was rocked last year by the far too early death of one of its leading lights, Pete Davies, who I am sure many people in this House have come across; they have certainly locked horns with him on issues affecting Territorians, particularly things that he was most passionate about, and one of those was health services. A respected former Northern Territory politician, Daryl Manzie, fronts the morning microphone on Territory FM, a community radio station based out of Charles Darwin University. The station is broadcast on 104.1 in Darwin and Palmerston and on 98.7 in Alice Springs. It can also be heard across the Territory in Batchelor, Katherine/Tindal, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy and Adelaide River and, as far as community radio goes, is regarded as having one of the biggest audience reaches per capita in the country.
ABC Local radio runs a primarily talk based format but also spins plenty of tunes, and the national broadcaster's footprint in Darwin and the Territory also includes News Radio, RN and Classic FM. Rhema provides faith based radio, and Darwin is also host to the excellent Radio Larrakia, which first broadcast back in 1998 and now provides content in over 40 Indigenous languages. I will dwell for a few moments on Radio Larrakia, which operates in Cavenagh Street in Darwin's central business district and also broadcasts national Aboriginal radio, which reaches Indigenous communities right across the country. Its operators recognised some years ago that digital radio was coming and converted from analogue to digital technology. The only part of Radio Larrakia and national Aboriginal radio that is not digital is the transmitter. This means that its thousands of listeners around the Northern Territory's Top End are still tuning in on analogue receivers. In addition to the news and entertainment functions they perform, all radio stations in the Territory provide emergency warnings in the event of an impending cyclone, fire or flood threat. So, as it stands, there is no shortage of existing radio stations in Solomon, but as Darwin and Palmerston continue to grow so too will demand for expanded radio services. There is plenty of scope for the rollout of digital services when the time is right.
Now to the nitty gritty of the bill, which amends in one fell swoop the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act and is, as I said earlier, designed to reduce regulatory complexity and simplify the planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia. The bill specifically includes repealing the restricted datacasting licence category; removing the role of the minister in the setting of the digital radio start-up day for each regional licence area; removing the requirement for a six-year moratorium on the allocation of additional digital commercial radio broadcasting licences in a licence area following the commencement of digital radio services in that area; amending the definition of 'non-foundation' digital radio multiplex transmitter licence; and making minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act to repeal spent digital radio provisions.
As I said earlier, digital radio services commenced in the five mainland state capitals in 2009, and I think I am correct in saying that there was an expectation that the rollout of additional services outside these main centres would follow in turn. Some seven years later, this has not been the case. In fact, in the intervening period the only digital radio services that have been provided in regional areas were trial services, as I said, in Canberra and Darwin. Digital radio was introduced in a staged manner, with broadcasters first providing digital radio services in areas that were most likely to be commercially viable. So, the changes we are debating today reflect a need to streamline and refine the current arrangements to create a simpler process that the Turnbull government believes will facilitate the rollout of digital radio services in regional Australia.
Much of the content of this amendment legislation was contained in the government's Digital Radio Report, which considered the regulatory framework for digital radio as well as arrangements to facilitate the rollout of services in regional areas. A key finding of the report was that digital radio will continue as a supplementary technology, rather than a replacement technology, for the short to medium term. This means there are no plans to switch off the existing analogue AM and FM services, which should provide an incentive to the existing operators to contemplate a digital future. This recognises the importance of the ongoing provision of local news and local emergency services information by these radio services.
The Digital Radio Report also found that it is primarily a commercial decision for broadcasters as to whether they should extend their digital radio services to regional licence areas. The government considers that broadcasters are best placed to make decisions about which services are likely to be commercially viable. The report recommended that industry members and the Australian Communications and Media Authority establish a Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia to focus on the rollout of digital radio to regional areas where it is commercially viable to do so. The committee has now been established, and I am pleased to say it is currently giving priority to the licensing of permanent digital radio services in Darwin and also Canberra.
In answer to the question 'Will digital radio be available in my region?' I say this: the government considers that the broadcasting industry is best placed to identify regional markets that could support a commercially viable digital radio service. On that basis, I encourage residents in regional markets, such as those found in Solomon, to discuss the provision of digital radio with the local broadcasters.
The report also urged that the digital radio moratorium period be removed for regional licence areas and that the restricted datacasting licence category be removed to simplify the digital radio regime because no licences had so far been issued under this category. Another of its recommendations was that that the government consider minor amendments to the current digital radio regulatory regime to provide a simpler, more flexible process for planning and licensing digital radio in Australia.
As I said earlier, the Turnbull government considers that the broadcasters and their listeners are in the best position to determine the most appropriate mix of digital radio services and the proposed amendments do not impose any restrictions on the content that can be provided. The precedent set in the mainland state capitals suggests that the new digital-only services have provided listeners with more specialised music and information services than were previously available.
It is the view of the government that removing the minister's gatekeeper role will simplify the arrangements relating to the planning of digital radio services in regional licence areas and make them more consistent with other broadcasting services. This is consistent with the Turnbull government's view that ACMA is best placed to decide when and where the rollout of digital radio services in regional Australia should occur. It will also remove unnecessary government intervention in the commencement of digital radio services in those areas.
These amendments will change the landscape of digital radio regulation in Australia in line with what we know, six years after the first digital radio stations commenced operations in the five state mainland capitals. It is the government's view that the provisions contained here are overwhelmingly positive, and with amendments such as the removal of the minister's intervention role it is plainly obvious that they are focused on unshackling the digital sector for the benefit of all Australians.
From a personal point of view, I am happy that ACMA will be actively giving Darwin priority when it comes to the licensing of permanent digital radio services, and I urge local analogue operators to work with the community in coming months and years to make this happen. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (18:34): I am very pleased to rise to deliver this summing-up speech in the second reading debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015. I thank the members for Blaxland and Solomon for their contribution to the debate. In particular, I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague the member for Solomon, a hardworking member representing regional and remote Australia. She is a strong and effective advocate for her constituents. She takes an ongoing interest in communications policy matters, recognising the importance of the communications sector and communications technology for people in regional and remote Australia staying in touch with the issues they need to be informed about.
As the member for Solomon and the member for Blaxland have noted, the bill before the House this evening would amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 for the purpose of reducing regulatory complexity and delivering a simpler, more flexible process for the planning and licensing of digital radio services in regional Australia. Its measures draw very substantially on the recommendations contained in the digital radio report issued by the government in July last year, and their effect would be to deliver a simple and more flexible process for the planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia. Specifically, the key measures in the bill include repealing the restricted datacasting licence category; removing the minister's role in the setting of the digital radio start-up day for regional licence areas; removing the requirement for a six-year moratorium on the allocation of additional digital commercial radio broadcasting licences in a licence area following the commencement of digital radio services in that area; amending the definition of 'non-foundation digital radio multiplex transmitter licence' to ensure the definition operates in a manner consistent with the relevant policy objective; and making certain minor amendments to the two acts I mentioned to repeal some spent provisions.
Importantly, the measures in this bill are supported by stakeholders in the commercial, community and public radio sectors. The passage of this bill will simplify and streamline Australia's digital radio regulatory regime. I therefore commend the bill to the House and call on all members to support it.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) (18:37): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) ( 18: 37 ): Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip notifying the change in membership of certain committees.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (18:38): by leave—I move:
That:
(1)Mr Zimmerman be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities;
(2)Mr Broad be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties;
(3)Mrs Sudmalis be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services;
(4)Mrs Sudmalis be discharged from the Standing Committee on Health as of 13 February 2016.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (18:38): The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 will be supported by the opposition. It is an important bill. It arises out of a recommendation of the Financial System Inquiry, commonly known as the Murray report, which recommended this action that surcharging in relation to credit cards be closely regulated and that, in effect, over-surcharging not be allowed. This is an important matter, because, frankly, consumers are being ripped off as we speak. It is interesting that of all the issues which were given attention during the Murray inquiry process none received anywhere near as many submissions from the public as this particular matter. It is quite understandable that that is the case, because consumers have every right to be angry when they are ripped off in this fashion.
It is right and appropriate that retailers be able to pass on the costs of using a credit card for their transactions—they add up. It is a substantial cost and, I think it is fair to say, nobody reasonable in the debate objects to retailers being able to pass on reasonable costs; that is appropriate and it is protected under this bill. What is not appropriate is excessive surcharging. In many cases, people have very little choice as to how they pay, but the costs are more than passed on and retailers make a profit out of what is meant to be a user charge.
When surcharging was first allowed for the cost of credit card transactions, it was envisaged by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which allowed this to occur, that it would be to recoup reasonable costs. As we speak today, the Reserve Bank estimates that it would cost a merchant an average of 0.82 per cent per transaction to accept the normal, most utilised cards—MasterCard and Visa. Of course, 0.82 per cent is a low figure compared to what people are charged in the vast majority of instances; charges of two per cent, three per cent or more are quite common.
This legislation is appropriate and will be supported by the opposition strongly. In fact, I indicated support for this, on behalf of the Labor Party, when the Murray report was first released in 2014. Here we are, in 2016, and we are only now legislating. If anything, it is perplexing that it has taken so long to reach this point, because the Labor Party would have supported this legislation, facilitated its passage, much earlier than we are doing so today. The government responded formally to the Murray review last year. I am relieved to say that this legislation and explanatory memorandum make much more sense than the Treasurer's explanation of it at the time.
The Treasurer has had some very ordinary interviews in his so far brief tenure as Treasurer, but this one was particularly special: he was asked on the Todayshow how this legislation would work. Karl Stefanovic asked him about a surcharge for a well-known airline which might be able to charge you when taking credit card payments. The Treasurer responded, not very confidently:
Well, let's say it is 0.5 per cent for argument sake, as best as I can predict, 0.55 per cent is what they could charge …
I am not sure where the 0.05 came from, as an appropriate or reasonable charge to pass on. This went on. The Treasurer then said:
It might be 0.01 per cent … let's say it is 0.5 per cent which is the average of what merchants get charged, those merchants won't be able to pass on any more than that 0.5 per cent, right, they can't charge 7, they can't charge 2, they can't charge 1, they can only charge what it is costing them to actually provide that service.
Even Karl Stefanovic said:
You seem a bit vague but it may just be because it is early days.
The Treasurer said, with his normal arrogance:
No, I'm not vague at all. It is absolute.
Well, he was very vague. It is quite clear he had no idea what he was talking about. He had no idea how this legislation would work. He had absolutely no idea of the detail. But I have looked at the legislation and the explanatory memorandum, and it is much clearer. Clearly the government's legislative drafters have gone to work; this is a good piece of legislation.
This bill is important, not only as a matter of fairness, but because electronic payments are, of course, more and more a part of our economy and they are, by and large, efficient. There is no reason to discourage them; in fact, they can be and should be encouraged. Allowing the use of electronic payments through credit cards without excessive surcharging is good policy, as well as being fair. It is appropriate that the ACCC be established as the body responsible for enforcing the legislation. The ACCC has experience and expertise in this field, and we would certainly endorse the mandating of the ACCC to ensure that this law is implemented as effective.
The legislation will clarify the regulation and enhance competitive neutrality between systems providers. At the moment, there is a process of blending—charging one surcharge regardless of the credit card used, although some credit cards have considerably more costs—which has caused some angst to some credit card providers, for understandable reasons. For example, American Express is generally much more expensive for a merchant. That is a matter of choice. I disclose that I have an American Express card. I use it; that is something which I have chosen to do. If there is a higher charge to use an American Express card, customers of Visa and MasterCard—I also have a Visa card—should not be penalised for doing so. It should be the case that the blending process is, in effect, unfair and is, in effect, a surcharge. Of course, the charge which dominates is the higher charge. For example, a charge for American Express would dominate the blending process and people using Visa or MasterCard would be charged more than they otherwise should be.
It will of course also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of price signals—that is, it would encourage credit card providers to even more increase efficiency and drive down their processing costs. It will make their product more attractive to consumers if consumers know that they are only going to be charged for the cost, and the cost to the credit card becomes more relevant. At the moment it is frankly irrelevant because the consumer is going to be charged more than that in any event. It has the potential to reduce cross-subsidisation, as I said, between customer groups and merchant groups through that blending process.
The bill amends the act not only to include a ban on surcharging but also to allow the ACCC to take actions against corporations that are involved in excessive surcharging. As I said, that is something the opposition supports. The surcharge will be excessive if that surcharge exceeds the level for surcharging permitted under the Reserve Bank standard, which covers the kind of payment and sets out the regulations. The Reserve Bank has considerable expertise that it has built up since having responsibility for payment systems through the Payments System Board and it is appropriate that the Reserve Bank has that authority under this bill.
I trust that some sensible definitions of what is to be considered excessive will be created as part of the process in this bill. I support the bill on the basis that those definitions will not inhibit competition between retailers on surcharge levies, because that again is something which would provide competition to encourage not only credit card providers but also retailers to make sure that their offering is as sharp as possible and that only the relevant charges are being passed on, and consumers, at the end of the day, will benefit. This is a proconsumer piece of legislation, it is a procompetition piece of legislation and it is a sensible piece of legislation. The Labor Party will facilitate its passage through this House and the other House so that it becomes the rule of the land as quickly as possible. I am disappointed it has taken this long to get it to this point. It is something which could have been dealt with very easily last year. Obviously, the government had other things on its agenda, but, nevertheless, now that it is before the House we will facilitate its passage with our support.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon—Government Whip) (18:48): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Goodenough, thank you for this opportunity. I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015. In doing so, I am supporting the government's response to the financial systems inquiry. As a matter of response to the previous speaker—he questioned the timing of the bill—there are always schedules in this place and things are a priority. I would like to remind the shadow Treasurer, who should know this too well, that over the last two years we have spent most of our time trying to legislate in this place for savings that will bring the national budget back into the black to try to fill the hole that was left by a string of the worst treasurers that this country has ever seen. That is what we have been doing. Having said that, this is an important piece of legislation and it will ban card payment surcharges that are excessive and will protect the billions of customer transactions in electronic currency every year.
Currently, the law allows merchants to charge a consumer a surcharge on electronic payments that is greater than the cost of that transaction to the merchant. If ever you could pick up on an issue amongst your constituents that really sticks in their craw, it is this. This really irritates them because they walk into a shop and find that they are paying a transaction fee that nowhere near represents the true cost of that transaction. It may not be a large amount of money, but it happens all the time. Sometimes we are forced to pay transaction fees that are nowhere near fair. This is evident in transactions that have a fixed fee on top of the cost of the good for making a payment electronically. I think it is fair to say that we would all agree that airline companies are notorious. They are not the only ones, but they are notorious for this practice. These unfair charges are what the government seeks to address with this bill. I am sure the public will shout 'Hear, hear!' By changing the regulatory framework of electronic payments the ACCC is better equipped to protect customers and will have the ability to issue infringement notices to merchants who have an excessive surcharge on an electronic payment. I am sure that the constituents of Braddon and every other client around the country will be very quick to keep businesses in check when it comes to this practice.
What is deemed as an excessive charge will be determined by either existing Reserve Bank standards or regulations made for the purpose of the ban. It will be the Reserve Bank that determines the standards and permitted costs for which the merchant can recover payment surcharges. I would suggest that there will be a significant gap between that determination and what is currently happening as a matter of course. These reforms were committed to as part of the government's response to the financial systems inquiry. The government is delivering on its promise to protect consumers from excessive surcharging on card payments. Many merchants are fair in the charges they place on card payments. Generally, it is a minority who place excessive charges on card payments, but the time is up. Hopefully those days will be over and a fairer charge—one that is acceptable to both the consumer and the seller—will be in place shortly.
This bill will not place an extra burden on those who are currently doing the right thing. I must stress that: it will not place any extra burden on those who are currently doing the right thing and are treating their customers fairly. The bill will seek to rein in those who are charging unfair amounts to consumers who pay by card, and it will ensure that customers are not charged more than what reflects the true cost to the merchant in the acceptance of the payment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill will have a particular impact in my electorate of Braddon. You would be aware, and others in the chamber would be aware, that while my electorate is on a beautiful island and is a magnificent part of the world covering the north-west coast of Tasmania, my constituents cannot simply jump in a car and go to Melbourne or Sydney quickly like many people on the mainland can. They have to fly or spend a day or night on the magnificently reinvigorated Spirit of Tasmania ferries that leave the beautiful city of Devonport in my electorate and head to Melbourne each and every day. As I remarked earlier, airlines are notorious for excessive surcharges on card payments. In thinking about how this bill will help the people of Braddon I did some minor research. Whether my constituents fly out of Wynyard, Devonport or, dare I say it, Launceston in the electorate of Lyons, they have to pay either a percentage-based or flat fee surcharge if they book online. Three of the big airline companies have flat fee surcharges on these flights. The lowest of these surcharges is a flat fee of $7. The highest surcharge is $8.50. Given that people in my electorate have no option most of the time but to fly using these services, it is highly unfair that they must incur these additional charges every time they seek to leave the island.
This government is committed to doing something about that. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 gives the Reserve Bank the power to regulate this surcharging so that it cannot be excessive compared to the actual cost to the merchant of processing the payment. The bill also gives power to the ACCC to fine companies who continue to charge excessive fees once the ban is in place.
I fully acknowledge, as I think all of us should, that there is nothing to stop companies adding a few dollars to the price of all their goods to compensate for the loss of revenue that results from the change in this legislation. The customer is king, and I would say to people, 'Be very careful.' My constituents, in particular, are very astute, and they do not like to be price gouged, but I acknowledge that this practice could take place as a result of this change in legislation. However, they will have to seek that compensation honestly, and the people of Braddon will be able to shop around for the cheapest fare or product rather than having to take into account sneaky surcharges.
I hope the passage of this bill will restore trust and integrity in the electronic payment systems in our economy and, more importantly, save the people in my electorate and all over Australia some of their hard-earned money. In 2014 there were over two million actively trading businesses in Australia. When this is put into the context of our online global economy, where a majority of transactions are by card, the importance of this bill becomes much clearer. The 2015 World Payments Report estimated that in 2014 non-cash payments amounted to approximately 390 billion transactions worldwide. That is a big number. The only number that would go close to that would be the size of the deficit left by the previous government.
Dr Chalmers: You were going so well!
Mr WHITELEY: You saw that coming, didn't you? The 2015 Reserve Bank of Australia annual report noted the continued trend of cash payments falling, signifying the increase in card payments in Australia, so it is all the more important for us to deal with this in the way we are dealing with it today. The growth in electronic payments in our economy is a clear trend and obviously one that will not be turning around any time soon. It is a trend which it is reasonable to expect will go through the roof over the next few years as we as a society become even more technology driven. This is sad in some respects, if I could hark back to the more traditional days when we supported our local businesses and shopped locally. We walked into a store and tried on some shoes, bought them and took them home in a bag or a box. Compare that with today, where people are choosing to spend their money online.
It is not necessarily part of this bill, but I will take the opportunity, given that I have a few moments, to mention a specific example of the damage that can be done by our change of spending or payment culture. I will not give away the name of the town, but in a small town in my electorate that I visited recently I said to the person in the shop that I was in, 'What happened to the shop on the other side of the street from you? I can't remember exactly what shop it was.' There was a big empty space left. She said, 'That was the local shoe shop'—the only shoe shop, I understand—'but it has closed down.' I said, 'Why did it close down?' She said, 'Everybody around here was buying their shoes online.' I said, 'How do you know? It could have just been poor business, bad selection of shoe products for people to choose from, or bad service—how on earth would you know that it was purely to do with the purchase of shoes online?' They said, 'We're a pretty small town. You only have to talk to the local postman and he will tell you exactly what's happening.' The shape of a shoe box is pretty distinctive in anybody's language, and the postman was exceptionally busy over the previous year delivering more and more shoes to residential and even business addresses.
You could argue about why people chose to do that. Maybe they were not getting the product or the service, but I doubt it. I think that the place I am talking about would have given very good service, but it is just a change in spending and payment culture. I said to the person, 'How is that going down in your town?' She said, 'Not very well. People are very unhappy.' I said, 'Why would they have a right to be unhappy when in fact they themselves, by their spending payment habits, led to this outcome?' She said, 'They're really angry now, because when they do need a pair of shoes really quickly, or if the children rip the sole or heel off their school shoe and they want some this afternoon ready for tomorrow's school, they no longer have a shop to buy them.' This is quite a small town. So in a sense we need to be very careful what we wish for. We need to be very careful about what our habits and behaviour lead to, because at the end of the day there is nothing better than shopping locally, spending locally, supporting our local businesses and making sure they are there tomorrow.
As the pattern of growth continues in this way, it is vital for the health of our economy and for the bottoms of people's pockets, where they keep their loose change and notes, that the regulatory framework surrounding card payments is effective, efficient and fair
The consumer needs utmost confidence in the payments system. The integrity of this system is compromised when merchants can place excessive surcharges on products most of the time without the consumer's knowledge. The average consumer does not have access to the information to be able to determine if the surcharge they are paying is representative of the true cost of the payment to the merchant.
Once the reforms in this bill are implemented, consumers can have confidence that any surcharges they do pay will be representative of the true cost of that transaction to the merchant. More importantly, the consumer will not see excessive flat fees when it comes to the final stage of processing. Won't it be a great day when that ends! Consumers may still be asked to pay a card payment processing fee, but it will be a fee that is not disproportionate to the cost to the merchant. It will no longer be unfair.
Although businesses will no longer be able to charge excessive card payments, as I said, there is no stopping them from increasing their pricing. So I ask consumers to be aware and watch out to make sure that such price gouging is not in fact happening.
I am confident that the changes to the legislation will make consumers in Australia better off overall. As you add up those surcharges and those unfair fees through the course of the year—whether it be at the cost of you or your partner or your children who are old enough to have their own money who are also getting charged these fees—you will see that this will add up to a significant amount of money in each household's budget on an annual basis and should not be underestimated for one moment.
I support the reforms that this government has put forward to strive for greater efficiency and fairness in the Australian economy, and I thank the House for the opportunity to speak.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (19:01): There was so much of what our Tasmanian friend was talking about then that I agreed with—and then he just spoiled it near the end. I would love to be in the room when he wanders back through the door of the office and somebody says, 'Look, that went okay, except you might just want to be aware that, when you talk about the deficit, the deficit is much, much bigger now than when the government changed hands.' I think the rest of it was great, and I hope that, if any of your staff are listening, they might mention that to you as you walk back through the door: the deficit is much bigger now than it was when the government changed hands.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 is, of course, a bill all about credit cards and the regulation of credit and debit cards in our economy. Our priority in this area of public policy is always to make sure that the financial system works for more people and not against them. At this time of year, I think, particularly at the beginning of February, as people start to get the credit card bills from a difficult time—a time where their family budget is often quite squeezed over the summer—credit cards really are front of mind in people's thinking as they try and make the family budget add up.
This bill implements one of the major consumer-focused recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry led quite ably and capably by David Murray. What the bill means is that merchants will be banned from excessive surcharging on card transactions, and the ACCC will be given powers to enforce these bans.
Labor has been calling for action on disproportionately high credit-card fees for some time, and we are glad to see that there has been some movement from those opposite in this crucial area. The key reason we support the measures that are before us today is that they seek to lower the cost of credit and debit card transactions for Australian consumers—a very worthy objective in a very important part of the financial system.
Credit cards and debit cards play an important and growing role in our economy more broadly, so we need to make sure that we get the arrangements as right as we can. The advent of the credit card—I think it was in about 1946—was one of the most transformative financial innovations of the 20th century. When you think about the evolution of the credit card over 70 years, we have got to the point where last year Australians made something like 6.36 billion card transactions, worth around $529 billion, according to the RBA. And the volume of card transactions has increased by 163 per cent over the last decade alone. So it is a very important thing to concern ourselves with in this parliament.
As some additional context: it was in 2003 that the RBA permitted retailer surcharges for customers to address the high merchant service fees that payment providers had started charging businesses. The idea of retailer surcharges was to allow merchants to send a price signal to customers about the cost of the payment mechanism they use. The retailer surcharging has had the desired effect of driving down merchant service fees, by around half a per cent of sales.
But—and this is the issue—widespread consumer surcharging has now also opened up a window for merchants, particularly those with market power, to overcharge customers and consumers. The result has been some quite high-profile cases of very high surcharging—for instance, in the travel industry, in some ticket booking websites and in small retail markets in regional areas.
A Galaxy Research survey commissioned by MasterCard found that Australians are paying $1.6 billion annually in credit card surcharges, or something like $130 per person per year. Understandably, many Australians are unhappy about that state of affairs. When you consider that the Financial System Inquiry received 6,500 submissions and 5,000 of those 6,500 submissions were about the topic of card surcharging, you do get a sense of the depth of feeling in the community when it comes to this issue. A 2014 CHOICE survey found that 68 per cent of people believed that retailers should not be able to charge customers extra when they pay with a credit card. So you can see the need for some action to restore confidence among the public in the financial services system and to make sure that consumers are getting the best deal on their credit and debit cards.
Regulating payment systems is especially difficult. The credit card market is different from most markets, in that there are at least three parties with different sets of customers—the card issuer, the banks, the merchant and the cardholder. So there are three or four different sets of customers. Unlike typical markets, there is often insufficient competitive pressure to keep fees in check.
That is why, if you are reluctant to intervene in important markets, there is a very key reason to do so in this case. There is a role for government and for central banks to regulate the market because there is insufficient competitive pressure to keep the fees in check. That is why surcharge caps were one of the recommendations to come out of David Murray's Financial System Inquiry.
This bill introduces a mechanism to limit the surcharge fees charged to consumers by merchants. The limits will apply to all cards currently designated by the RBA Payments System Board, as well as other cards included by accompanying regulations. The RBA will make standards on what acceptable merchant surcharges are for the cards they designate, and regulations will cap surcharges for other cards.
A new part to the Competition and Consumer Act which will allow the ACCC to be the primary enforcement agency for the surcharge cap. Substantial fines, currently $108,000 for listed corporations, $10,800 for other bodies corporate and $2,160 for individuals, will be levied if these surcharge limits are breached. These fines are a strong incentive for businesses to surcharge appropriately, and the ACCC enforcement facility gives consumers a way to report instances of excessive surcharges.
Labor supports the general principles of this mechanism to curb excessive surcharging, which should see consumers get a better deal on credit cards. We do, however, have some concerns about the fine detail of the legislation. We will be supporting the bill, but we want to take the opportunity to flag some issues. First of all, the bill outsources the specific definition of 'excessive surcharging' to the RBA and to regulations to be drafted by the minister. We will be watching closely to ensure that these standards and instruments fully meet the community expectations of reasonable surcharging.
Labor's concerns about the implementation of these caps have not been helped by a genuine lack of clarity from the Treasurer when, on the Today show, he attempted to explain how these changes would work. The member for McMahon ran through in some detail the awful mess the Treasurer found himself in, being unable to explain some of the basic details of what this bill is trying to achieve. We do hope that that has been sorted out on that side, that there is more clarity and more understanding from the chief economic policymaker in this country to understand the intention of and the implementation of this bill. He did tie himself up in knots in that interview with Karl Stefanovic. I will not burden the House with another transcript reading, like the member for McMahon did, but it was really quite a poor performance. Clearly, if the Treasurer does not know how his own policy should be implemented, Labor and the general public have a right to be concerned, and a reason to carefully monitor the implementation of it.
We believe that the standards should be drafted to ensure that surcharges by any name are covered and that businesses do not get away with charging 'booking fees' or 'transaction fees' to skirt the rule. We would also like to see the net as broad as possible so that all cards and payment systems are covered.
The second consideration beyond those broad considerations I have just dealt with is the level of enforcement of these measures. We would like to see the ACCC actively enforcing the bans so that consumers feel the full benefit of this legislation. That means ensuring that the ACCC is resourced adequately to perform this new function, especially after its funding was frozen by those opposite in the horror 2014-15 budget. If we want the ACCC to do its job, we need to ensure that it is adequately resourced. As it stands, it has had its funding frozen under the Hockey/Morrison approach to these things. While the legislation has a noble objective, Labor will continue to monitor the actual rollout of the surcharge limits, to ensure they do as they are intended.
Beyond that, there was a whole range of credit card related recommendations out of the financial systems inquiry, and also out of the committee process in the other place. There has been some good work going on at the RBA in their review of card payments regulation. They released a consultation paper in December on their plan to reform interchange fees and several other aspects of card payments regulation. There are some core recommendations, which I will not go through now, given that time is getting away. I encourage honourable members to follow the very good work of the RBA in this space. Particularly relevant to this piece of legislation is the RBA's recommendation to oblige the provision to merchants of information on average acceptance costs for payment systems. Why is this important? Because the recommendation would make it much easier for merchants to set surcharges at a reasonable level, as defined under this legislation.
We are quite supportive of the RBA's plans, but we on this side of the House are also engaging in our own process of consultation with relevant stakeholders to understand all of the RBA recommendations from all of the various perspectives, because our priority in all of this is to get a better deal for middle Australia when it comes to credit cards for consumers. In that context, we say that we welcome the RBA's contribution, subject to the ongoing consultation that we will perform for our own purposes and our own policy development.
In that space, it has been very valuable to have the Senate colleagues perform, at the committee level, what was a very detailed, very forensic, very valuable process of examination of all of the different aspects of credit cards in this country. This bill deals with a very specific part of the RBA work as a second plank on the work on credit cards, but our Senate colleagues have given us a lot to think about, when it comes to the work of the Senate Economics References Committee. I do want to acknowledge the work of the committee chair—first, Senator Dastyari, and now Senator Ketter, and all of the work they have done.
Evidence given to the committee showed unequivocally that families and small businesses can be dudded by high credit card fees. In that context I thought there were some constructive ideas worth exploring, and that we on this side are exploring, including those ones about a minimum monthly repayment; issues around proper assessment of the ability of customers to pay off outstanding debt over a reasonable period of time, rather than just the minimum balance; the requirement or the possible requirement for card providers to have 'click and close' facilities, so that it is just as easy to shut down a credit card as it is to pick one up and start using it; and the requirement that credit card promotional material clearly discloses the cost of a credit card, including the headline interest rate and ongoing annual fee. Also, we think it would be valuable to explore the idea of a government review of technological innovations that could help facilitate switching in the credit card market, so that if people spot a better deal it is as easy as possible to switch to that better deal rather than feel they are caught or trapped under inferior arrangements. We want to make that as competitive as possible, and that means giving people the right information and also giving them the means to change their provider, if that is in their own interests. As I said, Labor—the opposition—are currently considering the Senate committee's recommendations. We are consulting with relevant stakeholders. We will determine a policy position in the coming months.
Overall, in summary, there is a lot of work to do to improve consumer outcomes and consumer confidence in the area of credit cards and debit cards. Given how important they are to our economy, it is crucial that we get it right. This legislation is part of that effort. I welcome the government putting this bill on the table. As the member for McMahon said, it is better late than never. We want to see the surcharge capped when it comes to merchants and consumers. Our No. 1 priority is to ensure that consumers get the best possible deal on credit cards. We will be working hard from our point of view to design policies to achieve that. We are supporting this legislation. We will hold the government to account to ensure that this bill, as it is implemented, lives up to their promises in this area.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (19:15): Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I wish you a happy new year. I am pleased to rise in the House for the first time this year to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015. This bill will ban what can be incredibly unfair, excessive surcharges on processed payments, such as processing fees, banks' merchant service fees, fees for the rental of card terminals and fixed monthly and annual fees. Importantly, in the future when a consumer uses a credit card to pay for a meal, a hotel room or even a set of new tyres or to buy goods online no longer will the business owner that they are transacting with be entitled to charge a surcharge that does not reflect the actual cost of the credit card transaction.
It is very easy for me to support the introduction of this bill that we are debating today given my electorate of Durack covers over 1.6 million square kilometres and consists of more than 300 towns and communities, with the vast majority being rural and remote. People in regional Western Australia live in some of the most remote places in the world, where opportunities and money are harder to come by. Companies making large profits from excessive surcharges at the expense of the honest people in very rural and remote towns is simply not on. Often in rural and remote locations there is little choice of products or service providers, which only increases the chance of regional customers being ripped off. We are now going to stop that practice. It is not right, and the Turnbull government is rectifying the situation to make it right. Those sitting on this side of the chamber understand that, and that is why the government is acting to stamp out unscrupulous practice. Although I do not agree with those opposite on many things, I am very pleased to hear that they appear to be supporting this bill. We know that this is yet another common sense measure by the Turnbull government.
This bill will enable the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to be the primary enforcement agency to ban those unfair excessive charges. In the future, those excessive charges will come under the watchful eye of the ACCC. The reality is that many merchants absorb the processing costs in their usual trade without having to surcharge. Well done to them, I say. Disappointingly, though, some merchants impose surcharges well above the cost of processing a card payment, more than 10 per cent in some cases. Unfortunately, while thousands of good Australian businesses do the right thing by the customer, there are always a handful who give a bad name to the rest of them. In the future, those merchants who break the rules will be hit hard, with listed corporations fined up to $108,000, other corporations stung to the tune of $10,800 and unincorporated entities penalised by just over $2,000.
The Reserve Bank of Australia regulates most commonly used cards, such as Visa, MasterCard and American Express, and it will be within the discretion of the RBA or the government to extend the operation of the ban to other payment cards or methods. Under this bill, the RBA will generally be responsible for setting the permitted costs that merchants can recover.
This measure is yet another example of the smart, effective and efficient government we have been delivering since we were elected over two years ago. It is no accident that last year there were more new jobs created than have been since 2006. This government presided over the creation of 301,300 new jobs in 2015, and we achieved that by backing innovation and small business. We are the same government which are reviewing the system to unleash Australia's full economic potential and support improved living standards and continued prosperity for all Australians.
We are also the same government that have developed new employment initiatives, such as jobactive, the Transition to Work service, the What's Next website, the National Work Experience Program and the Empowering YOUth Initiatives—all of which played a role in last year's record employment level, which included a record high 8,228,700 in full-time employment. Most pleasing to me is that youth unemployment is now at its lowest level since July 2013, with youth job participation having increased to 68.1 per cent. Also we have more women in the workplace, which pleases me very much as well.
The mental health package, the science and innovation package, the domestic violence package and the national ice strategy are four key reforms which the government announced before Christmas. They have all been warmly received in my electorate of Durack.
A key to the success of this government has been our consultative nature, and stakeholders approved the framework we are discussing in this bill today for the ban on excessive credit card surcharging. Banks, along with card schemes, were supportive, as were consumer representatives.
As I said at the start of this speech, the Turnbull government are committed to achieving a more efficient system. A more efficient system will go a long way in my regional electorate, especially for rural and remote towns in Durack. Residents of the bush cannot continue to fund record profits with this ongoing unfair practice. We are determined to ensure a fairer outcome for all Australian consumers. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (19:22): I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015. For many years now, the Greens have been pointing to the exorbitant amounts being made by banks and credit card companies when people do little more than use their own money, often in situations where they have no choice other than to use a card or have their transaction processed electronically. It has been an excuse for banks, credit card companies and many others to make hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, off the back of people doing no more than just going about their everyday life. In previous parliaments, we have pushed for reform on this front, and I am pleased that now there is some action being taken with respect to credit cards at least. It could be more, and, to that end, we will be seeking to broaden the bill to cover other areas where people are being similarly gouged.
This bill reflects part of the government's response to the recommendations of the financial system inquiry. It amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to establish a framework to ban surcharges imposed with respect to particular payment methods that exceed the cost of acceptance for those payment methods and to provide the ACCC with additional powers to gather information and issue infringement notices in enforcing the ban on excess surcharges. We are talking about the charges that sometimes appear online or in a shop when you use your credit card. It might be a little note saying an X per cent fee will be applied, or it might be a certain amount. We know that that is more than what it costs the provider to use the service. In other words, someone is making a profit just because you choose to use a credit card. In that respect, we support this bill as the first step in addressing unfair fees and charges that Australians are being forced to pay for financial services.
Since an RBA ruling in 2012, credit card surcharges were meant to have been limited to the reasonable cost to the business of processing the transaction, which for Visa and MasterCard was about 0.8 per cent and for American Express and Diners Club about two per cent. But people would have seen, when they make those transactions, including online, that it is often much higher. It is important to underscore that the Reserve Bank has had powers to crack down on this for some time. Those powers are set out in section 10 of the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998, which includes the setting of Reserve Bank standards on payment systems designated by the RBA for regulation. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, MasterCard, Visa, EFTPOS and American Express companion cards have all been designated—some have not, but many have. The Reserve Bank standards apply to that system and:
… cover a range of aspects including interchange fees and merchants’ card surcharge arrangements. For instance, under the Reserve Bank standard on merchant pricing, regulated payment system may not prevent merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who pay with credit cards. American Express and Diners Club have voluntarily undertaken not to prevent merchants from imposing charges on customers who pay with their cards.
The issue is the reasonable cost of using the service and whether or not that is actually been met. The problem has been—and many have pointed this out for some time—it has been left up to the companies to enforce the requirement. As a result, there have been surcharges that are well in excess of that. Many surcharges are as high as 17 per cent, and the worst offenders have been companies like the airlines. In one of the more extreme cases analysed by consumer organisation Choice after the RBA ruling, a 1,479 per cent surcharge was applied to a $132 ticket by Tigerair. That is the kind of gouging that has been going on. As a result, as of March 2015, Australian consumers have been charged a collective $1.6 billion a year, according to MasterCard data made available to Choice at the time. If this legislation works, it will reduce this burden, and that is why the Greens intend to support it. As the explanatory memorandum states:
The measure will also ensure that any cases of excessive surcharging can be readily addressed by the ACCC which will be the primary enforcement agency for the ban.
Under the … Act as it currently stands, there is no specific prohibition against excessive surcharging. However, there are existing provisions that prohibit false and misleading misrepresentations. The amendments will complement these existing provisions of the … Act.
To that extent, it is a good step towards getting proper enforcement of the RBA ruling. The RBA ruling was good. This is not an area where we should be allowed to make profits. You should just be able to charge the customer what it actually costs you to provide that service, that transaction. In that respect, it is good, it is worthy of support, and that is why will support it.
But this is where it does not go far enough: it fails to deal with one of the biggest areas of financial charges that slug consumers every day, and that is ATM fees when you go to the teller machine. If we are doing this for credit cards, we should also do it for ATM fees. Banks are making up to $600 million a year from ATM fees. If credit card operators are now not allowed to make a profit from the use of a card, neither should banks. We know that banks collect around $12 billion in fees from customers every year—that is, fees right across the board. But we also know that Australians are paying over $600 million a year in ATM fees as part of this enormous amount of money acquired from consumers by the banks. Much of that is just going straight to the banks' bottom line. Whilst I think everyone would accept, and the numbers are clear—the use of payWave and online banking services means that there is a decline in ATM use—the amount of fees being paid by consumers is still enormous.
You especially find this if, for whatever reason, you find you cannot go to your own bank but you need to withdraw money. If you go to a bank that is not your own bank, some of the fees there are significantly higher than what it costs the bank to provide that service. The fee to go to another bank could be $2 to $2.50, sometimes up to $3. It is even higher in some regional areas and in areas where access to machines is limited. I have even seen higher fees approaching the $3 mark on some of the private ATMs that are around the place. The RBA says the average fee for a foreign withdrawal—that is, going to a bank that is not your own—is about $2.33. That is up from $2.04 in 2010. When you go to the bank to access your own money, the banks can gouge you with fees of $2 or more when we know it only costs them about 77c for an ATM transaction.
On average, it costs a bank 77c when you put your card in, do your account balance or get your money out and have that all processed, but people are being charged $2, $2.50 and sometimes $3 for the privilege of accessing their own money. These fees are not only unfair but also regressive because they hit people who are taking out smaller amounts or have smaller balances worse. Two dollars and 50c means a lot more to someone with $50 in their account than to someone who might be able to access $1,000 in their account. We know that many people have changed their behaviour and try to withdraw cash as much as possible from their own ATMs. But, as many of us know, there are many times when that is just not possible—for example, where you need the cash, because that is the only thing the shop will accept and the only ATM that is nearby is not one that is your own. You may have made your best endeavours, but you just cannot do it.
The Greens believe that banks should not able to make a profit out of this. If you are going to another bank or going to your own bank, okay, then maybe the bank can charge you the cost of recovering that. But, in an era where you have no choice but to have a bank account and where bank branches are not as easy to get to as they used to be and where banks have a guaranteed stream of money piling into their coffers every day, people should not be charged for the privilege of accessing their own money and banks should not be allowed to make a profit out of people getting their own money out of the bank.
It is worth remembering that the big four banks alone make up to $30 billion in profit every year, and some of that is coming from people paying $2, $2.50 and $4 for an ATM fee when it only costs the bank 77c. According to the RBA, there are now more than 31,000 cash machines around the country, which the RBA says is high relative to Australia's population when you look overseas. Fifty-five per cent of the ATMs in Australia are owned by specialist ATM companies. They are the ones that you might find in a restaurant, in a pub or somewhere else. But banks and other financial institutions own the rest. They own just under half.
While it may be difficult—and we accept this—to limit the fees that private operators are charging, we can take some steps towards regulating what the banks charge. The banks enjoy significant support from the Australian public, especially the big four, because we know they are too big to fail and the government will step in and help them if they ever get into trouble. So, given that support and given the extent to which the government is regulating them already and given that the government is saying that credit card companies and merchants should not be allowed to make a profit out of fees, let's apply the same logic to ATM fees as well.
I will be moving amendments when we get to the consideration in detail stage that will prevent banks from charging ATM fees that are excessive and will require the fees to reflect the reasonable costs of allowing a person to make an ATM transaction. For the benefit of the House I will outline some of those amendments now. The amendments will create a new part in the act, part IVD—ATM transactions—and a new section will be created, section 55N, which sets out the object of the part. The object of the part is to ensure that account holders are not charged for ATM transactions made using automatic teller machines owned or leased by the persons with whom their accounts are held and that amounts charged for other ATM transactions are not excessive and reflect the reasonable costs of allowing a person to make an ATM transaction.
A new division will be created which puts a limit on ATM fees: firstly, by banning any fees charged by banks for use of their own ATMs—because we believe very strongly that, if the bank is getting your money, you should not be charged for the privilege of accessing it and getting it out of an ATM machine—which reflects the current practices of pretty much all of the banks; and, secondly, by requiring the Reserve Bank to issue standards in relation to ATM fees charged by authorised deposit-taking institutions that take into account the public interest and limit them to an amount that reflects the reasonable costs of allowing the person to make the transaction. This will mean that authorised deposit-taking institutions, banks, will be prevented from charging fees that are excessive and do not reflect the standard.
So, in a nutshell, the Australian Greens are supporting this bill, because it says credit card fees should not be in place where intermediaries or the end users are able to make a profit out of you using the credit card. Get charged a fee for using it, sure, but it should not something you can make a profit out of. We say, 'Great idea. It is something we have been pushing for for a while. Let's extend it to ATM fees and make sure banks, which are making record profits, are not able to make a profit out of you accessing your own money. Let's end these $2, $2.50 and up to $3 fees that banks sometimes charge. Let's limit it to what it actually costs the bank, which we know is closer to 77c. Let's ensure that the good principle in this bill is extended and that banks are prohibited from using the fact that, in this day and age, everyone is required to have an electronic bank account as a way of making money out of people just because they want to get their own money out of an ATM.
We support the bill and I hope that the government, because they support the principle of this bill by introducing it, also support the amendments. It is exactly the same principle, but we are just doing it for ATM fees as well as credit card fees.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (19:35): I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 and commend both the Treasurer and the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer for bringing this bill before the House. This is an important bill that will have a positive effect on Australian consumers on a daily basis. Prohibiting excessive and unfair payment surcharges by merchants is a good reform that has a practical and beneficial impact.
It is an unfortunate reality that some merchants have been unscrupulous in passing on unnecessary surcharges to consumers in the name of 'cost recovery'. Australia has seen exponential growth in the use of credit cards at the terminal and when shopping online. We are so accustomed to it that we really think nothing of it. Many Australian consumers now carry little or no cash; instead, choosing the ease and convenience of using their card to make purchases. This practice is only becoming more prevalent, as usage of ATMs has plummeted to an all-time low while EFTPOS transactions have more than doubled since 2009 and 'tap and go' is a popular convenience.
We are now seeing the technology for cardless withdrawals at ATMs and making payments using a smart phone. Consumers regularly encounter retailers applying surcharges if paying by card and displaying minimum transaction fees. The local takeaway store has the convenience of an EFTPOS machine, but there is that minimum spend of $10 for the privilege of using it—otherwise be prepared for an additional cost for your chips and gravy. A $4 cup of coffee conveniently paid for by a tap of plastic can add an extra 50 cents or even a dollar to the total. So a week's worth of coffee alone adds up. 'Tap and go' is a sneaky trap since consumers are often charged credit card fees, even if using a debit card, when they could possibly avoid the fee by inserting or swiping their card instead.
In 2010 the coalition made an election promise to conduct an examination of Australia's financial system and in 2013 the government established the Financial System Inquiry, which was asked to make recommendations that would create a financial system to support and meet Australia's economic needs as we continue to grow and evolve. The final report from the Financial System Inquiry was delivered to the government in November 2014, and in October 2015 the government provided its response to this report.
The government has used the report to set an agenda for improving our financial system across a range of areas. It was noted in the report the significant consumer concern for the imposition by merchants of payment surcharges that were considered excessive. In fact, there were over 5000 submissions to the inquiry in this regard, and many of these submissions called for surcharges to be banned. Some industry submissions noted the important role surcharging could play in accurately reflecting the cost faced by merchants in accepting certain high-cost payment methods. In the inquiry's final report a recommendation was made to improve interchange fee regulation by clarifying thresholds for when they apply; by broadening the range of fees and payments they apply to; by lowering interchange fees. It further recommended an improvement in surcharge regulation by expanding its application and ensuring customers using lower cost payment methods cannot be over-surcharged by allowing more prescriptive limits on surcharging. The government has responded accordingly, stating in its response:
We will increase the efficiency of the payment system and ensure it achieves fairer outcomes for consumers, merchants and system providers by phasing in a legislated ban on excessive card surcharges.
The government agrees that it is necessary to take action to improve interchange fees and surcharging arrangements to achieve a more efficient system and to deliver fair outcomes.
The amendments contained in this bill will enhance transparency for consumers and improve price signals on payment method costs. Helping consumers to understand the costs of competing payment methods and encouraging the use of the most efficient methods of payment. In March 2015 the Payments System Board noted in its review of card payments regulation report that over the last two decades there has been a marked increase in the absolute and relative use of debit and credit charge cards in Australia. Overall the value of card transactions has grown at an annual rate 8.8 per cent since 2002. Card payments account for over 60 per cent of the number of non-cash payments in the economy. The report also noted that, despite modification of surcharging standards in March 2013 to address concerns about excessive and blended surcharging, excessive surcharging remains a concern for many stakeholders, citing the volume of submissions received by the Financial Systems Inquiry.
This bill amends the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 to prevent merchants from passing on excessive charges when the consumer opts to pay in a particular way. Importantly the changes do not prevent a merchant from levying a payment for the actual costs of processing a card payment; it simply prevents profiteering. Specifically, the bill defines a payment surcharge as an amount charged in addition to the price of goods or services for processing payment for the goods or services or an amount, however described, charged using one payment method rather than another. Currently excessive surcharging by merchants may be, and usually is, prevented under contractual arrangements between payment systems and merchants, but are not banned by law. The Reserve Bank of Australia has sole responsibility for designing a particular payment system as being subject to RBA regulation and setting standards and rules for participation in the payment system. The RBA standards allow card payment systems to cover a range of aspects, including interchange fees and merchant card surcharge arrangements. Interchange fees exist in varying degree, depending on which financial institution the consumers and merchants are with. Interchange fees refer to the fee charged by the merchant's financial institution to receive the transfer of payment from the consumer's bank account. The difficulty with interchange rates, however, is that they vary across a number of categories. For example, charities do not pay interchange fees, whereas premium cards are an average of just under one per cent.
This new legislation will mean that excessive charging by merchants where the additional cost passed on is above the merchant's cost of acceptance of the payment method will be banned. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, will be the primary enforcement agency for compliance with this plan and should the ACCC determine a breach of regulation in relation to payment surcharges, it may issue an infringement notice penalty of up to 600 penalty units—that is, $108,000 for corporations. The ACCC will be empowered to request documents or other information from payment system participants in order to determine if they are compliant. The permitted surcharge will be set in most cases by the RBA. In cases where payment systems are not covered by the RBA standard, the permitted surcharge will be set in regulation.
The government recognises the ongoing technological evolution of cashless payments and therefore understands the need for maintaining flexibility in regulatory regimes, and the government will continue to monitor and remove any disincentives or discouragement's for commercial activity. As the assistant minister to the Treasurer noted in his second reading speech:
So, these new rules do not merely establish a 'best practice' framework, but contain real teeth to achieve targeted and meaningful behavioural change.
He also noted:
Each month around $45 billion of purchases are processed through more than half a billion card transactions.
According to the RBA's Payment Systems Board data, in the 2014-15 financial year approximately $1.9 billion was charged in merchant fees on Visa/MasterCard purchases and $926.5 million on American Express and Diner's Club purchases. That is a total cost of $2.826 billion in merchant fees for the 2014-15 financial year. To put this in perspective, that is an estimated average of $120 in merchant fees for every person in my electorate of Dobell every year—around $17.4 million in merchant fees just from the people of Dobell every year.
Surcharging is currently common and problematic, so any measures such as the amendments contained in this bill are going to make a hip-pocket difference to Australians. These amendments seek to improve efficiency and allow greater transparency for consumers in terms of knowing actual costs involved for various payment methods while still providing merchants the freedom to ensure they obtain appropriate cost recovery.
This legislation ensures that everyday Australian consumers are being fairly treated at the cash register and are not being taken advantage of. Some of the biggest complaints when it comes to merchant surcharges are in relation to airlines, taxis and entertainment ticket vendors. This legislation now closes the loophole for so-called transaction fees or administration fees to be loaded onto credit card payments by the merchant, instead restricting the charge to actual costs incurred. The amendments in this bill will ensure that excessive surcharging no longer occurs and that any merchants who continue to operate in this manner will be actively addressed by the ACCC. This bill's explanatory memorandum notes:
…if charges described as ‘booking’, ‘service’, or ‘transaction’ fees are in substance imposed as a result of the payment being made by card rather than an alternative payment method such as cash or direct debit … they are intended to be caught by the ban. If on the other hand, additional fees are applied equally regardless of payment method used, and do not purport to be for the purpose of compensating for the cost of payment acceptance, they are not properly ‘payment surcharges’ and are not intended to be caught. Uniform ‘add-on’ payments such as these will remain subject to other consumer protection action to the extent that they breach misleading and deceptive conduct or other consumer protection provisions …
The amendments proposed by this bill are fair and considered for both merchants and consumers. I thank the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer for their efforts in bringing this bill to the House following extensive research, consideration and consultation. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (19:48): Labor welcomes the introduction of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment and Surcharges) Bill 2015 because it does two things which are vitally important for the Labor Party. It reduces the cost of living for Australians and it boosts competition so as to increase productivity, wages and living standards. The Financial System Inquiry recommended improving surcharging regulation by ensuring customers using lower cost payment methods cannot be over-surcharged. The final report of the Financial System Inquiry was released in November 2014. In that sense, it is mildly disappointing that it has taken the government over a year to implement this largely noncontroversial recommendation, which, as the House would have noted, enjoys furious bipartisan support.
The legislation will help ensure Australians are not ripped off when using their credit cards. It will increase the efficiency of the payments system and ensure that we get better and fairer outcomes for consumers. The bill specifically amends the Competition and Consumer Act to include a ban on excessive surcharging, allowing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take action against corporations and others specified under section 6(2)(e) of the Competition and Consumer Act that engage in excessive surcharging.
What is an excessive surcharge? It is excessive if it exceeds the level permitted under a Reserve Bank standard or else set out in the regulations. I should put on record that I do hope that those levels will reflect the cost of processing the individual transaction and not roll into that the additional fraud costs that credit card issuers may face. Fraud is a real factor within the credit card industry but, in my view, it is not fair that decent, law-abiding credit card users should be asked to pay a surcharge that covers the cost of fraud for the credit card industry. Fraud should be cracked down on by the credit card industry themselves, who have a range of ways of reducing the cost of fraud. We on this side of the House trust that sensible definitions of what is considered excessive will be created and that they will not inhibit competition between retailers on surcharge levies. Normally we want to see a race to the top; in this case we want to see a race to the bottom among credit card issuers in terms of the surcharge they charge.
According to MasterCard and the consumer group CHOICE, as of March 2015 Australian consumers were being charged a collective $1.6 billion a year in credit card surcharges. In one case CHOICE analysed, Tiger Airways applied a 1,479 per cent surcharge mark-up on a $132 ticket. Last year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took two airlines to court for 'drip pricing', accusing them of misleading customers by adding high 'booking fees' for card payments at the end of online flight bookings. The fees can range up to a $30 flat fee. But this is not just an issue for airlines; it can apply across multiple sectors of the Australian economy.
Consumer respondents to a survey commissioned by CHOICE in 2013 reflected dissatisfaction with the surcharging practices of airlines, ticketing agencies, cinemas and theatres, taxis, telecommunications, utility providers, and accommodation and tourism providers. It is not just the surcharge on the Taylor Swift ticket; it is the airfare to get there, the taxi to get to the concert and the hotel you are staying in that evening. Forty-three per cent of the survey's respondents indicated they had often encountered surcharges and fees above 2.5 per cent. Some respondents reported paying surcharges as high as 33 per cent. These surcharges can be highly misleading and prey on some of the most vulnerable in our community.
The same CHOICE survey found that around 40 per cent of those who had been slugged with a surcharge in the last three months said that they did not know how much the surcharge was. Worse still, 44 per cent reported that they were not offered or made aware of another payment method that did not attract the surcharge. Other payment methods exist, such as POLi—a technology which understandably makes some feel uncomfortable because it requires you to enter your bank login details on a website that is not that bank's. POLi is an alternative, but it would be a better outcome if credit card surcharges were lower.
The bill will boost competition. The Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council reported in 2013: While surcharging is not a universal practice, it is more common in industries typically seen to lack strong competitive pressures.
The bill is a useful way to help address some of the problems that arise from Australia's relatively concentrated markets. Australians want these surcharges to be as small as possible, and Labor is happy to support the passage of this bill because it works towards that aim.
Removing these surcharges was a key recommendation of not only the Financial Services Inquiry but also the Labor-led Senate inquiry into the use of credit cards which reported at the end of last year. We hope the government will adopt the 10 other recommendations coming out of that Senate inquiry in order to help ease cost-of-living pressures and boost competition. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:54): I am pleased to speak tonight on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015. When I first came across this legislation, at first blush, I had some difficulty in supporting it. At second blush I also had some difficulty supporting it. But I do support the legislation and, in the time available, I would like to go through what my concerns are, why I had some concerns about this legislation and what got me over the line to support it.
Firstly I believe in a simple principle: all pricing decisions of businesses in our free market economy must be left to the individual business. It should not be up to governments to interfere and to try and put price controls on businesses. It is a simple thing: businesses must make those decisions and be left to make those decisions by themselves. We think parliamentarians and members of parliament should get in there and do something, make the prices fair, interfere with the market and put on regulations. If you want an example of what happens when you go down that track, you go to the socialist utopia of Venezuela, where their government decided that they wanted to have fair prices on toilet paper for consumers. Yet you cannot buy toilet paper in Venezuela. There is a well-documented toilet paper shortage. It is well known that the final stage of socialism is when you run out of toilet paper, as they have in Venezuela. That is my first concern. We should simply be leaving these pricing decisions to the market and trusting the free market.
The second concern I have with this bill is the definition of an 'excessive' surcharge—that it exceeds the costs that the merchant charged for that surcharge. One thing that has not been noted in this debate is that merchants have a risk when they process someone's credit card that is a different risk profile from when they receive cash from that customer. Some businesses may prefer the credit card because the money goes directly into their bank account. But with that comes an additional risk profile that is known in the retail industry as a chargeback.
The way that works is: if someone goes into a retail shop and uses their credit card instead of cash they get greater rights as a consumer. They are able to ring up the credit card company later and make a complaint that there was some problem or defect with the goods, the goods were not delivered or they were not as specified, and the bank then puts the obligation back on the merchant to try and justify why they should not make that chargeback. In many cases the merchants find that they are guilty until proven innocent. So they not only get the money chargeback by the credit card company; they get a fee and a surcharge for doing so.
There is a second risk for merchants that operate online businesses or take orders over the phone. If a merchant takes an order over the phone and gets a credit card number over the phone where they do not physically sight the credit card, that transaction is liable to be fraudulent. You do not know if that person owns that credit card or whether it was someone working at a restaurant that sighted that credit card number, jotted it down, jotted down the name, jotted down the expiry date and then went and ordered things online. In those circumstances the merchant can be charged back up to two years after they have had the money deposited in their account.
I would like to give an example from before I came to this place. I was the export manager for the company I was working with. At that time we were exporting a lot of goods to the Middle East. Of course, the Middle East payment, which was received by letter of credit or deposit, was of concern. One day an order inquiry came in over the internet by email for a certain amount of goods, and the quote went back to these people. Then they tried to negotiate a discount, and we gave them a small discount. Then they asked: could we give them a free-in-store price into the Middle East? As we often did, we would negotiate with one of the freight forwarders, get a cost for the freight, put that into the price and say to the customer, 'Here you are. Would you like to go ahead with this transaction?' In this circumstance, the cost was around $12,000 or $13,000. The customer was ringing up, saying they needed the goods urgently. I said, 'Well, we need to get your payment.' They said, 'Okay, we will pay you by credit card.' So they gave us a credit card number over the phone with a name and an expiry date—of course, there was a bit of suspicion that went on. We put that transaction through our credit card processing machine, the transaction was actually authorised and that $15-odd thousand went into our company's bank account.
So the money was sitting in the company's bank account. The customer, whose order we have taken in good faith, was ringing up, saying, 'Urgent, urgent! I need my goods; get them away. You've got my money; you've got my payment.' But the fact was that, because we had not been able to sight their credit card, for up to two years after that transaction occurred the credit card company could claw back that money. What would have happened if that had gone ahead? There was not only the cost of the sale that we would have lost; we would have ended up paying the freight as well; plus there would have been a charge-back fee from the credit card company. This can happen up to two years after.
Fortunately, something twigged and I was able to make a few telephone calls to some of the banks, and someone advised me that this credit card transaction, even though we had the money in our account, may not have been a legitimate sale. So we held up the shipping, only to find out that that was exactly the case—it was a fraudulent transaction. The people at the banks I spoke to at the time said, 'This happens to hundreds, if not thousands, of merchants in this country.' They get caught in this fraud, because that is an additional risk that they have through accepting a credit card. With all things, that risk must be able to be priced. So I hope, when the Reserve Bank or the ACCC sit down and look at what they determine as an excessive charge, they allow the merchant to make a provision for the risk they face that they will have a charge-back against that transaction.
Thirdly, there is the issue of price discrimination. We know that, unfortunately, despite a long argument by the forces of good working for small business, we have been unable to create an effective law against anticompetitive price discrimination in our Competition and Consumer Act. What can happen is that a customer can walk into a shopping centre, go into one of the larger retailers, make a transaction with their credit card and then go into a smaller competitor, buy exactly the same goods at the same price and run it through an identical machine—it is all electronic—but the small business is charged higher fees. So it could very well be that a small merchant might decide, if he finds he is a victim of anticompetitive price discrimination by one of the credit card companies, to put a higher surcharge on that credit card company as a way of retaliating and encouraging consumers to use a credit card company that is not engaging in anticompetitive price discrimination. This legislation would prohibit it.
For those reasons, I had some concerns about this legislation. However, what got me over the line was the fact that we also have in our Competition and Consumer Act something that is very important in our free-market system: provisions against misleading or deceptive conduct. When anyone in trade or commerce engages in misleading or deceptive conduct, there is a specific provision in our competition act that prohibits it. It enables such contracts to be ruled invalid or for the courts to rewrite contracts or cancel them altogether if there has been misleading or deceptive conduct.
I noted that, in his second reading speech to the bill, the member for Mitchell, the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, said—and this is what got me over the line:
Where a merchant charges a customer a card surcharge, that carries with it an irrefutable representation that the merchant is seeking to recover his or her costs.
The point is: if a merchant imposes a charge that is higher than just cost recovery, they are actually misleading the consumer—and that is the only reason that this legislation can be justified. If, as a merchant, you make the representation that you are including a credit card surcharge, it is implied that it is simply a cost-recovery exercise. That is the only reason I can support this legislation. I cannot, in good faith, come in here and support legislation where we, as government, are attempting to put price controls on companies in our free market. History shows that does not work. Even though we may think we are doing a wonderful thing and we may think we are helping the consumer, wherever you put price controls you distort the market and the ultimate loser is the consumer. But, because this legislation goes to those misleading or deceptive conduct provisions of the act, it is legislation that I can support.
With that, I just hope that, when the ACCC or the Reserve Bank sit down and look at the cost to a merchant, they give full consideration to the risk—because there is a real risk for merchants. We have seen that in a recent example: Dick Smith being placed in administration. People purchased Dick Smith gift cards and, if they paid cash, basically they will go to the end of the line with the other unsecured creditors. But if they have bought that gift card by using a credit card, they can go to their credit card company and say that they did not get the goods. The credit card company has the power to claw that money back lawfully from the retailer. So there is a higher risk for any retailer when they accept a credit card from a consumer. If we believe in the price mechanism and the free market, we must allow those merchants, those retailers, to price that risk in when they set their credit card fees. This is most important in our price system. As I said, I hope that the ACCC and the Reserve Bank sit down and look at the different risk profiles.
The other reason I can support this legislation is that most of the examples cited involve the airline and the taxi industries. They are not necessarily industries where clawbacks from the credit card companies are a significant issue. It is more where smaller merchants are supplying electronic goods, furniture and other types of goods such as household appliances, jewellery and computers. Such goods are easily disposed of for cash. They have a greater risk profile. So merchants also need to be aware of that. They need to price accurately to determine the risk. Ultimately, we should be leaving all those price decisions up to the individual merchants. But where there is a chance of misleading or deceptive conduct, we need to have legislation. Therefore, I am happy to support this bill.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (20:09): It is with considerable enthusiasm that I support the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015. I think it is very important that, as we move increasingly towards an economy based on the use of credit cards, we ensure that we have some basic consumer protections in place. It is very important that we ensure that consumers, in purchasing an item using a credit card, do not find themselves with an unexpectedly large surcharge.
I do note the comments of the member for Hughes. I have some sympathy with his sentiment. Many of my constituents, as the discussion about this matter has unfolded and as the discussion about the behaviours of banks unfolded through the recent Senate inquiry, have argued that banks should be more heavily regulated and that their interest charges should be regulated. The member for Hughes has expressed his faith in the markets, saying that we do need to have competition and that merchants and banks should be free to set the charges as they wish. In a perfect world, where you are studying economics 101, that might be an appealing idea, but we are all very aware of market failure and of the problem of the increasing concentration of power.
Mr Craig Kelly: Have you been to Venezuela?
Ms MacTIERNAN: I have not. I am waiting for a parliamentary delegation to visit Russia.
Mr Craig Kelly: No—Venezuela. I know you like Russia; they fixed it up. Venezuela was the place.
Ms MacTIERNAN: Yes, they really did. I think Boris Yeltsin did a fabulous job—I mean, creating those oligarchs! How inspired was that! How has that taken that country forward? That is the logical consequence of some of the nonsense that you are talking, member for Hughes. I do not totally disagree with the member for Hughes. I do think it is important that we not overregulate the market. But we need to understand the power of the banks within our economy. The profits that these banks are making! We have the four big banks who, between them, made $29.97 billion in profit in just the last financial year. We have CEOs on extraordinary, mind-boggling remuneration packages. So this is not really a perfect market.
I put it to you, member for Hughes, that you are not concerned about the small business down on Main Street. Small businesses are not charging these avaricious rates of surcharge on their product. These companies are trying to keep themselves competitive. Indeed, we find that it is the big companies that are the issue—those like the taxi industry, until relatively recently, that have a legislated monopoly. It is the airlines. It is where you have a small number of players—entertainment promoters. It is not the small punter, the blue-collar worker, the plumber, the candlestick maker or the seller of clothing among the parties engaging in this avaricious conduct that has to be contained.
I say to the member for Hughes and to others: we need to think about this far more profoundly because we are going to see increasing distortion in our marketplace—and not just in the area of banking. Over the summer vacation I had the opportunity to read the very interesting book The Internet Is Not the Answer. It refers to all of the hype and rhetoric concerning the digital age and how we are going to see the democratisation of business, where anyone sitting in their garage or lounge room will be able to set up their own little business, and to those people who have been the first movers—those people who had that first opportunity and that first moment of genius to leverage off that very substantial public investment that constituted the creation of the internet, the World Wide Web and the computer. That development was the result of public investment and a great deal of scientific and technological collaboration, and the great effort between the 1940s and the late 1960s has largely been privatised.
What we see is that, far from this being the most incredibly democratic processes, that early advantage, that access to scale, that access to the development of algorithms where people are teaching the system to become better and better the more you use it means that it is going to be harder for entirely new entities to break in. Indeed, it is the case when we look at the Googles and the Facebooks and the enormous size of those companies. It is really making it as completely farcical as the member for Hughes's support for the oligarchs of Russia to believe that these are people that are somehow or other going to be engaged in the democratisation of our society.
We will need to keep a very vigilant eye on the developments that are taking place within the digital economy. It is fabulous that we have got the sense that we can have this great burst of innovation—and I am sure we can. But if you look at what is really happening, who really is dominating the digital space? It really is a relatively small number of companies. So, whilst we might have tens of millions of small apps and operations going on—proposals, projects, small offerings—when you look at the bulk of the commercial activity on the net, you will see it is dominated by a very small number of players who have obtained a very ridiculous and, I believe, underserved level of reward.
Of course we understand that we want an energetic, entrepreneurial business world and that people will want to get a return from their creativity, from their hard work and from their energy. I completely and utterly understand that. But instead of that being measured in the millions, that it is now being measured in the billions—and even billions are no longer good enough to satiate the needs of your average digital entrepreneur; we are talking about tens of billions. This is going to then create a much greater role for government to look at the imperfection of the market and to really reconsider some of the language around the ability to attain the joys and benefits of competition, because if we have such a small number of players obviously we do not have competition.
Even in the land of the free that was recognised. After the emergence of the first class, I suppose you might say, of the great robber barons in 19th century United States, we saw a whole series of legislated reforms that came in to claw back on that power. We saw the introduction of antitrust legislation. We saw the introduction of a whole raft of laws that were designed to limit the role of monopoly. We have done the same in Australia through our Trade Practices Act. Some of us would obviously like to see our Trade Practices Act be somewhat stronger than it is, but there is no doubt that the intent is to recognise that there can be market domination, there can be unfair practices and there can be conduct that does need to be scaled back, because the market forces alone are not sufficient to create justice in those circumstances,
Again, I very much support this legislation. We are not about wanting to overregulate, but I think the real trick is, as the legislature, for us to determine where there has been a substantial breakdown in competition and where the result to the bulk of the community is not a good one. That is when we need to make a decision that does not tie us relentlessly to a mantra of 'competition is all good', because we understand that we have structures in our society that are effectively very anticompetitive. We need to be mindful and vigilant of that, constantly analysing our institutions, constantly being aware of the changes that are occurring exponentially in the structure of our economy. With that, thank you.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:20): In this rapidly evolving cashless society, we touch a button and, on an increasingly compact computer device, type in a creditor and an amount to pay them from anywhere in the world and, presto, payment is made. Multiple payments are made if that is what you want to do—and we have not even opened our purse or our wallet, let alone seen the money change hands. From the great Marco Polo's 13th century notes that began to replace gold and silver and then metamorphosed into plastic notes—with Australian ingenuity—to the key currency now presented to shops, tradies and other merchants, a single plastic card now represents the entire worth, and debts, of its holder.
Johannes Gutenberg's printing press, which bought about the mass printing of money, is almost obsolete, with modern-day bank accounts now combining with state-of-the-art online banking facilities. Almost everything we do or think about doing in modern Australia is supported by our financial system. Indeed, the financial system helps us manage our household budgets, holds our savings, provides the credit we might need and, through insurance, also helps us manage some of the risks we face.
Today's credit card symbolises the power of technology, innovation and resilience in commerce and trade. It allows us to pay for drinks or a meal with family and friends with a plastic card, and we can procure the week's groceries and fill our cars with fuel without coins or a handful of Australian made plastic notes. Each month around $45 billion of purchases are processed through more than half a billion card transactions. We can now pay school and university fees, as well as electricity, gas, water, rates, telephone and internet bills, from the comfort of our home or office. We can even get our online banking facilities to pay regular bills automatically without us having to personally handle the transaction at all.
This financial system allows us to buy a new home, pay the mortgage or rent, start a new business venture or even plan for retirement. It offers much promise to make our lives even easier—a faster, easier and more convenient way to manage our personal, household and business affairs. It has the capacity to improve lives and save time for every individual, family and business in Australia every day, every week, every month and every year.
But it also comes at a cost—often hidden and cumulative. The purpose of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 is to amend the Competition and Consumer Act to establish a legislative and regulatory framework to ban excessive card surcharging and establish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as the primary enforcement agency for the ban. To get to this point today, the government held a root and branch examination of Australia's financial system just as we promised to do during the last federal election. This is a very good example of where our government has not simply looked at a problem or sent it to a committee for another review, but instead has used this to inform the legislative and administrative action we are now taking.
The inquiry, which was chaired by Mr David Murray AO, was tasked with making recommendations that would position the financial system to best meet Australia's evolving needs and support economic growth. I welcome this bill as another step forward in protecting the rights and interests of the Australian consumer so as to encourage our financial system to deliver better and more affordable services.
If consumers are overcharged or treated unfairly the losses they incur adversely affect the whole community.
Sadly, many Australians have almost been conditioned to expect to pay increasingly high bank fees—especially those passed on by merchants—because that is what we have always done, year on year. It was an understandable expectation that began when the process and administration of a sale at a local shop was more labour intensive and used technology that came at great expense. The more money you made or spent using a credit card, the more money you paid in transaction fees. But today's transaction fees should better reflect today's banking and finance sector costs. In times of old, we watched our money more carefully as it passed from our wallets to others' hands, and more rigorously scrutinised the cost of services and charges because we could see it, feel it and count it. While many merchants do pass on costs fairly, some intentionally charge many times more than the true cost of accepting a credit card payment.
Out of sight should not mean out of mind. That is why the coalition promised to establish a Financial System Inquiry, and it is why we are making important changes to safeguard the interests of every Australian resident and business. There is no doubt that our financial system needs to be as competitive and affordable as possible, but the economies of scale that accumulate from multiple transactions should help drive down prices, not simply serve as a proxy tax or levy. It is important to recognise that the Murray inquiry found that Australia has a well performing financial system and our government's response will ensure it is the best in the world.
But that does not mean it should be out of reach. The government has listened to the community's concerns and we have taken action. I congratulate the assistant minister for bringing forward this bill and I stand with those in this House who recognise the importance of this sector to drive the Australian economy as well as how it impacts on everyone in a very pervasive way, many times a day. I share the concerns about the abusive practice of excessive surcharge that have been expressed by many people who live and work in my electorate of Ryan. Indeed, of the 6,500 submissions received by the Financial System Inquiry, more than 5,000 related to the opportunistic practice engaged in by some merchants to drive profits through card acceptances.
Given the widespread problem of excessive surcharging, the coalition government is moving to outlaw the rapacious behaviour of a select number of merchants who choose to take advantage of Australian card users. Where a merchant charges a customer a card surcharge they should only recover their real costs. On this issue, the government stands firmly behind Australian consumers. We believe consumers are entitled to a fair deal which limits surcharging to genuine cost recovery. That is why the government is taking action to ensure customers are charged no more than the amount that reflects the true amount of the merchant's costs in accepting that payment. A surcharge will be deemed excessive where it exceeds the costs that merchants are charged by their payment provider for using that payment method.
However, with technological innovation bringing new types of payment methods into the market, maintaining flexibility in the application of this regulatory regime is vital. That is why we will put in place a flexible framework that government and regulators can adjust to changing circumstances. While this bill will provide considerable savings to Australian consumers, the government will not stop merchants from recovering their own costs of accepting cards. However, profiteering by merchants under the guise of cost recovery will not be allowed by this government.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, will be the primary enforcement for banning of excessive surcharging of customers for using a particular payment method. Our financial system is the great enabler for economic growth and a great facilitator for growing business, commerce and trade. Indeed, in an increasingly cashless world, a competitive, innovative and efficient financial system supports the operation of the whole economy. While consumers are always responsible for the consequences of their financial decisions, they should always be treated fairly. The financial services and products they purchase should perform in the way they are led to expect.
I congratulate the assistant minister and the coalition government for listening to the issues, concerns and aspirations of Australian consumers and businesses as well as the concerns of academics and other stakeholders in the banking and finance sector, both here in Australia and overseas. As I said previously, this is a very good example of where the government has not simply acknowledged a problem—or sent it to a committee for another review—but has used it to inform the legislative and administrative solution we are now implementing. I also note that most stakeholders generally approve of the framework outlined in the bill for the ban of excessive surcharging. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (20:31): This Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 shows that the Turnbull government is a government of not just good intentions but actions. It is unfortunate for Australia that Labor had six years to strengthen our economy but did nothing. In their six years of governance Labor managed to preside over Australia's fastest deterioration of our debt position in modern history. The Australian economy and the Australian people suffered. The effect of Labor's mess is still being felt.
This government is still cleaning up Labor's disastrous mess. We have implemented $3 billion worth of budget repair measures from a total of $4 billion. The Turnbull government is making sensible policy positions, taking Australia's economy from investment in mining to a diverse, innovative and people-driven economy. We are growing confidence, strengthening job growth and improving business conditions. We are removing barriers to ensure policy is agile, nimble and innovative. We are strengthening our nation's finances to secure jobs and growth by opening up trade, boosting innovation and building more infrastructure.
This government will modernise the way we deliver products and services while strengthening the budget. On Sunday, 7 December 2014 the Financial Systems Inquiry's final report was released. This report made evidently clear the pressing issue of Australian consumers being subject to excessive card surcharges. The Financial Systems Inquiry was commissioned to examine how Australia's current financial system could improve in order to meet changing needs as well as examine how best to support and sustain Australia's economic growth.
It is important that Australia's consumers and the Australian economy are afforded an efficient, competitive, prudent and flexible financial system. The report made it blindingly clear that the Australian community holds significant concern regarding card surcharges. The Financial Systems Inquiry received 6,500 submissions, with more than 5,000 related to excessive card surcharges. This government has carefully assessed the Australian community's concerns. We are now delivering our commitment to implement fairer outcomes for Australian consumers.
Whilst I must note that not all are participating in this behaviour, it is certain that Australian consumers have been taken advantage of by particular merchants. The choice that some have made, to abuse this process, is unacceptable. Steps must be taken by this government to ensure an end to this unfair practice. It is essential that the Turnbull government take the necessary steps to protect Australian consumers and ensure the efficiency of the Australian economy. It is also essential that the Australian community have faith in the very system that is essential in the daily functioning of the Australian economy.
It is a fact that Australian consumers pay an exorbitant amount of money in card surcharges every year. At times, surcharges charged by some merchants are far in excess of what could reasonably be considered the costs to merchant. How can this be justified and why are Australian consumers being forced to pay for it? This bill will provide much-needed savings to Australian consumers. Put plainly, Australian consumers should not be paying more than the reasonable cost of the transaction. Importantly, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2015 will ban the excessive card surcharging above the merchant's costs. The surcharge will be excessive where it exceeds the amount that the merchant is charged by their payment provided for using that payment method.
The definition of an excessive surcharge has been carefully constructed. This is to ensure that payments are captured if they are purporting to substantially be in the form of a surcharge. This means that when a merchant charges a customer with a card surcharge, for the obvious and unquestionable purpose of covering their costs of accepting the card, they will be subject to the card surcharges set by the Reserve Bank of Australia. The merchant will then be fined should they charge above this amount without legislative cause. No, this does not mean that merchants will be prevented from recovering the costs of processing or accepting cards—rather, it is a resolution that protects a merchant's right to recover their costs of processing.
This resolution also accurately informs the community of the costs of competing forms of payment facilities. It will give a clear picture of how much a merchant is actually charged to the Australian community. Overwhelmingly, this bill focuses on protecting consumers and businesses from being charged unreasonable card surcharges. It is this government's response to the financial systems inquiry that will provide Australian consumers and the Australian economy with necessary protection. This bill is the Turnbull government's response to ensure that Australian consumers are fairly treated. This response will ensure that there is a legislative and regulatory process to ban certain surcharges that exceed the cost of the service to the merchant. However, this bill is ultimately about the Turnbull government taking responsibility to ensure that Australian consumers are protected and delivering on a promise to make Australia an even more nimble and agile cashless economy.
The future is about technology, innovation and change. The Australian consumer gets it, and so, too, does this government, which is why we are putting in place these necessary common-sense protections. Liberals love lowering tariffs and ripping away unnecessary economic barriers. Australian business and productivity will be boosted by this government's ability to remove economic barriers from Australia. The Industry Skills Fund is just one example of this government's commitment to the Australian community to support the transition to the new high-wage, high-value-add economy. Via this fund the government has provided my electorate with skills to be able to compete and be agile in Australia's new economy. We are building a skilled workforce ready for the new technological and structural economic challenges facing our economy. We are making commitments and taking action to prepare Australia to be in the best possible position for the future.
Labor had six years in government to remove economic barriers and to address the issue of excessive card surcharges. In fact, the only credit card issue that Labor concerned itself with was the hard-earned wages of the Health Services Union being illegally wasted away by Craig Thomson; $300,000 was stolen and wasted on the HSU credit card. They were not concerned about the exorbitant amount of money that Australian consumers were spending in unnecessary fees. Nor were they concerned about delivering deficits totalling $191 billion, or leaving a projected $123 billion for this government to clean up. Labor came close to breaking the ACCC with underfunding, which led to unnecessary and inexplicable losses.
This government has sensibly ensured that the Australian economy recovers from Labor's $47 billion deficit. We are also ensuring that Australia is best equipped for a future of change, making sure above all that Australians are secure within an agile and nimble economy. We believe in the training, facilitating and supporting of Australians into an economy that they can take the most out of. We are cleaning up the financial mess left over from the financially disinterested Labor Party. This payment surcharges bill will apply to excessive surcharges which are covered by the Reserve Bank of Australia's Payments System Board standards or the regulations. The Reserve Bank will set the boundaries for the scheme and set the permitted surcharges for most payment types. It is important to also note that the regulations have the ability to determine these matters should that become necessary in the future. The ACCC will be the primary enforcement agency for the ban and will be afforded appropriate enforcement powers under this bill to ensure that the ban is adhered to by all. The ACCC will have the power to require that merchants provide information to explain the cost of their surcharge and to ensure that the merchants comply with such requests. The ACCC will be afforded the power to issue infringement notices to those not adhering to the ban on excess surcharges. This ensures that the ACCC can take action on smaller infringements, providing for timely resolutions, rather than seeking resolutions through the court systems, which can be costly and time consuming.
The infringement notice amount affordable to listed corporations who have breached the ban is 600 penalty units, amounting presently to $108,000. An infringement notice amount for bodies corporate not listed as corporations is 60 penalty units, amounting presently to $10,800. The ACCC also has the power to issue an infringement notice amount of 12 penalty units, presently at $2,160, for persons other than bodies corporate. This extensive list of infringements will ensure efficiency when dealing with breaches of the legislation; $45 billion of purchases are processed through over half a billion card transactions each month is Australia. This figure is staggering and shows the need to ensure that Australian consumers are appropriately protected from card surcharges. It is an important protection for an important daily need for Australian consumers.
This bill has provided a flexible framework throughout which government and regulators can adjust and provide for future changing circumstances. This is particularly important with the development of new technology and payment methods. It is important that this bill be ready for the changes of the future to ensure continuing consumer protection. It is the aim of this bill that Australian consumers be protected from unnecessary and arbitrary card surcharges. Australian consumers must be afforded a fair go. This bill will ensure that surcharging will be limited to genuine cost recovery and will end the practice of some merchants profiting in the name of cost recovery
Australian consumers understand the need of merchants to recover the true costs of a transaction. What Australian consumers do not understand and do not condone is helplessly having the wool pulled over their eyes. Australian consumers do not deserve to pay excessive surcharges for transactions which they work hard to be able to make. This bill will result in the improvement of Australia's payment system by providing efficiency and fairer outcomes for both consumers and business. It will also implement significant and targeted behavioural change throughout Australia. This is necessary to ensure that Australian consumers are given a fair go. It is the Australian way to ensure fair deals for all Australians, and this government is taking action.
US President John F Kennedy stated:
Consumers by definition, include us all. They are the largest economic group, affecting and affected by almost every public and private economic decision.
It is essential, then, that we afford Australian consumers the necessary protections from excessive and unnecessary card surcharges. These tough laws deliver on the Turnbull government's commitment to protecting Australian consumers from excessive card surcharges. This government has worked extremely hard to ensure Australian consumers are given a fair go and to ensure the health and prosperity of the Australian economy. Consumer confidence in the Australian economy is on the rise. Our government is reacting sensibly to ensure the growth of our transitioning economy. We have improved the bottom line over the relevant forward estimates period by $90 billion. It is because of this government's actions that payments are expected to grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 per cent compared to an inherited 2.6 per cent under Labor. The Turnbull government is committed to any economic decisions that are necessary to ensure the growth of our economy and the growth of Australian jobs. This bill is only a small part of this effort but it is an important step in ensuring the protection of Australian consumers.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (20:46): It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. The opposition welcomes this bill. The financial system inquiry looked at this issue in great detail. When it brought down its report, in November 2014, it took a strong stand on surcharging. It recommended that surcharging regulation be introduced and that its application be expanded to ensure that customers using lower cost payment methods would not be overcharged, or surcharged, by allowing more prescriptive limits on this practice. The final report of the inquiry was released in 2014. It was disappointing that it took over a year to get a response to it—in particular, the kinds of things we are discussing in this bill. Having said that, this is a largely common-sense and, in our view, non-controversial recommendation. It will ensure that Australians are not ripped off when using credit cards and it will increase the efficiency of the payments system. It should clarify regulation, enhance competitive neutrality between system providers, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of price signals and reduce the potential for cross-subsidisation between consumers and merchants. The opposition welcomes these aspects.
The issue of payments is fast evolving, and a number of speakers today have reflected on that. There is no doubt that an electronic payment system is good for consumers, merchants and the broader economy. I note the presence in the chamber of the Assistant Minister for Innovation. He and I know that in dealing with start-ups in particular, which are innovating and bringing in new methods of getting things done in this country—liberalising the way the economy works—an efficient payment system is the oil that make sure the wheels of commerce turns smoothly. And being able to adopt those practices and embed them within the systems that are being used by start-ups, which do through the service that they offer have a payments component to them, works efficiently. It is important in reducing costs, in reducing the management and handling of cash and in helping tackle the black economy. Studies have said that the more an electronic payment system is embraced the better it is for an economy and they can see commercial benefits.
I have taken a great interest in this space, and it is important that we do whatever we can to encourage a greater embrace of this. The reason I reflect on this point is that surcharging dents people's confidence in the system. If people believe that electronic payments are just an easy way for someone to take a bigger clip from the ticket on the way through, if they think multiple transactions on a credit card will lead to higher charges, they will resort to cash. So there has been concern for some time that people will be ripped off. They also have a concern that different types of credit cards—be it American Express, MasterCard or Visa—have different surcharge regimes. There was a practice occurring—and people would witness it when they were at the point of sale—of blending. Instead of having the proper pass-through of the charge itself, the cost would be blended and this would actually inflate the cost on individual credit cards. This is a big concern.
I have spent time with most of the credit card players. I have visited Visa and seen their innovation centre in San Francisco. Here in Australia I have spoken with MasterCard. And I have an American Express card as well—as I suspect a number of us here do. So I have experienced all three, and I know the concerns that drive consumers mad when they see those practices occurring. We simply cannot afford to have this continue. That is why it is important that this bill, and the recommendations of the FSI, be given further legs and that we amend the act to include a ban on surcharging itself, allowing the ACCC to take action against corporations and other specified under section 6(2E)of the act that engage in excessive surcharging. A surcharge will be deemed to be excessive if—and only if—the surcharge exceeds the level of surcharging permitted under either a Reserve Bank standard, which covers the kind of payment, or as set out in the regulations. For example, a Reserve Bank standard refers to some fixed amount for a particular payment method or to a specific range of input costs. The amount of the payment surcharge cannot exceed the amount stated or calculated as the permitted surcharge. So there are some good changes there.
When people think of credit cards, they think of the small plastic that sits inside their wallet or purse. In actual fact, there is a rapid evolution occurring right before our eyes where, for example, smartphones themselves can be used as a method of conducting transactions. I am a very big fan of Apple Pay, because of the ease of the system—being able to use that at a point-of-sale terminal, conducting a transaction without even having to reach for a credit card. When you undertake that process, even tellers are amazed at the ease at which that transaction can be conducted. And that is the point: it should be easy and it should be secure. Under the Apple Pay system, you use your thumbprint and a highly individualised mechanism for verifying a payment before proceeding. Being able to use a thumbprint has now allowed people to be able to lift the amount that they can spend through that method. For example, with the type of credit limits that exist on Paywave, people can only conduct a transaction of up to $100 value before going through some verification method, which is usually a pin, because the card companies themselves have moved to a pin-based verification system.
At the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas this year, there was also an announcement by Samsung that this year, through arrangements they have made with two banks, they would be introducing—on the Android platform, quite distinct from iPhone—Samsung Pay to Australia. In fact, Android has been working furiously. From what I understand, it has been able to secure agreement with the big four banks to introduce Android Pay in the first half of this year. However, you can only access Apple Pay through American Express and American Express does, as people well know, charge a higher surcharge. The reason why I mention this is that there has been a delay in introducing this mechanism of payment through smartphones.
The use of mobile technology is taking off exponentially—it is the platform in which broadband-enabled apps are able to undertake a whole range of activities, not the least of which being payments. What has occurred is that Apple and the major banks have been in a major arm wrestle, refusing to agree and cede ground in establishing those payment arrangements that would allow for Apple Pay to be broader than just the AMEX platform. This is something that I have raised in public domains over the last six months and it is something that I am greatly concerned about. I believe, a lot of us believe and the assistant minister believes that the smoother that the payment system is, the more that it is on an electronic platform or a mobile platform, the better it is for a whole host of people—consumers, merchants and the broader economy. This needs to occur.
In the case of Apple, they have, not surprisingly, sought to extract the maximum gain that they can, and the banks have not been willing to cede that. We certainly do need to see a better approach on that system, but it is heartening to see that they have been prepared, in the case of Android, Samsung Pay and other systems that use Android, to cede ground and achieve some movement on that. My bigger concern, longer term, is that it takes too long to get these payment systems in place. The concern there is that the longer it takes, the more frustrating it is for consumers unable to access much more efficient platforms for payment. Certainly, we do not want to see a reversion back to cash. While people do use cash—and I know that there will be traditionalists that hold onto it—there is definitely something to be said about seeing the lower costs flow through for merchants and consumers.
The other obvious concern in all of this is that we do not have an efficient system that ensures a more secure platform. We know that can be the case by moving to this system of payment and so that is certainly one of the things that I have been keen to see. I would definitely be urging the major banks to see what they can do in furthering talks with Apple and others to ensure that these systems are brought into place quickly and that they are much more responsive.
We know that Australians have an appetite to embrace mobile technology a lot faster than most other parts of the world and, in actual fact, we have a tendency to talk ourselves down relative to others. In the US financial system, what is surprising for any Australian visiting and making transactions in that system is the dominance of a cheque-based payment system, which is insane. There is still a paper-based, cheque-based system in place in the US. Paywave was embraced so rapidly here—in fact, it was in the top four markets in the world. There was nowhere that it was embraced as quickly as four markets, of which Australia was one, from what I have been briefed on. Australians do embrace this quickly, but, if you go to the US system, in many instances it is still a cheque-based system. You can imagine, in a country with 250 million people, with the multiple transactions that are undertaken in that economy, to still be reliant on that system instead of an electronic payment system beggars belief.
From our point of view, knowing that Australians are much more willing to use mobile technology, and new payment systems and mechanisms, and knowing that there is a definite appetite and hunger to see this movement occur quickly, for banks and some of the big tech players like Apple to be stuck in a quibble, in an arm wrestle, in the way that they have, where consumers have lost out or been forced to pay higher surcharges as a result, makes no sense to me. The quicker we get this resolved, the better.
But, again, while we might be talking about the new world, while we might be talking about new payment systems, we are still arguing about an old-world mentality that seeks to squeeze as much out of the consumer as possible, through fees. It is the type of thing that we are trying to stamp out under this legislation: a mindset that would try to squeeze extra out of consumers through excessive surcharging. It is simply unacceptable.
Certainly, while I welcome the developments that will emerge out of this legislation and the fact that it will put heat on people who want to engage in excessive surcharging, we still have other fights that we need to undertake and those fights need to ensure that faster embrace of electronic payment systems occurs, and we hope that proceeds into the future.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (21:00): It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Lalor Electorate: Centrelink
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (21:00): I rise tonight to highlight a great concern to many in the electorate of Lalor. Normally, January is a quiet period for our electorate offices—for most, I would assume, around the country. In Lalor, many constituents go away on holiday and regular businesses take some well-deserved time off. It is generally a period when my office receives the least number of calls for assistance with government payments over the year. However, this January my office was inundated with desperate calls for help as the government's search for savings came to a head. While my staff are always happy to assist with these issues, they also experienced difficulty in seeking assistance from Centrelink. I am not suggesting for one minute that Centrelink staff are not performing or are in any way responsible. The responsibility lays flat at the feet of the minister; yet the Minister for Human Services is clearly in denial about a drop in service standards at Centrelink and the problems being caused for members of the broader Australian community who need to access Centrelink services.
We saw reports that Centrelink is only answering 64 per cent of calls from customers, leaving people unable to get someone at the other end of the phone to help them with their inquiry and help them through the processes that they need to go through. And 40 per cent of calls are because of difficulty using the Centrelink app and website. I do not want to diss everything the member for Chifley just said about Australians being early adapters to digital platforms. However, as a teacher I can tell you that low literacy levels and digital platforms are incendiary. They do not necessarily work. I can also tell you, by sharing a story from my electorate over the January period, that some of our older generation are not early adapters. They are certainly not digital natives and some of them are not willing or able; some of them cannot see very well. My own mother at 87 uses an iPad regularly, but I note that when I arrive she tells me that she needs to pay some bills and hands the iPad to me. So, although she is happy to look at Facebook and she is happy to see photos of her great-grandchildren, when it comes to paying bills and pressing the send button she gets very anxious about whether she has done it all properly. These are some of the things that we are finding at Centrelink when people are being pushed onto using the web and apps when they do not have the capacity to do so. Over January, some people in my electorate were told that they owed Centrelink money. When my office went through a lot of those, it was not actually the case. I think about the time spent and the anxiety that may have caused people.
I really need to share the following case and it is why I stood tonight in the House. In this case, a pensioner couple in their eighties were applying for the Carer Allowance so that he, who is legally blind, can help his wife, who is battling cancer. Both still live at home. They were asked by Centrelink in the application process to provide his and her full birth certificates. Obviously, they have been on the age pension for some time and, when they went on the age pension, they probably only required a birth extract. Why, when Centrelink already has proof of their identity in order to pay their age pension, were they put through these hoops? Why? The gentleman had to get his wheelchair-bound wife to apply for an original certificate while he had to travel to the city to the registry office in Melbourne to get his. In fact, their daughter travelled from Adelaide to assist them in this process. If we want to talk about productivity, there is a case in point: how much effort was taken when they were already known to Centrelink? Despite the overworked staff at Centrelink Werribee doing all they could, the couple had to go through those unnecessary steps to get what they were entitled to. If it were not for the persistence of their family, they would likely have just given up.
While I agree the government must ensure only those who are eligible receive assistance, the department's insistence on Centrelink management not using their common sense and discretion in these extraordinary cases beggars belief. Some in this chamber may applaud someone giving up on their application as a budget saving, but I see this as mistreatment of the most vulnerable in our community. I implore the minister to take some action and think about the human cost. (Time expired)
Vanuatu
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (21:05): I rise tonight to congratulate Vanuatu on their recent successful election on 22 January. The President of Vanuatu invited the Commonwealth Secretariat to send an observers group and I was honoured to be invited to join with very experienced colleagues from literally across the Commonwealth. We were led by the Right Honourable Hubert Ingraham, the former Prime Minister of the Bahamas; Walter Rigamoto from Fiji; Jessica Nkuuhe from Uganda, who is a member of parliament and indeed in the middle of her own election; and Enrico Woolford from Guyana, who joined me on Tanna during the election process. I also pay tribute to the Vanuatu Electoral Commission because it literally was a logistics challenge. With 65 of Vanuatu's 83 islands inhabited and with just over 200,000 on the electoral roll, they then processed 262 registered candidates for 52 seats, comprising 18 constituencies, 28 political parties and 41 Independents. Sadly, from my point of view, there were only nine women candidates. But it was a logistics challenge. Many of the polling booths were quite remote and, of course, on islands such as Tanna, which had been adversely affected by Cyclone Pam less than 12 months ago, people were literally walking for hours to get to the polling booth, because in Vanuatu you have to vote at the booth to which you are registered. So the Vanuatu government declared a public holiday to allow people to get back to their particular place of registration. People were walking for up to two hours. When we started to go across the island, as early as five o'clock in the morning people were already out walking towards the booths and lining up early, with long queues early in the morning, to vote. They were taking pride in the fact that they had the right to vote even though voting is not compulsory in that country.
Prior to the election day we observed many great campaigns around Port Vila. I enjoyed the fact that each of the political parties seemed to have a campaign song. They were very polite and always waited for the other candidate to finish their rally and their song before the next candidate took over. They were much more polite than perhaps we are in Australia. They were also very polite at the polling booths, where it was quite acceptable for the polling clerks to bring elderly people, pregnant women or disabled people to the front of the queue, even in front of people who had been waiting many hours.
The interesting part is that 72 hours before the election there is a complete blackout. That gave us the opportunity to meet with many candidates and party leaders, and I do appreciate the time they gave us to discuss the issues on which they campaigned and the issues they wanted to bring to the attention of their parliament. There were many high-calibre candidates. As well as the women, there were some former director-generals and other people, and also other younger candidates, although the member for Longman will be disappointed to know that you have to be more than 25 years of age before you can nominate for parliament in Vanuatu.
I also particularly want to record my appreciation of the Commonwealth Secretariat, who were so professional in their support of our observation. Albert Mariner, who is well practised and very knowledgeable in this area, Sarah Linton, who is on loan from Australia, Natricia Duncan and Tiffany Chan were a great support to the team.
It was an interesting election because, as it was described locally, it was a snap election. I think it is a credit to the country that, while 15 members of parliament had been convicted of bribery and 14 of them jailed, they called this snap election and conducted it peacefully and, I thought, very professionally. I congratulate the electoral commission. One thing that may be of interest to my colleagues is the voting system. They have ballot book, where each candidate is on a separate piece of paper with their photograph and the name of the party. You tear out the page of the candidate you want, put it in a sealed envelope and put that in the ballot box. I thought that was a terribly efficient and effective way of handling that election. Of course they have election cards as well. I believe there is a role for Australia in supporting the electoral commission going forward, particularly in updating their roll, which is in registration number order, not alphabetical order, so it does make it a bit hard at times to check the roll and cleanse it of people who are duplicates. Congratulations to Vanuatu.
Gender Equality
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (21:10): Despite all the gains made in gender equality over the last hundred years in Australian society, the role of women is still not equal. When we consider the amount of wealth available to women at retirement in comparison to men, we understand that our sisters and mothers are still not appreciated, respected and valued as they should be. My three daughters need to be all they can be. They need to live as Australians and be not just accepted because of their beauty but valued as citizens because of the content of their character and how they contribute to our society. We all need role models. In this place, in the ministry and the cabinet the low numbers of women further dilute their importance and rob the nation of their talents. Men and women think differently. They approach problems from different perspectives. Australia deserves to benefit from the wise counsel of all its people, not just some.
Do we really believe that women are not as talented as men? Do not have as much to offer as men? Are not as capable of solving a crisis or making a judgement? It is not my view that any gender is superior to another, but we need a balance. We need to recognise all the qualities in our society. It has been 114 years since women got the vote and could stand for parliament. How long does it take—114 years, longer than that?—for a male-dominated society to recognise the value of each and every Australian regardless of their gender? The reduction in the availability of pap smear tests for Australian women shows the Turnbull government has no commitment to the health of women and does not care about their special needs. Do we think this decision would have been taken by the Turnbull government if it was not dominated by men? It is very easy for men who will not face the prospect of cervical cancer to condemn women to their fate and show them no compassion. It is time for all of us to demand changes to address this inequality if we want a truly united country. When society is slow to act and our citizens' rights and opportunities are being suppressed, it is time for parliament to act.
History has shown us that legislation is an effective tool in achieving social change. We have seen that in the workforce and in the application of racial discrimination laws. We need to have a proper gender balance in our cabinet and ministry. Somehow the Canadian government can achieve a gender balance in its cabinet, but our Prime Minister cannot. Ministers are a role model for our society. If we have a ministry dominated by one gender, what sort of message does that send to our people? That one gender is more valuable than the other? That our daughters are not as valuable as our sons? That women can be treated differently from men and that somehow they are not as valuable? These are dangerous undercurrents in our society and are validated by the economic clout that women have in our society.
Why is it that more women than men receive low-income support and low-income super? Why is it that women are subject to more than 90 per cent of all domestic violence in this country? Change starts at the top. We need laws that guarantee that each gender is well represented in cabinet—not necessarily fifty-fifty, but each gender should be entitled to at least 40 per cent of all appointments, to send the right message to Australians that our daughters and our sons are equally important. We cannot wait another 114 years to recognise the value of all our citizens. If change does not come now it may never come. This parliament needs to pass laws that require all genders to be properly represented in all decision-making bodies of the Australian government.
Western Australia: Kimberley and Pilbara Regions
Ms PRICE (Durack) (21:14): I am very pleased to rise in this chamber to speak about one of the things I am very passionate about, which is Western Australia's north. Despite not often being thought about at all by the east-coast-centric media—not to mention the previous east-coast- and city-centric Labor government—the Kimberley and the Pilbara are two of Australia's greatest assets. Picturesque, diverse and an economic powerhouse, Western Australia's north has become one of the economic cornerstones of this government since it was elected just over two years ago. Western Australia's north-west is undoubtedly the engine room of Australia's economy, with the City of Karratha producing the sixth-largest economic output of all Australian municipalities—what a fantastic achievement!—and not forgetting the town of Port Hedland hosting the largest bulk port in the world.
The Turnbull government's commitment to Australia's north is unprecedented and will be one of the great hallmarks of the government when history writes itself. Since I was elected, I have overseen an enormous investment in infrastructure in Durack which has been second to none. After six years of it being virtually ignored—or written off, perhaps, as a safe Liberal seat by the previous Labor government—I have ensured that Western Australia's north has and will have the infrastructure it needs for today and tomorrow and for many years to come.
Before Christmas I announced that the City of Karratha was to receive $10 million in federal funding for the new Karratha Arts and Community Precinct project. This has been labelled a 'game changer' by the mayor, Peter Long. The Karratha Arts and Community Precinct project will provide iconic, contemporary cultural and learning facilities, not just for Karratha but for the Pilbara more broadly. The project consists of a state-of-the-art library, multifunctional theatre, modern outdoor amphitheatre and a war memorial—not bad for a city which is 1,500 kilometres away from the nearest capital city! For this city to thrive and, indeed, for the Pilbara to thrive, this is critical community infrastructure.
The library that I have referred to will include a professional research and education development zone, office space and personalised visitor centre services. The theatre and associated spaces will feature a grand open foyer, providing opportunities for showcasing local and Aboriginal art and local history exhibitions, and a stunning rooftop terrace space for cinema and outdoor events.
This project, along with the restoration of the Victoria Hotel in Roebourne, to which the Turnbull government has committed $2 million, will not only create local jobs in the Pilbara but also be a much-needed source of tourism and transport infrastructure to cultural, sporting and healthcare facilities in the region. Both of these projects will make the Pilbara more livable and hopefully will attract more families, which in turn will lead to fewer FIFO workers.
Following this government's Northern Australia white paper Our North, Our Future, the Turnbull government will make an unparalleled investment in the north. The Kimberley and the Pilbara have the potential to utilise one million megalitres of sustainable fresh water from the region, and that is why the Turnbull government will establish a National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, with $200 million committed to facilitate greater investment in water infrastructure in our north. This explicitly includes $15 million to determine available water and best locations for water infrastructure in the beautiful West Kimberley, and up to $5 million for detailed examinations of the economic viability of the Ord stage 3 development.
This is on top of $800,000 in funding to the Shire of East Pilbara for road construction or maintenance, over $620,000 to the Shire of Ashburton and over $590,000 to the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, and these are just some of the many examples of the new infrastructure in the Pilbara and the Kimberley since I was elected. I should not forget the millions of dollars that have been spent on improving the Great Northern Highway and also the North West Coastal Highway. So, with the commencement of a new year, I look forward to announcing more infrastructure projects in the Pilbara and the Kimberley—two fabulous gems in my electorate.
Australian Greens
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:18): Almost under the radar over the last few months, the Greens political party has been working very closely with the Liberals to prevent tax transparency for some high-wealth individuals. It worked with the government again on the issue of slugging part-pensioners. And this has a quid pro quo.
The quid pro quo has been revealed, with the short-term and unprincipled proposal of Victorian Liberal Party President Michael Kroger that they might have an opportunistic pre-election preference-swapping deal with the Greens political party. I am sure this will backfire. Liberal voters are diametrically opposed to the Greens political party on most matters socioeconomic and, above all, on national security. The planned deal is not some secret Liberal plan that I have stumbled on. Michael Kroger said that he believes the best cover is open cover, telling Fairfax:
The only complicating factor would be if the Greens picked an extremist in the manner of Sarah Hanson-Young or Lee Rhiannon, which would make the preferences more difficult.
Michael Kroger ought to remember that, even after the tragedies in France and the growing Daesh activities around the world, including lone-wolf terror attacks in Parramatta and Endeavour Hills here in Australia, the Greens political party has opposed every serious piece of counter-terrorist legislation. Would dyed-in-the-wool Liberal voters be able to stomach preferences being directed to the Greens party that stands for all they are against, even if ordered to by Michael Kroger? For instance, in September this year, even before IS terrorists killed 140 people on the streets of Paris, Australia began bombing Daesh headquarters in eastern Syria, a move supported by most Australians. But the Greens political party was opposed to it, the member for Melbourne insisting that our contribution to Syria would only fan the military flames and that it was counterproductive.
Of course we have the well-known opposition of Senators Rhiannon and Ludlam to the bedrock security alliance, the ANZUS treaty, between the United States and Australia—again, well-known. To any national security legislation which Labor had responsibly amended—in relation to increased oversight, privacy, and sunset provisions, some of which I have been involved in, and certainly all of which have come back from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and in particular one on data breach legislation, which I was very personally involved with and was very pleased to see in the legislation—the Greens only said no. They have no practical suggestions. They are not interested in finding a middle path between the blunt force characterised by the former Abbott administration and the Kumbaya approach of the far left.
Unlike the anti-security Greens party, Labor has ensured that there is a majority in the Senate for Australia to present a united face to counter the global threat emanating from Daesh, while also holding the government to account in ensuring the privacy and civil liberty of Australian citizens.
The opposition's deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Anthony Byrne, and shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus have both been tireless advocates for Labor's sensible and vital approach to ensuring the privacy, civil liberties and safety of all Australians. In a desperate attempt to win seats off the Labor Party in Batman and Wills, and perhaps in Sydney, the Liberals are suggesting that they will put the Greens ahead of Labor and drop their principles. I think they will order their support base to do it, but I am not sure whether Liberal voters will do it. This Kroger/Turnbull strategy of the pursuit of power over principle gives the irresponsible Greens a free pass at this time where justifiably there are heightened fears. The result will unmask Michael Kroger and the Liberals and, in my view, will lead to a voter backlash.
More importantly, it is very important for the future of Australia that we do not go down the route that, unfortunately, seems to be the case in Britain, where the new Corbyn Labour Party seems to be imminently about to abandon the decades-long history of responsible bipartisan policy on foreign policy and national security. This is not in the interests of Australia, and any short-term power grab by the Liberal Party in exchanging preferences in the inner-cities of Melbourne and Sydney will be against the national interest. I hope their voters see right through it and get on the phone to Michael Kroger and tell him the deal is not on.
Diabetes
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (21:23): In October last year I was approached to join the member for Moreton, Graham Perrett, as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes, one of the oldest and most established friendship groups in the parliament, originally established in 2000 by the former member for Pearce, Judi Moylan. I thank the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, the retiring chair, for his dedicated and determined leadership of the group.
Since that time I have had a crash-course in diabetes awareness, as Diabetes Australia prevailed upon the member for Moreton and I to attend the Parliamentarians for Diabetes Global Network forum in Vancouver, which in itself was something of a curtain-raiser for the International Diabetes Federation's World Diabetes Congress.
I had recently been given the rather depressing news that the electorate of Grey has the worst incidence of diabetes in the nation. While I had not been aware of this fact earlier, certainly I had come into contact with diabetes sufferers regularly and had some understanding of the challenges they faced. However, while I thought I knew a bit, I certainly learnt a whole lot more, both of the explosion in incidence in the developed world, but surprisingly to me, of the extent, prevalence and damage the disease is causing in the developing world. Quite simply, it is a disaster.
The incident rate in Paraguay, for instance, is almost 10 per cent, which incidentally is not so different to the electorate of Grey, it must be said. In Bermuda it is 13 per cent, in Tuvalu it is 15 per cent, and in Senegal it is 16 per cent. As bad as this sounds, those last three countries, at least, believe that only about half of the sufferers have been diagnosed. That gives rates of around 30 per cent. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that diabetes is costing the world $600 billion annually.
Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness and amputation and the second leading cause, after smoking, of heart disease. We were informed by Dr Ehud Ur that in his province of Nova Scotia, in Canada, one-third of the people admitted to hospital with acute heart disease have diabetes. He told us also that of those admitted without diabetes one in 10 die. Of those with diabetes, the rate is double: two in 10 die as a result of their heart attack. In many cases the delegates were up-front about the challenges facing their countries and the difficulties they have in communicating the message about the risks of obesity and the importance of a healthy diet and exercise.
It was encouraging, though, to hear how some jurisdictions are tackling the problem. For instance, we learnt of the attempts of various countries to send a price signal on unhealthy foods, through sugar taxes, of public education programs and of support for sufferers. I was able to report on the Australian government's adoption of the National Diabetes Strategy, the extra $40 million promised in the last election becoming available for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and the current campaign led by the Danii Foundation and Diabetes Australia for support for continuous glucose monitoring units to be made available to sufferers.
The conference had the privilege of listening to Dr Susan Alberti from Melbourne, who was awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day honours, just two weeks ago. Susan, a highly successful businesswoman and generous philanthropist, is the founder of the Susan Alberti Medical Research Foundation, the previous national president of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the holder of a host of other positions serving the diabetic community. She shared her inspirational story, with its genesis in the loss of her daughter to diabetes. For the record, in her spare time she is vice president of the Western Bulldogs.
As I said earlier, my electorate of Grey is identified as having the highest incidence of diabetes in Australia. I have ample incentive to be involved in the national and international efforts to find a cure, to provide suitable treatment for sufferers and, probably most importantly, to provide good public information, especially for those who potentially would fall victim to type 2 diabetes, so that they can make the right decisions in their lives.
Not all diabetes is caused by poor diet, obesity and lack of exercise, but certainly for type 2 diabetes they really increase the risk. Diabetes is both endemic and unfortunately now epidemic. The personal and economic costs of diabetes are increasing rapidly and for the first time in 100 years there is the potential that the life expectancy of future generations will be reduced, not just in Australia, but worldwide.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being almost 9:30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:29.
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms MacTiernan: to move:
That this House:
(1) expresses deep condolences for the suffering and loss of life, homes and businesses in the recent Yarloop fires, and expresses our gratitude to career and volunteer firefighters who worked courageously to contain the fires;
(2) notes the quality capabilities and assets of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in Western Australia and the availability of those to provide Defence Aid to the Civilian Community (DACC) at the request of state and territory governments in the event of emergency situations;
(3) acknowledges that the Australian Government and the ADF have established protocols under COMDISPLAN as to how DACC can be utilised in emergency situations;
(4) calls on the Minister for Justice to engage the Western Australian Government to ensure it is aware of the capabilities and assets of the ADF in Western Australia to assist with serious bushfire events, as these were not utilised in either the recent Yarloop/Harvey fires, nor the Esperance fires in late 2015; and
(5) notes that:
(a) climate change has resulted in an increased likelihood of catastrophic bushfires in Western Australia, as bushfires increase in number, burn for longer and affect larger areas of land;
(b) the Climate Council estimates that by 2030, the number of professional firefighters in Western Australia will need to more than double to meet the increasing risk of bushfires; and
(c) there will be a greater role for the Australian Government and the Department of Defence in dealing with these issues across Australia.
Ms Hall: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, which aims to raise awareness about ovarian cancer and help women recognise the signs and symptoms of the disease;
(b) Thursday 24 February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Day and I encourage everyone to wear a teal ribbon to show their support for women living with ovarian cancer; and
(c) about 1,500 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year and only 43 per cent of these will survive;
(2) notes with concern that ovarian cancer is diagnosed late as the symptoms are often similar to other common health problems;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) that there is no early reliable detection test for ovarian cancer and that the Pap smear does not detect the disease;
(b) the good work being done by Ovarian Cancer Australia to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of the disease;
(4) recognises that the four most common symptoms of ovarian cancer are:
(a) abdominal or pelvic pain;
(b) increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating;
(c) needing to urinate often or urgently; and
(d) difficulty eating or feeling full quickly;
(5) understands that every Australian woman needs to know the symptoms of ovarian cancer; and
(6) notes the need for more research funding to help Australian scientists find early detection markers and more effective treatments for this disease.
Ms A. E. Burke: to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet prohibited by an international convention;
(b) 140 nations support the goal of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, including 121 nations that have already signed the Humanitarian Pledge to enshrine this goal as part of international law;
(c) 128 nations at a recently concluded session of the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee voted in favour of an Austrian-sponsored resolution to ‘fill the legal gap’ for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons on the same basis as all other outlawed forms of mass destruction;
(d) despite this, Australia voted against the latter resolution and also abstained from voting on a Mexican-sponsored resolution to establish a United Nations working group to begin discussing the possible elements for a treaty banning nuclear weapons that will convene this year for three weeks;
(e) the World Medical Association declared that it has a duty to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons ‘to preserve and safeguard the health of the patient and to consecrate itself to the service of humanity’; and
(f) the risks and catastrophic consequences of a nuclear weapon explosion are significantly greater than previously recognised and can only be guaranteed to be avoided by the abolition of all nuclear weapons;
(2) acknowledges that Australia:
(a) has made a significant and important contribution towards measures that have enhanced world peace, including helping to form the United Nations;
(b) has been a strong advocate of the Non-Proliferation Treaty since signing it in 1968;
(c) signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 1996; and
(d) is one of 13 nations that comprise the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone; and
(3) calls upon the Government to support a parliamentary debate on the next steps for Australia to support a time-bound and legally binding agreement to bring all nuclear armed states into the disarmament process and prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
King and Queen of Norway Visit
(Question No. 788)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 May 2015:
In respect of the visit of the King and Queen of Norway in February 2015, (a) what was the full itinerary for the event; and (b) what was the total cost of all activities associated with this event, including accommodation and catering.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Their Majesties King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway visited Australia as Guests of the Australian Government from 22 February to 27 February 2015 with an itinerary involving activities in Sydney, Canberra and Perth, including:
Ceremonial welcome and State Lunch given by the Governor-General
Dinner given by the Prime Minister of Australia
Wreath-laying at the Australian War Memorial
Lunch given by the Governor of New South Wales
Lunch given by the Governor of Western Australia
Reception given by the Premier of Western Australia
(b) The total cost of the visit to the Department was $150,982 (GST exclusive).
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Office Space
(Question No. 904)
Mr Conroy asked the former Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of office space leased or owned by the Minister's department(s), (a) where are these offices located; (b) how much space (in square metres) is each office; and (c) how much of this space is currently unused, and of this, what is the cost of (i) rent per month, (ii) utilities, including electricity and/or gas, telephone and internet, (iii) office furniture and/or hired equipment, including artwork and plants, and (iv) any other associated services.
Mr Turnbull: As the Honourable Member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The answers to (a) and (b) are contained in the table below:
Location (a) |
Space in Square Metres (b) |
Australian Capital Territory |
|
1 National Circuit, Barton |
15,291 |
16 Bowes Place, Phillip |
11,200 |
13 Keltie Street, Phillip |
6,111 |
New South Wales |
|
17 Duke Street, Coffs Harbour |
600 |
65-67 Church Street, Dubbo |
1,008 |
29 Molesworth Street, Lismore (Suite 1, Level 3) |
147 |
6 O'Connell Street, Sydney (Level 24) |
624 |
180-182 Peel Street, Tamworth (Tenancy 2) |
594 |
Cnr Thompson & O'Reilly Streets, Wagga Wagga (1st Floor) |
625 |
Northern Territory |
|
16 Hartley Street, Alice Springs (Level 1) |
1489 |
39 Woods Street, Darwin (Levels 4,5 & 6) |
4008 |
14 Katherine Terrace, Katherine (Level 1) |
707 |
74 Chesterfield Circuit, Nhulunbuy |
720 |
Queensland |
|
215 Adelaide Street, Brisbane |
623 |
46-48 Sheridan Street, Cairns |
1248 |
42-44 Simpson Street, Mount Isa (Part Gnd Floor) |
623 |
36 East Street, Rockhampton (Part Level 1) |
573 |
Location (a) |
Space in Square Metres (b) |
South Australia |
|
29 Waymouth Street, Adelaide |
635 |
22b East Terrace, Ceduna |
362 |
34 Stirling Road, Port Augusta |
782 |
Tasmania |
|
199 Collins Street, Hobart |
621 |
Victoria |
|
Casselden Place, Lonsdale Street, Melbourne |
719 |
Western Australia |
|
1 Short Street, Broome |
719 |
37 Rowan Street, Derby |
333 |
39-43 Boulder Rd, Kalgoorlie |
475 |
16 Riverfig Ave, Kununurra (Offices 4,5,6 & 7) |
301 |
152-158, St Georges Terrace, Perth (Part Level 12) |
1400 |
3 Brand Street, South Headland (1st Floor) |
449 |
(c) While workstations may be temporarily unused from day to day depending on the availability and attendance of staff, the Department has no long term vacant office space.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Offices Efficiency Upgrades
(Question No. 922)
Mr Conroy asked the former Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of the Minister's departmental office(s), has the building(s) received energy efficiency upgrades; if so, (a) when; and (b) how has this upgrade affected (i) average energy use, and (ii) average energy cost.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014 -2015 the Department undertook a minor energy efficiency upgrade of the basement lighting of One National Circuit, Barton. This upgrade achieved a saving of approximately 13,000 kilowatts per annum equalling a cost saving of $2,500 per annum.
Department of the Environment: Offices Efficiency Upgrades
(Question No. 937)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of the Minister's departmental office(s), has the building(s) received energy efficiency upgrades; if so, (a) when, and (b) how has this upgrade affected (i) average energy use, and (ii) average energy cost.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please see table below.
Office Location |
When |
Upgrades |
Affect on average energy use |
Effect on average energy cost |
33 Allara, Canberra (Civic), ACT, 2600 |
2011-12 |
Lighting upgrade to achieve green lease rating of 4.5 (part of lease agreement) |
From May 2013 to 30 June 2015 there has been a 35 per cent drop in number of kilowatts used since the upgrade |
A saving of 21 per cent annually |
203 Channel Highway, Kingston, TAS, 7050 |
2009-10 |
Green Building Fund Project – Modification to building heating & cooling time schedules and other energy consumption mitigation measures – (These works were conducted by the landlord to the benefit of the AAD) |
Reduction of 379,107 kWh per annum |
Cost saving of $29,399.74 based on peak tariff rate of $0.07755 per kWh |
|
2014 |
Installation of solar film treatment to external windows of Mawson & Hurley buildings |
No attributed gain. Intended to reduce heat loss in winter and solar gain in summer |
A declarable saving in terms of energy consumption or heating/cooling costs is not available. |
|
2014-15 |
Purchase of 900 LED light fittings to replace 840 fluorescent light fittings |
Potential reduction of energy consumption by 441,504.00 kWh per annum |
Cost saving of $34,238.63 based on peak tariff rate of $0.07755 per kWh |
Please note that this response does not cover the full duration of the AAD's occupation of this site. A comprehensive search was completed back to 2001 when the current owner/landlord took ownership from the Commonwealth. Any further searches are considered an unnecessary diversion of resources.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Media Monitoring
(Question No. 958)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on media monitoring and associated services in 2014-15.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The cost of media monitoring services for the Department for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 was $574,338 GST inclusive.
As has been previously advised (Parliamentary Senate Question on Notice 1681 and Senate Estimates Question on Notice 167 from the February 2015 Additional Estimates hearing refer), the Department explored a more cost-effective media monitoring solution.
In January 2015, the Department entered into a contract with Meltwater to provide media monitoring services on a fixed fee contract for $160,000 (GST Inclusive) for the calendar year 2015. This represented a significant saving compared to the previous arrangements with iSentia Pty Ltd.
Department of the Environment: Advertising
(Question No. 1009)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department(s) on advertising and associated services in 2014-15, and what policy areas did this relate to.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
During 2014-15 the Department conducted one advertising campaign for the Green Army. Further information on that advertising campaign is available at: www.environment.gov.au/.
The Green Army advertising campaign has been allocated $5 million (GST exclusive) in administered funding over 2014-15 and 2015-16, which is less than 0.8% of the total Green Army administered budget from 2014-15 to 2018-19.
Further information is also available in the reports on Australian Government advertising prepared by the Department of Finance available at: www.finance.gov.au/advertising/index.html
Payments made during 2014-15 which exceeded the reporting threshold of $12 565 (inclusive of GST), as specified in section 321A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 are presented below. These figures include both administered and departmental funding.
Agency |
Purpose |
Expenditure $ (GST inclusive) |
Advertising agencies |
||
Avant Card |
Promotion of MyEnvironment |
$22 000 |
Mitchell and Partners |
Green Army community information sessions |
$23 091 |
One Small Step Collective |
Green Army Recruitment concept development |
$53 080 |
Civic Creative |
Green Army Recruitment |
$5 500 |
Market research organisations |
||
Orima Research |
Market research for Green Army Recruitment |
$373 319 |
Polling organisations |
||
N/A |
|
|
Direct mail organisations |
||
N/A |
|
|
Media advertising organisations |
||
N/A |
|
|
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Office Equipment
(Question No. 1012)
Mr Conroy asked the former Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on the purchase and/or lease of (a) food and beverage equipment; and (b) exercise equipment, for staff in the (i) Minister's office, and (ii) departmental office(s).
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Nil.
(b) Nil.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Legal Services and Credit Cards
(Question No. 1032)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
What sum did the Minister's department spend in 2014-15 on (a) legal services, and (b) credit cards.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The department's total expenditure on external legal services for 2014-15 was $3,396,535. The amount spent in 2014-15 was considerably less than the $4.48 million spent by DFAT and AusAID in 2012-13.
(b) The department's total expenditure on its NAB corporate credit cards for 2014-15 was $10,316,208. In 2012-13, DFAT and AusAID spent at least $11.91 million on corporate credit cards.
Department of Finance: Office Refurbishment
(Question No. 1082)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, 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.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) $1,180,712.31. All works completed during the 2014-15 financial year occurred in the John Gorton Building, the Treasury Building and the Burns Centre tenancies.
(b) $64,825.67.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1170)
Mr Conroy asked the former Prime Minister, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In the 2014-15 financial year, the Department spent $3,918 on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment by departmental staff. This cost was to replace four mobile phones and one RSA token.
Department of the Environment: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1185)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please see table below.
Item lost |
Lost/Misplaced/Stolen |
Cost (if replaced) |
Mobile Phone – Nokia – T55 HSDPA |
Lost |
The phone has not been replaced |
Mobile Phone – Nokia – T55 HSDPA |
Lost |
A decision on replacement of this item has not been made |
iPhone 5 x 2 |
Lost |
Replaced at a cost of $1,796 |
iPhone 5 |
Lost |
The phone has not been replaced |
iPhone 5 |
Lost |
Replaced with second hand phone similar model – nil cost |
iPhone 5 |
Lost |
A decision on replacement of this item has not been made |
iPhone 6 |
Stolen |
Replaced at a cost of $1,070 |
Charger cable for iPad – PAS |
Lost |
Replaced at a cost of $25 |
Departmental Laptop |
Lost |
A decision on replacement of this item has not been made |
Department of Health: Departmental Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question No. 1187)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of departmental staff, and what goods were replaced.
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Departmental equipment is replaced as part of periodic asset updates with individual assets not specifically replaced.
Mobile devices are now largely provided under BYO (Bring Your Own) device schemes.
The Department of Health does not record the spend on replacing individual lost, stolen or misplaced equipment.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Ministerial Staff Lost and Stolen Equipment
(Question Nos 1188 and 1189)
Mr Conroy asked the former Prime Minister and Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff, and what goods were replaced?
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2014-15, no equipment supported by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was lost, stolen or misplaced by Ministerial staff.
Department of Defence: Departmental Staff Domestic and International Travel
(Question No. 1233)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
(1) In 2014-15, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for departmental staff.
(2) Of this, (a) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (b) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (c) for what purpose was the travel.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) (a) and (b) The total Departmental amount spent on domestic and international business related travel for the 2014-15 financial year is provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of expenditure on domestic and international business related travel
Agency |
Expenditure (GST exclusive) $ ' 000 |
Domestic business travel – Defence (including DMO) |
127,080 |
International business travel – Defence (including DMO) |
63,780 |
Total |
190,860 |
(2) (a), (b) and (c) Details of both domestic and international travel where the Minister was accompanied by departmental staff, are provided at Table 2 below. The cost of the Minister's travel is met separately by the Department of Finance.
Table 2: Details of domestic and international travel for the Minister for Defence during 2014-15.
Dates |
Location(s) |
Purpose |
No. of Departmental Staff Accompanying Minister |
27-30 July 2014 |
Adelaide |
Attend the Defence Industry Conference and visit various bases in Adelaide. |
1 |
06-08 August 2014 |
Brisbane |
Visit Enoggera Barracks |
1 |
10-12 August 2014 |
Sydney |
Attend AUSMIN Meetings |
1 |
13-15 August 2014 |
Darwin |
Visit various bases in Darwin. |
1 |
01-05 September 2014 |
Afghanistan and Wales |
The Minister travelled to Afghanistan to meet with Senior Government officials and representatives, as well as senior Australian embeds and deployed Australian Defence Force personnel. The Minister travelled to Wales to attend the NATO Leaders Summit. |
4 |
10 September 2014 |
Mulwala |
Visit the Mulwala Munitions Factory |
1 |
21-26 September 2014 |
Iraq and the United Arab Emirates |
The Minister travelled to Iraq and the United Arab Emirates to meet with Senior Government and United Nations representatives and officials. |
2 |
12-18 October 2014 |
China, the Republic of Korea and Japan |
The Minister travelled to China to conduct a counterpart meeting with the Chinese Minister for National Defence and call on Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission. He also visited military units including a Peoples' Liberation Army- Navy ship in Qingdao. The Minister travelled to the Republic of Korea (ROK) to conduct the Australia-ROK Defence Ministers' Dialogue, as well as calls on senior ROK officials and United States Forces Korea leadership and visits to key military and industry sites. The Minister travelled to Japan to conduct calls on his new Ministerial counterpart, Mr Akinori Eto, as well as the Prime Minister; Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry. |
4 |
23 October 2014 |
Nowra |
The Minister travelled to Nowra to visit HMAS Albatross |
1 |
30 October – 03 November 2014 |
Albany and Melbourne |
The Minister attended the Centenary of ANZAC in Albany, and National Security Committee and Cabinet Meetings in Melbourne |
1 |
04-06 November 2014 |
Perth, Maralinga and Adelaide |
The Minister attended Maralinga Tjarutja lands, from Defence's Woomera Prohibited Area, to attend an event held at the Maralinga Village. Known as 'Section 400' it was the site of atomic testing and associated trials conducted by the British in the 1950s and 1960s in South Australia. The Minister went onto to attend a meeting at Adelaide CPO. |
1 |
10-12 November 2014 |
Perth |
Attend Submarine Institute Conference. |
2 |
16-17 November 2014 |
Sydney |
The Minister attended a dinner at Admiralty House. |
1 |
18 November 2014 |
Rydalmere |
The Minister visited the Thales facility in Rydalmere and was accompanied by the French President. |
1 |
28 November 2014 |
Sydney |
The Minister attended the commissioning of HMAS Canberra |
1 |
10 December 2014 |
Wagga Wagga |
The Minister visited bases in the region |
1 |
14-15 December 2014 |
Papua New Guinea |
The Minister travelled to Papua New Guinea to attend the Australia-Papua New Guinea Ministerial Forum with the Foreign Minister and other senior Australian Government Ministers. The visit also provides an opportunity to hold the second Australia-PNG Defence Ministers' Meeting. |
3 |
18 December 2014 |
Adelaide |
The Minister visited shipyards in Adelaide. |
1 |
03-06 January 2015 |
United Arab Emirates |
The Minister travelled with the Prime Minister to the United Arab Emirates to visit bases. |
1 |
22 January 2015 |
Adelaide |
The Minister visited the ASC facility in Adelaide. |
1 |
31 January – 03 February 2015 |
Sydney |
The Minister attended the Australia-UK Ministerial Consultations (AUKMIN) in Sydney |
1 |
10 February 2015 |
Adelaide |
Visit to ASC facility in Adelaide |
1 |
13 February 2015 |
Brisbane |
The Minister visited RAAF Base Amberley |
1 |
15-16 February 2015 |
Geelong and Newcastle |
The Minister visited Deakin University in Geelong, and defence industry in Newcastle. |
1 |
18-19 February 2015 |
Melbourne |
The Minister attended the Land 400 announcement |
1 |
26-27 February 2015 |
Avalon |
The Minister attended the 2015 Avalon Airshow |
1 |
20-21 March 2015 |
Melbourne |
Commemoration parade for OP SLIPPER in Melbourne |
1 |
21-29 April 2015 |
Germany, France, Belgium and the United Kingdom |
The Minister travelled to Germany to view Germany's submarine building expertise and conduct a counterpart meeting with the German Minister of Defence. The Minister then travelled to France where he viewed France's submarine building capability. The Minister also met with the French Minister for Defence and attended ANZAC Day commemorations at Villers-Brettoneux and Bullecourt before travelling to Belgium to attend the Menin Gate ceremony on the evening of 25 April. The Minister also travelled to the United Kingdom to conduct official calls with a number of senior government officials. |
4 |
30 April – 02 May 2015 |
Papua New Guinea |
The Minister travelled to Papua New Guinea to attend the South Pacific Defence Ministers' Meeting and conduct counterpart engagement with regional Defence Ministers. |
7 |
08 May 2015 |
Melbourne |
ANZAC Day events in Melbourne |
1 |
28 May – 05 June 2015 |
Singapore, Malaysia and Japan |
The Minister travelled to Singapore to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue and conduct bilateral engagement with a range of international counterparts. The Minister travelled to Malaysia to visit RMAF Butterworth and conduct troop engagement. The Minister travelled to Japan to view Japan's submarine building expertise and conduct a counterpart meeting with the Japanese Minister of Defence. |
9 |
19 June 2015 |
Melbourne |
Second ANZAC Day events in Melbourne |
1 |
23-26 June 2015 |
Belgium |
The Minister travelled to Belgium to attend the NATO Defence Ministers' Meeting. |
1 |
30 June – 01 July 2015 |
Perth |
Visit to Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne |
1 |
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Departmental Media Events
(Question No. 1326)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of departmental costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014–15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at (c) sum was spent on each event(d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to; and (e) was the expenditure for.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
There were no departmental costs related to media and photo opportunities in 2014–2015.
Department of Human Services: Departmental Media Events
(Question No. 1335)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of departmental costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.
Mr Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Human Services did not hold any events in 2014-15 for the purpose of media or photo opportunities.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Ministerial Media Events
(Question Nos 1344 and 1345)
Mr Conroy asked the former Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on 17 August 2015:
In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.
Mr Turnbull: As the honourable member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department does not manage ministerial media events or the associated costs.
Department of Human Services: Ministerial Media Events
(Question No. 1364)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 August 2015:
In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.
Mr Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Minister for Human Services did not hold any events in 2014-15 for the purpose of media or photo opportunities.
Information on public activities undertaken by the Minister for Human Services is available on the Minister's website.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Departmental Conferences
(Question No. 1378)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
Did the Minister's department host any conferences in 2014-15; if so
(a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s),
(b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on:
(i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details,
(ii) travel, and what are the details, and
(iii) social events, and what are the details, and
(c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Mr Turnbull: As the Honourable Member is aware, I was sworn in as
Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department did not host any conferences in 2014-15.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Ministerial Conferences
(Question No. 1396)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 17 August 2015:
Did the Minister host any conferences in 2014-15; if so
(a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s),
(b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details, (ii) travel, and what are the details, and (iii) social events, and what are the details, and
(c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Mr Turnbull: As the Honourable Member is aware, I was sworn in as
Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department did not fund any conferences hosted by the former Prime Minister in 2014-15.
AN/BYG-1 development program
(Question No. 1494)
Mr Feeney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 September 2015:
(1) Will the Minister provide a copy of Defence's plan to increase, by early 2013, Australian industry competitiveness in the AN/BYG-1 development program, as referred to in the answer to Senate question on notice Q14: SEA 1439 Phase 4A (Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Supplementary Budget estimates 2012-2013, 17 October 2012).
(2) Further to the answer to Senate question on notice Q39: Collins Combat System—Advanced Processor Build Program (Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Additional estimates 2012-2013, 13 February 2013):
(a) what sum of:
(i) Capability Technology Demonstrator and Rapid Prototyping, Development and Evaluation funding,
(ii) AN/BYG-1 (Armaments Cooperation Program) joint funding, and
(iii) Priority Industry Capability funding, has been used as a mechanism for assisting Australian industry to achieve success in the Advance Process Build (APB) program.
(3) Prior to the plan in part (1), for each APB program round:
(a) what companies, including the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO):
(i) provided a program proposal, and
(ii) were accepted to progress their proposal,
(b) how far did each proposal progress through the program, and
(c) what sum of funding was provided to progress each proposal.
(4) Post the plan in part (1), for each APB program round:
(a) what companies:
(i) provided a program proposal, and
(ii) were accepted to progress their proposal.
(b) how far did each proposal progress through the program, and
(c) what sum of funding was provided to progress each proposal.
(5) How many Australian companies have been invited to participate in the APB program peer reviews.
(6) Noting an answer to Senate question on notice W47: Collins Combat Systems (Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Additional
estimates 2010-2011—February 2011, 23 February 2011), has the DSTO participated in any APB program peer reviews; if so, which ones.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The plan referred to in this question is known as The Australian Technology Maturation Program. The program description is attached.
(2) (a) (i) Nil.
(2) (a) (ii) Approximately $580,000 has been applied since February 2013. (2) (a) (iii) Nil to date. The $580,000 of shared funding from the joint Australia –
United States program has been sufficient to support the 2014-15 round of activities undertaken by Cirrus Real Time Processing and Thales Australia.
(3) (a) (i) APB Round Proposals
Proposer |
Advanced Processing Build |
||
09 |
13 |
15 |
|
Acacia Research |
3 |
3 |
|
Cirrus Real Time Processing |
1 |
|
|
Defence Science and Technology Group |
3 |
1 |
|
Operational Solutions Management |
2 |
|
|
Thales Australia |
|
|
1 |
Qinetiq |
|
|
1 |
(3) (a) (ii) Proposals from the Defence Science and Technology Group and Cirrus Real Time Processing for APB-09 progressed into Step 1 of the APB cycle.
(3) (b) The Defence Science and Technology Group APB-09 proposal was merged with a similar United States proposal at Step 2 and was then progressed through the full program into the production baseline. The Cirrus Real Time Processing APB-09 proposal did not progress beyond Step 1.
(3) (c) A contract with Cirrus Real Time Processing for $150,000 was awarded in November 2009 for activities in support of Step 1. For the Defence Science and Technology Group to progress their proposal through to the completion of Step 4, salaries were in the order of $250,000 with travel costs of approximately $165,000 over the period 2009-2012.
(4) Since the Australian Technology Maturation Plan was initiated, Australian industry has participated in an Australia/US initiated activity to improve the AN/BYG-1 Operator-Machine Interface. In 2014-15 two Australian companies worked with Royal Australian Navy submariners, Defence Science and Technology Group, and the United States Navy to produce prototype displays to support new operating concepts.
(4) (a) (i) Responses to the request for tender for the 2014-15 activity were received from four companies: Thales Australia, Cirrus Real Time Processing, Saab Australia and Lockheed Martin Australia.
(4) (a) (ii) Thales Australia and Cirrus Real Time Processing were the successful tenderers for the Operator-Machine interface work.
(4) (b) Implementations based on the prototypes produced by Thales and Cirrus have both progressed into Step 3 of the process.
(4) (c) Approximately $580,000 has been provided to fund the 2014-15 activity.
(5) None to date.
(6) Defence Science and Technology Group participated in the Operator-Machine Interface working group and Automation working group review activities for APB-15, held in 2013.
Copies of attachment A can be obtained from the House of Representatives Table Office.
Diplomats: Tour to Western Australia
(Question No. 1504)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 September 2015—
In respect of the tour to Western Australia by Canberra-based diplomats in May 2014, (a) what total cost was incurred by the Australian Government, (b) can she provide a copy of the (i) guest list, and (ii) itinerary, and (c) can a list of all activities offered to the touring party be provided, including the itemised costs.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The Diplomatic Corp visits are a longstanding practice supported by both sides of government dating back to 2000. These visits promote trade, investment and tourism opportunities of the chosen state to an international audience. They are strongly supported by State Premiers, such as the South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill who stated that the 2015 Diplomatic Corp visit to South Australia, "comes at a perfect time as we are seeking to internationalise our state's economy." The total cost incurred by the Australian Government for the Diplomatic Corp visit to Western Australia was $145,200 or $2016.67 including GST per Head of Mission. This is comparable to the 2011 Diplomatic Corp visit to QLD hosted by former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd which cost $1978.77 including GST per Head of Mission when adjusted for inflation.
(b) (i) Guest List
2014 Foreign Minister's Visit to WA with Diplomatic Corps (68 Heads of Mission, 1 Deputy High Commissioner, 3 Chargé d'Affairs a.i.)
1 Argentina (Dean of Corps, Ambassador)
2 Afghanistan (Ambassador)
3 Algeria (Ambassador)
4 Austria (Ambassador)
5 Belgium (Ambassador)
6 Botswana (High Commissioner)
7 Brazil (Ambassador)
8 Brunei (High Commissioner)
9 Bulgaria (Ambassador)
10 Cambodia (Ambassador)
11 Canada (High Commissioner)
12 Chile (Chargé d'Affairs)
13 China (Ambassador)
14 Croatia (Ambassador)
15 Czech Republic (Ambassador)
16 Denmark (Ambassador)
17 Ecuador (Ambassador)
18 Egypt (Ambassador)
19 El Salvador (Ambassador)
20 Ethiopia (Ambassador)
21 European Union (Ambassador)
22 Finland (Ambassador)
23 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Ambassador)
24 Georgia (Ambassador)
25 Germany (Ambassador)
26 Greece (Ambassador)
27 Hungary (Ambassador)
28 India (High Commissioner)
29 Indonesia (Chargé d'Affairs)
30 Iraq (Ambassador)
31 Ireland (Ambassador)
32 Jordan (Ambassador)
33 Kenya (A/g High Commissioner)
34 Korea (Ambassador)
35 Kosovo (Ambassador)
36 Kuwait (Ambassador)
37 Laos (Ambassador)
38 Libya (Ambassador)
39 Malaysia (High Commissioner)
40 Mauritius (Ambassador)
41 Mexico (Ambassador)
42 Mongolia (Ambassador)
43 Morocco (Ambassador)
44 Myanmar (Ambassador)
45 Nepal (Ambassador)
46 New Zealand (High Commissioner)
47 Papua New Guinea (High Commissioner)
48 Paraguay (Chargé d'Affairs)
49 Peru (Ambassador)
50 Philippines (Ambassador)
51 Poland (Ambassador)
52 Qatar (Ambassador)
53 Russia (Ambassador)
54 Saudi Arabia (Ambassador)
55 Serbia (Ambassador)
56 Singapore (High Commissioner)
57 Slovak Republic (Ambassador)
58 South Africa (High Commissioner)
59 Spain (Ambassador)
60 Sri Lanka (High Commissioner)
61 Sweden (Ambassador)
62 Switzerland (Ambassador)
63 Thailand (Ambassador)
64 Timor Leste (Ambassador)
65 Tunisia (Ambassador)
66 Uganda (High Commissioner)
67 United Kingdom (High Commissioner)
68 USA (Ambassador)
69 Uruguay (Ambassador)
70 Vanuatu (High Commissioner)
71 Venezuela (Ambassador)
72 Vietnam (Ambassador)
(b) (ii) Itinerary
Thursday 1 May 2014
0715 Welcome Breakfast hosted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Hon Julie Bishop MP at Fraser's, King's Park
0900 Opening plenary session of "In the Zone" conference at the University of Western Australia with guest speakers:
- Dr Michael Chaney AO, Chancellor UWA
- The Hon Colin Barnett MLA, Premier of WA
- The Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs
- Mr Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large, The Australian
1115 Briefings by the Western Australian Government at Indiana's, Cottesloe Beach:
- Mr Giles Nunis, Deputy Director General, Resources and Industry
Development, Department of State Development
- Ms Nicky Cusworth, Deputy Director General, Strategic Policy,
Department of State Development
- Ms Stephanie Buckland, CEO, Tourism Western Australia
1230 Luncheon with keynote speaker, Professor Peter Quinn, Director International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, UWA
1500 Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle
1515 Introduction by Mr Alec Coles OBE, CEO Western Australian Museum
1520 Briefing by Senator the Hon David Johnston, Minister for Defence on Australia's Defence Policy
1615 Tour of the Western Australian Maritime Museum led by Dr Michael McCarthy
1800 Reception at Government House hosted by His Excellency Malcolm McCusker AC CVO QC, Governor of Western Australia and Mrs McCusker
1930 Depart Government House
1940 Arrive hotel – day's program concludes
Friday 2 May 2014
0700 Perth – Newman flight
0900 BHP Billiton Operations and Safety Briefing.
0940 BHP Billiton Mount Whaleback Mine Briefing
1110 Newman – Karratha flight
1235 Woodside LNG briefing followed by an audiovisual presentation, a Question and Answer session and lunch Note: Participants will be divided into groups
1430 Guided tour of Indigenous rock art at Burrup Peninsula
1555 Rio Tinto Briefing at Parker Point Iron Ore Loading Facility
1715 Karratha – Perth flight
1950 Arrive hotel – day's program concludes
Saturday 3 May 2014
0925 Rio Tinto Safety Briefing at Rio Tinto Operations Centre
0950 Rio Tinto Operations Centre Briefing and Tour
1115 Sandalford Estate – Presentation, wine processing plant tour and familiarisation with Australian native animals
1230 Lunch at Sandalford Estate hosted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon Julie Bishop MP
1530 Arrive hotel – program concludes
(c) List of all activities offered to the touring party are as above. Itemised costs are included in the replies to Questions on Notice Nos 1505-1509.
Diplomats: Tour to Western Australia
(Question No. 1505)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 September 2015—
In respect of the tour to Western Australia by Canberra-based diplomats in May 2014, what are the details of all air transport for the touring party, broken down by commercial flights and charter flights, including routes, schedules, costs and the number of passengers on each flight and their names and positions.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Members of the diplomatic corps participating in the visit managed the arrangements and covered the costs for their flights to and from Perth.
The only air transport provided for the touring party was a charter flight through Network Aviation Australia.
The route was Perth – Newman – Karratha – Perth. A charter flight was required as there were no commercial flights available that travelled this route. Charter flights have been used in previous Diplomatic Corp visits. In 2011, former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd spent $45,000 to transport the Dip Corp from Brisbane to Cairns, a route where commercial flights are regularly available.
The schedule was Perth – Newman 0700-0830, Newman – Karratha 1110-1155 and Karratha – Perth 1715-1915.
The cost was $57,143.62 including GST.
The number of passengers and their names and positions are attached. These are based on the boarding passes issued. On the day, some passengers elected not to travel.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES QUESTION NO. 1505 response –
PASSENGER NAMES AND POSITIONS
|
|
SATURDAY 2 MAY 2014 |
|
COUNTRY* |
HOM/CHARGḖ |
|
|
|
1 |
Argentina |
HE* Mr Pedro VILLAGRA DELGADO, Dean of the Corps |
2 |
Afghanistan |
HE Mr Nasir Ahmad ANDISHA |
3 |
Algeria |
HE Mr Hadi BROURI |
4 |
Austria |
HE Dr Helmut BÖCK |
5 |
Belgium |
HE Mr Jean-Luc BODSON |
6 |
Botswana |
HE Mr Molosiwa SELEPENG |
7 |
Brazil |
HE Mr Rubem Correa BARBOSA |
8 |
Brunei Darussalam |
HE Mr Zakaria AHMAD |
9 |
Bulgaria |
HE Mrs Emilia Iordanova STEFANOVA-VELEVA |
10 |
Cambodia |
HE Mr Sounry CHUM |
11 |
Canada |
HE Mr Michael SMALL |
12 |
Chile |
Mr Carlos Moran, Chargé d'Affaires |
13 |
Croatia |
HE Dr Damir KUSEN |
14 |
Czech Republic |
HE Mr Martin POHL |
15 |
Denmark |
HE Mr Borve PETERSEN |
16 |
Ecuador |
HE Mr Raul GANGOTENA RIVADENEIRA |
17 |
Egypt |
HE Dr Hassan Hanafy Mahmoud EL-LAITHY |
18 |
El Salvador |
HE Mr Manuel GUTIERREZ RUIZ |
19 |
Ethiopia |
HE Mr Arega Hailu TEFFERA |
20 |
European Union |
HE Mr Sem FABRIZI |
21 |
Finland |
HE Mr Pasi PATOKALLIO |
22 |
FYROM |
HE Mr Vele TRPEVSKI |
23 |
Georgia |
HE Mr Vladimer KONSTANTINIDI |
24 |
Germany |
HE Dr Christophe MUELLER |
25 |
Greece |
HE Mr Charalampos DARARANOS |
26 |
Hungary |
HE Mrs Anna Maria SIKO |
27 |
India |
HE Mr Biren NANDA |
28 |
Indonesia |
Ms Kusuma HABIR, Chargé d'Affaires |
29 |
Iraq |
HE Mr Mouayed SALEH |
30 |
Ireland |
HE Mr Noel White |
31 |
Jordan |
HE Mrs Rima Ahmad ALAADEEN |
32 |
Kenya |
Mr Isaiya KABIRA, Acting High Commissioner |
33 |
Korea |
HE Mr Bonghyun KIM |
34 |
Kosovo |
HE Dr Sabri KIQMARI |
35 |
Kuwait |
HE Mr Khaled AL-SHAIBANI |
36 |
Laos |
HE Mr Phomma KHAMMANICHANH |
37 |
Libya |
HE Mr Musbah ALLAFI |
38 |
Malaysia |
HE Mr Zinal AHMAD |
39 |
Mauritius |
HE Mrs Mirella CHAUVIN |
40 |
Mexico |
HE Mr Armando ALVAREZ REINA |
41 |
Mongolia |
HE Mr Ravdan BOLD |
42 |
Morocco |
HE Mr Mohamed MAEL-AININ |
43 |
Myanmar |
HE Mr Min THEIN |
44 |
Nepal |
HE Mr Rudra Kumar NEPAL |
45 |
New Zealand |
HE Mr Chris Seed |
46 |
Papua New Guinea |
HE Mr Charles Watson LEPANI |
47 |
Paraguay |
Mr Pablo Bedoya, Chargé d'Affaires |
48 |
Peru |
HE Mr Luis Felipe QUESADA INCHAUSTEGUI |
49 |
Philippines |
HE Mrs Belen F ANOTA |
50 |
Poland |
HE Mr Pawel MILEWSKI |
51 |
Qatar |
HE Mr Yousef AL-KHATER |
52 |
Russia |
HE Mr Vladimir MOROZOV |
53 |
Saudi Arabia |
HE Mr Nabil AL SALEH |
54 |
Serbia |
HE Mr Miroljub PETROVIC |
55 |
Singapore |
HE Mr Michael TEO |
56 |
South Africa |
HE Ms Koleka MQULWANA |
57 |
Spain |
HE Mr Enrique VIGUERA |
58 |
Sri Lanka |
HE Admiral Thisara SAMARASINGHE |
59 |
Sweden |
HE Mr Sven-Olof PETERSSON |
60 |
Switzerland |
HE Mr Marcel STUTZ |
61 |
Thailand |
HE Mr Maris SANGIAMPONGSA |
62 |
Timor Leste |
HE Mr Abel GUTERRES |
63 |
Tunisia |
HE Mr Nabil LAKHAL |
64 |
Uganda |
HE Mr Enoch NKURUHO |
65 |
United Kingdom |
HE Mr Paul Madden CMG |
66 |
Uruguay |
HE Mr Ricardo VARELA FERNANDEZ |
67 |
Vanuatu |
HE Mr Kalfau KALORIS |
68 |
Venezuela |
HE Mr Nelson DAVILA-LAMEDA |
69 |
Vietnam |
HE Mr Thanh Nghi LUONG |
|
|
|
* |
China, USA and the Slovak Republic did not attend this day of the visit |
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER |
|
|
|
|
70 |
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
The Hon Julie Bishop MP |
71 |
Member for Durack |
Ms Melissa Price MP |
72 |
CEO, WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy |
Mr Reginald Howard-Smith |
73 |
FMO Media Adviser |
Ms Catherine McDonald |
74 |
FMO Adviser |
Ms Sarah Storey |
75 |
FMO Adviser |
Ms Gisele Kapterian |
76 |
FMO Assistant Adviser |
Ms Georgie Skipper |
77 |
FMO Departmental Liaison Officer |
Mr Steven Yates |
78 |
FMO Advancer |
Ms Kim Freeman |
79 |
FMO Advancer |
Ms Kirsten Barker |
80 |
DFAT Secretary |
Mr Peter Varghese |
81 |
DFAT Chief of Protocol |
Mr Sally Mansfield |
82 |
DFAT Deputy Chief of Protocol |
Ms Melissa Hitchman |
83 |
DFAT Protocol Officer |
Mr Michael Weaver |
84 |
DFAT WA Director |
Mr Michael Wood |
85 |
WA Department of Health |
One Nurse |
86 |
WA Police |
Three WA Police officers |
87 |
Network Aviation |
One Staff Member |
Diplomats: Tour to Western Australia
(Question No. 1506)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 September 2015—
In respect of the tour to Western Australia by Canberra-based diplomats in May 2014, what was the cost of ground transport for the entire touring party and what form(s) of ground transport were used.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The cost of ground transport for the entire touring party was $18,410 or $256 including GST per Head of Mission. This figure is comparable to the $251 including GST spent per Head of Mission on ground transport during the 2011 former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd's Diplomatic Corp visit when adjusted for inflation.
The following forms of ground transport were used:
Coach
Minibus
Sedan
Diplomats: Tour to Western Australia
(Question No. 1507)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 September 2015:
In respect of accommodation for the tour to Western Australia by Canberra-based diplomats in May 2014, (a) at which hotels did the touring party stay, (b) what category of room did the touring party occupy, (c) how many rooms were occupied at each hotel, and (d) what was the cost of accommodation (i) per room per night, and (ii) in total.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The members of the diplomatic corps participating in the visit managed the arrangements and covered the costs for their accommodation in Perth.
(b) As each of the members of the diplomatic corps participating in the visit managed the arrangements and costs of their own accommodation, the category of rooms that were occupied is unknown.
(c) As each of the members of the diplomatic corps participating in the visit managed the arrangements and costs of their own accommodation, the number of rooms that were occupied is unknown.
(d) As each of the members of the diplomatic corps participating in the visit managed the arrangements and costs of their own accommodation, the costs of the rooms that were occupied is unknown.
Diplomats: Tour to Weatern Australia
(Question No. 1508)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 September 2015—
In respect of the tour to Western Australia by Canberra-based diplomats in May 2014, (a) what was the cost of food and beverages, covering meals for the entire touring party, and (b) can a list of (i) dining establishments attended by the touring party, and (ii) food and beverages available at each dining establishment, be provided, including itemised costs.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) In respect of the 2014 Diplomatic Corp visit to Western Australia, the cost of food and beverages to the Commonwealth was $23,588.00, or $327.61 including GST per Head of Mission. In 2011, former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd spent $39,890.64 or $767.13 including GST per Head of Mission on food and beverages when adjusted for inflation during the Diplomatic Corp visit to Queensland. When calculated per Head of Mission after adjusting for inflation, former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd spent more than twice the amount that was spent in 2014.
(b) (i) The dining establishments used were Fraser's, King's Park; Indiana's, Cottesloe Beach; and the Sandalford Estate, Swan Valley.
(b) (ii) The menus at each dining establishment, including itemised costs, were:
Fraser's ($4,029)
Eggs on toast
Yoghurt
Juice
Coffee and tea
Indiana's ($9,439)
Morning Tea
- Tarts
- Pies
- Coffee and Tea
Lunch
Share platter entree:
- Beef and vegetables
- Tomato and cheese
- Beetroot and cheese
Choice main course:
- Chicken with vegetables
- Cheese pasta with salad
Sandalford ($10,120)
Red and white wine
Cheese and spinach
A choice of lamb, salmon or pasta with vegetables
Cake, tart or crumble
Tea and coffee
Diplomats: Tour to Western Australia
(Question No. 1509)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 September 2015—
Can a list of all tours for international diplomats hosted or attended by her and/or her staff be provided, including the (a) (i) names, and (ii) roles, of attendees, (b) itinerary, (c) itemised costs for (i) flights, (ii) accommodation, and (iii) ground transport, and (d) total cost to her department.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
I have hosted two visits to the states for the diplomatic corps: Western Australia from 1-3 May 2014 and South Australia from 19-21 March 2015.
(a) (i) and (ii) The names and roles of attendees for the Western Australia visit were previously provided in QoN 1504. The names and roles of attendees for the South Australia visit were also previously provided in Senate QoN 2125.
(b) The itineraries for the Western Australia and South Australia visit were both previously provided in both QoN 1504 and Senate QoN 2125.
(c) (i) These costs were previously provided in QoN 1505 and Senate QoN 2125.
(ii) These costs were previously provided in QoN 1507 and Senate QoN 2125.
(iii) These costs were previously provided in QoN 1506 and Senate QoN 2125.
(d) These costs were previously provided in QoN 1504 and Senate QoN 2125.
Provision of the UXC Connect iTaaS Voice Over Internet service for the G20 Leaders' Summit
(Question No. 1520)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 9 September 2015:
In respect of the provision of the UXC Connect iTaaS Voice Over Internet service for the G20 Leaders' Summit held on 15 to 16 November 2014:
(a) what was the:
(i) budgeted, and
(ii) actual, cost of the service,
(b) how many people accessed the service,
(c) on how many occasions was the service used,
(d) what sum was spent on administrative and support services for the service, and
(e) what functions were enabled by the system.
Mr Turnbull: As the Honourable Member is aware, I was sworn in as Prime Minister on 15 September 2015. As the honourable member's question relates to matters before that date, I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a)
(i) $156,877.30 budgeted.
(ii) $156,877.30 actual.
(b) This information was not collected. Phones were available throughout the venue and accessible to all attendees.
(c) This information was not collected. The service was available 24 hours per day for the duration of the summit and available to all attendees.
(d) Nil.
(e) Telecommunication services.
Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science: Market Research
(Question No 1543)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in writing, on 15 September 2015:
To ask the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science—In respect of the $15,422.00 tender to Omnipoll Pty Ltd for 'Research Services—Market Research National Science Week' (CN3289291), (a) what is the aim of this research, (b) can a summary of findings be provided, and (c) to what policy(s) and/or initiative(s) does this research relate.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The research was commissioned to gauge the level of involvement in this year's National Science Week events. A similar survey has been done annually by Newspoll, now Omnipoll, since 2002.
(b) The research showed that 1.25 million people, or about 6% of the population, participated in National Science Week.
The survey also asked respondents about their general level of engagement in science. It showed 66% of people were either quite interested or very interested in science and technology, and 76% of people regularly or occasionally seek out information about science and technology.
(c) National Science Week is a key part of the Inspiring Australia science engagement initiative which is based at Questacon – The National Science and Technology Centre.
Ananke Holding Pty Ltd tender
(Question No. 1544)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, in writing, on 15 September 2015:
In respect of the $11,500.00 tender to Ananke Holding Pty Ltd for 'Venue Hire and Related Services' (CN3289311), (a) what services will be provided, (b) to which event does this pertain, and (c) what is the itinerary for this event.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
a) Venue hiring, catering and audio visual support at Sofitel Wentworth, Sydney.
b) Industry Session of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Industry and Skills Council.
c) Itinerary: Pre-meeting welcome on evening of 4 November 2015.
COAG meeting on morning of 5 November 2015.
2015 Australia-China Resources Investment Forum
(Question No. 1546)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 15 September 2015:
In respect of the 2015 Australia-China Resources Investment Forum, (a) how many (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff, will attend the Forum in China, (b) can he provide an itemised account of expenses for (i) travel, including flights and ground transport, (ii) accommodation, (iii) allowances, and (iv) all other associated costs.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i) Nil.
(ii) Four. One officer is co-located with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Embassy to China in Beijing, so no costs were incurred. Three were Geoscience Australia officers.
(b) (i) Flights: $11,766. Ground transport: $114
(ii) $1,606.
(iii) $557.
(iv) Nil.
Clontarf Foundation: Funding
(Question No. 1559)
Ms Claydon asked the Prime Minister, representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, a question in writing, on 12 October 2015:
(1) What sum of funding has been allocated to the Clontarf Foundation in (a) 2014-15, (b) 2015-16, and (c) over the forward budget estimates?
(2) What specific programs will be delivered using the funding allocated to the Clontarf Foundation, when will the programs be delivered, and at what specific locations will the programs be held?
(3) What sum of funding has been directly allocated to equivalent programs that support (a) health, (b) education, (c) training, and (d) employment, outcomes for Indigenous girls?
Mr Turnbull: The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The following funding has been allocated to the Clontarf Foundation through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:
(a) $8,696,895 in 2014-15
(b) $10,022,000 in 2015-16
(c) $19,861,000 over the forward budget estimates
(2) The Clontarf Foundation provides intensive education and engagement support to approximately 6,400 Indigenous boys throughout Australia. Activities are targeted towards improving education, discipline, life skills, self-esteem and employment prospects of participants.
Activities will be delivered in the following locations over the course of the funding period, 2014-15 to 2017-18.
NSW: Armidale, Bourke, Brewarrina, Coonamble, Inverell, Moree, Tamworth, Dubbo, Caringbah and Wagga Wagga.
Vic: Bairnsdale, Mildura, Robinvale, Swan Hill and Warrnambool.
Qld: Cherbourg/Murgon, Dalby, Harristown, Kingaroy, Toowoomba and Warwick.
NT: Casuarina, Alice Springs, Tiwi, Gunbalanya, Jabiru, Katherine, Berrimah, Nightcliff, Palmerston, Wulagi, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy.
WA: Perth, Carnarvon, Waterford, Coodanup, Derby, Kununurra, Fitzroy Crossing, Kwinana, Kalgoorlie, Albany, Halls Creek, Karratha, Katanning, Geraldton, Northam, Cannington, Esperance, Bunbury, Broome and Maddington.
(3) The Indigenous Advancement Strategy, Children and Schooling Programme, will provide $15.8 million over 2.5 years for equivalent projects for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander girls.
Foreign Aid
(Question No. 1561)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 October 2015:
Has the commitment of $50 million per year in foreign aid for family planning continued; if not, what is the current level of funding; if so, (a) where and on what projects has it been spent, (b) what results are available from these activities, and (c) do the foreign aid program reports contain a specific report on family planning activities, if not, why not.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
No. That was a policy of the previous government.
Australia contributed $42.4 million for family planning in 2013-14. Final expenditure reporting for 2014-15 is not yet available.
For 2015-16, the Australian Government has committed $9.2 million to the United Nations Population Fund and allocated $3.6 million to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Beyond these global allocations, current financial year funding for family planning is determined at a country level in line with partner government priorities. Australian non-government organisations can also receive matching funding for their commitments to family planning through the Australian NGO Cooperation Program.
Reporting of program results is provided through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's website, Annual Reports and the Performance of Australian Aid report.
Australia-Republic of Korea Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultations
(Question No. 1563)
Mr CONROY : asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 October 2015 —
In respect of the Australia-Republic of Korea Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultations held on 11 September 2015, (a) how many (i) Ministerial, and (ii) departmental staff were in attendance, and (b) can the department provide the (i) itinerary, (ii) itemised costs of flights, accommodation and ground transport, and (iii) itemised costs of all other associated expenses, including decorations.
MS BISHOP: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a). 2 ministerial staff and 12 officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) attended the Australia - Republic of Korea 2+2 Meeting in Sydney on 11 September. Twenty-four officials from the Republic of Korea were in attendance.
It was the first Australia-Republic of Korea Foreign and Defence Ministerial Meeting to be held in Australia. Ministers discussed ways to advance Australia and Korea's important economic, strategic, defence and security relationship.
(b) (i). See attached
(ii). Costs incurred by the Department are attached.
Australia-ROK
2+2 Program - Friday 11 September
Commencement of Official Program:
1225 Wreath-laying ceremony
Korean War Memorial - Moore Park
1240 Ministers meet with Korean War veterans
Rotunda - Moore Park
1315 2+2 Meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers
(James Cook Ball Room) Intercontinental Hotel
1525 2+2 Media Conference
(Premier's Room) – Intercontinental Hotel
1610 Ministers' bilateral counterpart meetings
(Defence Ministers, Quay Room, Foreign Ministers, Harbour Room) – Intercontinental Hotel
1930 2+2 Official Dinner Quay Restaurant, Circular Quay (Ministers and Senior Officials)
Conclusion of 2+2 official program
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Expenses for the Australia-Republic of Korea 2+2 Meeting Sydney 11 September 2015 |
|
Venue Related Goods and Services |
Cost - A$ |
Photographer |
$2,130.50 |
Transport – Hire Cars |
$2,908.45 |
Venue |
$19,756.50 |
Interpreter 1 |
$2,279.00 |
Interpreter 2 |
$925.22 |
Flags and Lectern Signs |
$405.90 |
Official Dinner |
$2,500.00 |
Restaurant Service Charge |
$249.40 |
Wreath for Korean War Memorial |
$307.50 |
Gift to ROK Foreign Minister |
$105.54 |
Flights Total: |
$5,165.55 |
Accommodation Total: |
$5,946.03 |
Comcar Total: |
$345.30 |
Taxis Total: |
$618.72 |
Airport Parking Total: |
$156.00 |
Centrelink's Income Security Integrated System Upgrade
(Question No. 1566)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $1 billion upgrade to Centrelink's Income Security Integrated System, (a) how far has the project progressed since its announcement in April 2015, and (b) is expenditure progressing in line with budgeted amounts.
Mr Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Since its commencement on 1 July 2015, the Programme has set up a Programme Management Office; established governance arrangements; commenced procurement activities through approaching the market on 18 September 2015 for Requests for Expressions of Interest for a Core Software Vendor; and has been working with policy departments, customers, staff and stakeholders on the design of the system.
(b) Yes.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Conferences
(Question No 1567)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $75,000.00 tender to Crown Resorts Limited for 'Venue hire catering 2015 DIBP Industry Summit' (CN3292075),
(a) what is the purpose of the event,
(b) when will the event take place,
(c) how many
(i) Ministerial staff, and
(ii) departmental staff, will attend, and
(d) can his department provide
(i) an itinerary,
(ii) itemised costs for flights, accommodation, meals and on ground transport, and
(iii) all other associated costs, including decorations.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The purpose of the Industry Summit was to provide a consultative forum for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department), Government and key industry stakeholders to engage in strategic dialogue about border management and explore opportunities for co-designing future initiatives and innovations.
(b) The Industry Summit was held on 19 and 20 November 2015.
(c)
(i) No Ministerial Staff from the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection attended.
(ii) Departmental staff attendance was strictly limited to officers required to perform a role at the event, or were required to provide expert panel support.
Departmental staff attending to present totalled 39
Departmental staff attending to provide a support function totalled 30
Departmental staff providing expert panel support totalled 10
(d)
(i) The official programme for the Summit is at Attachment A.
(ii)
Flight costs totalled $49,571.60.
Accommodation costs totalled $23,156.
Catering for the event totalled $55,233.
No transport was provided to guests
(iii) The total cost of the event, including catering, venue hire, security and audio visual charges was $108,137.82. Other costs associated with this event included branding, which was kept simplistic in nature to allow it to be re-used in future years. These costs will therefore be born over future financial years.
300 copies of 17 topic papers and 250 bios totalled $4041;
Two Ceiling banners, two stage banners, and four lectern banners totalled $1985.50; and
30 Australian Border Force gold coins inscribed "Presented by the Commissioner Australian Border Force" and 30 Department of Immigration and Border Protection gold coin inscribed "Presented by the Secretary Department of Immigration and Border Protection" were purchased for $960.
Attachment A – Official Programme.
Copies of A ttachment A can be obtained from the Table Office
Red Energy Promotions tender
(Question No. 1572)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 09/11/2015:
In respect of the $17,960.80 tender to Red Energy Promotions for 'Merchandise items for uniforms for NAQS Top Watch' (CN3291185), (a) what is the merchandise, (b) can he provide details of the (i) country of manufacture, (ii) number of products ordered, and (iii) cost per item unit, and (c) how will these products enhance the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy.
Mr Joyce: The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
a) Three Top Watch merchandise items:
1. Heavy brushed cotton cap (featuring Top Watch logo and departmental contact details)
2. long-handled sling calico 'Dilly' bag (featuring Top Watch logo and departmental contact details)
3. 10cm pannikin (enamel mug) (featuring Top Watch logo and departmental contact details)
b) Merchandise item details:
Item |
Country of origin |
Units |
Unit cost |
Total cost (inc GST) |
Cap |
China |
300 |
$9.18 |
$3,029.40* |
Cap |
China |
1200 |
$4.47 |
$5,900.40** |
Dilly bag |
China |
1000 |
$4.66 |
$5,126.00 |
Pannikin |
China/Australia*** |
500 |
$7.10 |
$3,905.00 |
* includes express delivery (for initial urgent stock replacement)
** includes standard 'surface' delivery
*** China manufacture/Australia printing
c) How products enhance the Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS):
These three NAQS merchandise items actively promote the 'Top Watch' biosecurity call to action message – "report anything of biosecurity concern to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources" – throughout Northern Australia.
Based on feedback from community leaders, ranger groups and other stakeholders, these merchandise items are a proven effective communication tools for remote northern Australian communities. The items are hard-wearing and are heavily used by recipients who become advocates for biosecurity vigilance across Northern Australia.
All merchandise features the new departmental contact information (1800 phone number and web address) to report suspect pests, diseases and weeds. These merchandise items replenished the depleted stock of NAQS merchandise items that have been produced by the NAQS programme over many years.
This form of promotion is one of the least costly and most effective mechanisms to reinforce vital biosecurity awareness messaging across Northern Australia.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Staff Uniforms
(Question No 1575)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $10,845.00 tender to Spearpoint Solutions and Technology for uniforms (CN3202392),
(a) can he provide details of
(i) the country of manufacture,
(ii) the number of products ordered,
(iii) the cost per item unit, and
(iv) any other details about manufacture and/or cost, and
(b) how will these uniforms enhance the operation of the Australian Border Force.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection ordered 1500 small ABF Crest velcro badges. These velcro badges are worn on ballistics vests and identify that the officers wearing these are performing our important border protection role.
The badges were purchased through Spearpoint Solutions and Technology, a small local company in Queanbeyan, owned and operated by war veterans. The badges were manufactured in South Africa. The supplier was selected on the basis that it could deliver the items in the available timeframe before the commencement of the ABF on 1 July 2015.
The cost per item was $6.57 GST exclusive.
The Department is satisfied with the quality of these badges and they reflect the professional appearance of our officers.
Department of Immigration and Boarder Protection: Staff Uniforms
(Question No 1576)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $25,465.00 tender to CSCK Holdings Pty Ltd for 'Australian Border Force Uniforms' (CN2768452),
(a) can he provide details of
(i) the country of manufacture,
(ii) the number of products ordered,
(iii) the cost per item unit, and
(iv) any other details about manufacture and/or cost, and
(b) how will these uniforms enhance the operation of the Australian Border Force.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection ordered 10,000 small and 10,000 large gold coloured metal ABF buttons that have the ABF crest stamped on them. The ABF buttons are worn on the ABF Dress Tunic and ABF Peak Cap.
The buttons were purchased through CSCK Holdings Pty Ltd, based in Brisbane. The buttons were manufactured in China. The supplier was selected on the basis that it could deliver the items in the available timeframe before the commencement of the ABF on 1 July 2015.
The GST exclusive cost was $1.04 per small button and $1.14 per large button. The tender also included a set-up fee of $1,240.91 GST exclusive.
The Department is satisfied with the quality of these buttons and they reflect the professional appearance of our officers.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Staff Uniforms
(Question No 1577)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $19,901.93 tender to ID Warehouse for 'Provision of Australian Border Force Lanyards and Identification Cards' (CN3283379),
(a) can he provide details of:
(i) the country of manufacture,
(ii) the number of products ordered,
(iii) the cost per item unit, and
(iv) any other details about manufacture and/or cost, and
(b) how will these products enhance the operation of the Australian Border Force.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
As part of the establishment of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) and the Australian Border Force, new identification cards were required for branding purposes.
The tender related to the purchase of 9000 Australian Border Force Lanyards at an approximate cost of $1.40 per lanyard and 40 rolls of holographic security card laminate at an approximate cost of $200.00 per roll. The products were manufactured in the People's Republic of China by a security product company based in the United States of America.
The purchased products form part of the security features within the updated identity cards used by the Department and Australian Border Force officers.
Canberra Rubber Stamps and Signs: Tender
(Question No. 1578)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $38,280.00 tender to Canberra Rubber Stamps and Signs for 'Promotional material for Border Force' (CN3287366):
(a) can he provide details of:
(i) the country of manufacture;
(ii) the number of products ordered;
(iii) the cost per item unit; and
(iv) any other details about manufacture and/or cost, and
(b) how will these products enhance the operation of the Australian Border Force.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) Details:
(i) The promotional material was manufactured in Australia.
(ii) 800 units of 1.6mm thick outdoor aluminium sign panels (600 units of 450mm x 600mm, and 200 units of 400mm x 300mm) were produced.
(iii) The cost per item unit was $49.50 for the larger signs, and $42.90 (inc GST) for the smaller signs.
(iv) There are no further details relevant to the manufacture and/or cost of these items.
(b) On 1 July 2015, Border Watch became the newly integrated Department of Immigration and Border Protection's hotline for members of the public to report specious border activities. Due to the rebranding of the Border Watch program as a result of the integration of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, new promotional material was required.
The signs promote the Border Watch phone number and URL at appropriate remote and coastal locations around Australia so people can report suspicious border activities. Community and industry awareness of this program, and the resulting reports of suspicious activities, have directly supported Australian Border Force operations, and led to the detection and seizure of dangerous drugs or other prohibited imports such as illegal firearms.
Woolcott Research Pty Ltd: Tender
(Question No. 1581)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $28,380.00 tender to Woolcott Research Pty Ltd for 'Concept testing - brand development' (CN2857782),
(a) was this for the Australian Border Force (ABF),
(b) what was the outcome of this research, and
(c) how did this research influence the operation of the ABF.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The contract was for the Department, which included the Australian Border Force sub-brand and involved research into the colour schemes, graphics, use of fonts and taglines.
(b) The outcome of the research was the provision of a written draft and then final report which included:
the research instruments used
a summary of the research methodology
dates for when the fieldwork was conducted
summary of fieldwork statistics, weighting specifications
analysis and interpretation of research results and
recommendations about how to apply research results to conduct effective information activities.
(c) The research outcome related to the decision about the creation of the Department's colour schemes, graphics, use of fonts and taglines only, therefore did not influence the operations of the ABF. The research supported the design concept that was applied across the Department and ABF from 1 July.
Bureau of Meteorology Services
(Question No. 1583)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
What action is the Government taking to mitigate the risk to electrical supply systems posed by geomagnetically induced currents caused by geomagnetic storms produced by coronal mass ejections from the Sun, in particular, the serious damage that such events may cause to transformers, resulting in long term interruptions to electrical supplies.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology ' s Space Weather Services is working with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), Transmission and Distribution Network Service Providers and Australian universities to better understand and mitigate the impacts of space weather on the national energy market. This has included installing specific Geomagnetic Induced Currents monitoring equipment in the High Voltage network, modelling the response of the network to space weather storms, improving severe space weather forecasts for severe events, and implementation of mitigating procedures through consultation with the Power System Security Working Group coordinated by AEMO. This work is on-going and regularly revised and assessed to provide optimal strategies and procedures.
In the event that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ' s Space Weather Service forecasts a severe space weather disturbance, AEMO will issue a market notice and invoke power system guidelines specific for the management of geomagnetic storms to ensure the resilience of the power system.
Bureau of Meteorology Services
(Question No. 1584)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
Will the Government take steps to mitigate the effect of geomagnetic storms on the electrical power systems as advanced nations, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and members of the European Union, have done.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The tabled response to Questions in Writing No. 1583 answers this question.
Bureau of Meteorology Services
(Question No. 1585)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
Has he taken steps to ensure that a survey of the power industry has been or will be conducted to determine if individual transmission system operators have implemented strategies for minimising the effect of geomagnetically induced currents on their equipment; if not, why not.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The tabled response to Questions in Writing No. 1583 answers this question.
Bureau of Meteorology Services
(Question No. 1586)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
Has he taken steps to ensure that a survey of existing transformers has been or will be conducted to determine the level of geomagnetically induced currents generated during routine geomagnetic storm events; if not why not.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The tabled response to Questions in Writing No. 1583 answers this question.
Bureau of Meteorology Services
(Question No. 1587)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
Has he taken steps to ensure that there has been or will be the establishment of a research and development program, preferably within the CSIRO, to (a) evaluate the absolute cost and cost effectiveness of various geomagnetically induced currents protective measures, and (b) disseminate the results as information updates into an ongoing dialogue among various stakeholders in the electric power community; if not, why not.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The tabled response to Questions in Writing No. 1583 answers this question.
Bureau of Meteorology Services
(Question No. 1588)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
Is it a fact that he is proposing to cease or reduce the ionospheric prediction service/space weather services of the Bureau of Meteorology, or offer it as a commercial service; if so, (a) why, and (b) is this in line with the recommendations of the Review of the Bureau of Meteorology's Space Weather Service (September 2014) that the Bureau of Meteorology should retain the space weather services.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The 2011 "Review of the Bureau of Meteorology's capacity to respond to future extreme weather and natural disaster events and to provide seasonal forecasting services" proposed a suite of priority actions for early attention, and additional options for further consideration. Option 20 for further consideration was "Cease or reduce the Ionospheric Prediction Service or offer it as a commercial service". An independent review of the Ionospheric Prediction Service, now known as the Space Weather Service, was undertaken. The review concluded that there is a requirement for continuation of the Space Weather Service as a core function of the Bureau. The Bureau's management response supported these findings. The full management response can be found on the Bureau's website.
Canberra Southern Cross Club Ltd
(Question No. 1594)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $17,000.00 tender to Canberra Southern Cross Club Ltd for ''hotels and lodging and meeting facilities'' (CN3293383) (a) why was this lodging and room hire sought, and (b) who attended the event, including (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Australian Public Service Commission that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The lodging and room hire was sought for an event held on 7 October 2015. The event was an Executive level Leadership Network panel discussion. A panel of Deputy Secretaries discussed the topic 'Large Scale Integration: are we learning from the past?'
The Purchase Order raised for $17,000.00 was for projected costs. Actual costs were $8,142.90.
(b) A total of 340 employees from various departments and agencies attended this event.
Canberra Southern Cross Club Ltd
(Question No. 1595)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $17,000.00 tender to Canberra Southern Cross Club Ltd for "Hotels and lodging and meeting facilities" (CN3293382) (a) why was this lodging and room hire sought, and (b) who attended the event, including (i) Ministerial staff, and (ii) departmental staff.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Australian Public Service Commission that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The lodging and room hire was sought for an Australian Public Service Leadership development event held on 3 December 2015. The Purchase Order raised for $17,000.00 was for projected costs. Actual costs may be less pending final invoice.
(b) Approximately 500 staff from various departments and agencies attended this event. No Ministerial staff registered to attend.
Carroll and Richardson Flag World Pty Ltd: Tender
(Question No. 1596)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $15,950.00 tender to Carroll and Richardson Flag World Pty Ltd for 'Australian Border Force Flags' (CN3293339),
(a) what number of products were ordered,
(b) what was the cost per item unit,
(c) was the Australian Border Force Flags (ABF) logo printed on these flags; if not, what was,
(d) where and how will these flags be used, and
(e) how do these flags enhance the operations of the ABF.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection ordered 300 woven ABF flags, based on the Australian flag and in accordance with the ABF related Amendments of the Customs Regulations2015.
The ABF flag is used on various ABF assets, including vessels, aircraft and buildings. The Regulations state that the ensign (flag) for a Commonwealth ship in the service of the Australian Border Force is the 'Australian National Flag with the words "AUSTRALIAN BORDER FORCE" in bold, white letters between the Commonwealth Star and the lower part of the Southern Cross.'
There are no logos printed on these flags. The words "AUSTRALIAN BORDER FORCE are printed onto an Australian flag, and a matching print overlay is added on the reverse so that the words appear correct on both sides.
By law, ABF vessels must display this flag, which indicates the vessel is performing border protection duties as directed by Government. The former Customs flag was prescribed for use on the former Australian Customs and Border Protection Service assets, including vessels of varying sizes (Bay Class, Cape Class, inshore small craft) and on aircraft, and was also used outside and inside buildings.
The GST exclusive cost per item varied in accordance with the size of the flag, ranging from $41.00 for the smallest to $59.00 for the largest.
Australian National University: Tender
(Question No. 1597)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of the $51,590.00 tender to the Australian National University for 'ADSRI (ANU) Conference # Afghan migration aspirations, movements, demography& integration' (CN3293337),
(a) how many
(i) Ministerial staff, and
(ii) departmental staff, attended the conference and associated events,
(b) what outcomes were achieved from their attendance, and
(c) what was the itemised budget for
(i) meals,
(ii) travel, and
(iii) other allowances.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The conference Afghan migration: aspirations, movements, demography & integration has not yet happened. It is not scheduled to occur until 23 and 24 March 2016.
Invitations and conference administration will be managed by Australian Demographic & Social Research Institute (ADSRI) at the Australian National University (ANU). The contract between my Department and the ANU, which provides some funding for the conference, does not stipulate the number of Ministerial or departmental staff required to attend. However, departmental staff and officers from other government agencies in areas of policy, research and strategic communications may attend sessions relevant to their work.
(b) This conference is not scheduled to occur until 23 and 24 March 2016.
(c) This conference will be held in Canberra. It is therefore expected that attendance costs for Canberra-based attendees will be minimal.
Paragon Printers: Tender
(Question No. 1598)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on
12 October 2015:
In respect of the $18,165.40 tender to Paragon Printers for 'Border Watch Merchandise' (CN3293324),
(a) can he provide details of:
(i) the country of manufacture,
(ii) the number of products ordered,
(iii) the cost per item unit, and
(iv) any other details about manufacture and/or cost, and
(b) what is the function of this merchandise.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) Details:
(i) The country of manufactured for each of the items ordered is as follows:
i. 2000 Border Watch Rulers: China
ii. 5000 Border Watch Pen: China
iii. 2500 Border Watch Mug: China
iv. 5000 Border Watch Drink bottle: Australia
v. 5000 Border Watch Fridge magnet: China
All items were printed in Australia.
(ii) 19,500 units were ordered (please see breakdown above)
(iii) The cost per item unit was as follows:
i. Border Watch Ruler: $1.20 (inc GST)
ii. Border Watch Pen: $0.85 (inc GST)
iii. Border Watch Mug: $4.39 (inc GST)
iv. Border Watch Drink bottle: $2.02 (inc GST)
v. Border Watch Fridge magnet: $0.28 (inc GST)
(iv) There are no further details relevant to the manufacture and/or cost of these items.
(b) On 1 July 2015, Border Watch became the newly integrated Department of Immigration and Border Protection's hotline for members of the public to report specious border activities. Due to the rebranding of the Border Watch program as a result of the integration of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, new promotional material was required.
The material promotes awareness of the Border Watch program, and provides its telephone number to provide a conduit for industry and the public to report suspicious border activities. Community and industry awareness of this program, and the resulting reports of suspicious activities, have directly supported Australian Border Force operations, and led to the detection and seizure of dangerous drugs or other prohibited imports such as illegal firearms.
Lost, Stolen or Misplaced Equipment
(Question No. 1618)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff in the office of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, and what goods were replaced.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Nil, see response to House of Representatives question in writing 1199.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Ministerial staff lost, stolen or misplaced equipment
(Question No. 1619)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In 2014-15, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of Ministerial staff in the office of the former Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and what goods were replaced.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
$192 – one data card.
Counter-Terrorism staff training costs for 2014-15
(Question No. 1630)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In 2014-15 in the office of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, (a) what sum was spent on training for Ministerial staff, (b) on what date(s), and at what location(s), did the training occur, and (c) what outcomes were achieved.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Nil, see response to House of Representatives question in writing 1303.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Ministerial staff training
(Question No. 1631)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In 2014-15 in the office of the former Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, (a) what sum was spent on training for Ministerial staff, (b) on what date(s), and at what location(s), did the training occur, and (c) what outcomes were achieved.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Information regarding Ministerial staff training costs are administered by the Department of Finance.
Counter-Terrorism: Media Events and Photo Opportunities
(Question No. 1634)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of ministerial costs for media events and photo opportunities in 2014-15 for the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, what (a) date was each event held, (b) location was each event held at, (c) sum was spent on each event, (d) announcement and/or issue did the event relate to, and (e) was the expenditure for.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
There were no costs incurred by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Counter-Terrorism Conferences
(Question No. 1639)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 12 October 2015:
Did the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism host any conferences in 2014-15; if so (a) on what date(s) did each conference occur, and at what location(s); (b) what total sum was spent on each conference, and of this, what sum was spent on (i) meals and accommodation, and what are the details; (ii) travel, and what are the details; and (iii) social events, and what are the details; and (c) what outcomes were achieved at each conference.
Mr Turnbull: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism did not host any conferences in 2014-15.
Counter-Terrorism: Catering and Hospitality Cost
(Question No. 1644)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 12 October 2015:
In respect of catering and hospitality by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism in 2014-15, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) for what functions was the catering and hospitality, (c) on what date(s) did each function occur, and at what location(s), and (d) for each function, what sum was spent on (i) meals, (ii) drinks, (iii) hospitality staff, and (iv) other costs.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
There were no costs incurred by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd: Tender
(Question No. 1654)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 13 October 2015:
In respect of the $533,000.00 tender to Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd (CN3293549) for Refurbishment of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Offices
(a) what offices is this for, and
(b) can the department provide an itemised schedule of works associated with the refurbishments.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
(a) The $533,000 tender to Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd was for the refurbishment of the ACBPS office at Melbourne Airport adjacent to International Departures Immigration Counters.
(b) The schedule of works for this project included construction and fit-out, that included:
a. Reconfiguring the existing space to create a dedicated baggage search and examination area;
b. Upgrading an existing interview room to comply with current standards;
c. Constructing a new interview/search room;
d. Constructing a room for technical examinations;
e. Constructing a new room for secure communications;
f. Upgrading the security to comply with current standards.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1663)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the change in scope to his department's portfolio on 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including
(a) signage,
(b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads,
(c) web design and IT services,
(d) vehicular signage and painting, and
(e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (d) (e) No costs of this nature are incurred by the Department.
(b) For the period 21 September to 15 October 2015, approximately
$880 (excluding GST) was spent on office requisites for the Prime Minister
and Portfolio Ministers.
(c) The Department spent $8,910 (excluding GST) on web design for the pm.gov.au website.
The Department provides IT services (including desktop, telephony, secure communications and IT support whilst travelling) to the Prime Minister and Portfolio Ministers as part of its normal course of business. Costs associated with providing these services are not itemised or recorded separately to those provided to the Department. An attempt to separately identify these costs would be an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
Minister for Women: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1664)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women becoming the Minister for Women on 21 September 2015, will his department and/or the Office for Women provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (but not limited to) (a) signage for the Office for Women, and the total number of offices that received new signage; (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads; (c) web design and IT services; (d) vehicular signage and painting; and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Not applicable - the Office for Women is a branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (the Department). It is located within the Department's main office in Barton, ACT and does not use separately branded signage.
(b) Not applicable - the Office for Women does not use any Ministry branded stationery. Changes to business cards issued to departmental officers were not required. The Minister's letterhead, when used by the Department on her behalf is generated via an electronic template, there are no direct costs associated with updating these templates.
(c) The only cost associated with updating the Minister's website was approximately five hours of an APS6 staff member's time, as part of their regular duties.
(d) Not applicable - the Office for Women does not maintain separate office space or branded vehicles.
(e) Not applicable.
Department of Treasury: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1666)
Mr Conroy asked the Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 15 October 2015
In respect of her appointment on 21 September 2015, will the department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The costs of transitioning new Ministers into the Treasury portfolio are part of standard costs that are absorbed into the Treasury budget. Treasury does not itemise these transition costs by individual line items.
Small Business: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1667)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Small Business, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of her appointment on 21 September 2015, will the department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The costs of transitioning new Ministers into the Treasury portfolio are part of standard costs that are absorbed into the Treasury budget. Treasury does not itemise these transition costs by individual line items.
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1668)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the name change from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to the Department of Agriculture on 18 September 2013, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Joyce: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Most costs associated with the 2013 departmental name change were managed as part of the department's normal business and costs were incurred at the time normal expenditure would have occurred; i.e. new leases, replacement vehicles, stationery and so on.
(a) $235 362 (excluding GST).
(b) to (e) These changes were made as part of the department's normal course of business.
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1671)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, in writing, on 15 October 2015.
In respect of the name change from the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport to the Ministry of Arts within the Attorney-General's portfolio on 18 September 2013, will the Minister provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
As the Ministry for the Arts was part of the Attorney-General's portfolio as at 18 September 2013, this question should be referred to the Attorney-General's Department for a response.
Department of Defence: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1675)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 15 October 2015,
To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence—In respect of the Minister's appointment on 21 September 2015, will the Minister's department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including:
(a) signage,
(b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads,
(c) web design and IT services,
(d) vehicular signage and painting, and
(e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) Nil;
(b) $970.82 for stationery, and $1,633.64 for business cards and letterheads;
(c) Nil;
(d) Nil; and
(e) Nil.
Department of Veterans' Affairs: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1676)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in writing, on 15 October 2015.
In respect of his appointment on 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
a) Not applicable
b) Not applicable
c) Details of IT services provided to Minister Robert's Office in respect to his appointment on
21 September are as follows:
Equipment |
Total Cost |
1 x Apple iPhone 5s 16GB |
$749.00 |
1 x Toshiba laptop |
$1,500.00 |
d) Not applicable
e) Not applicable
Department of the Environment: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1683)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to Department of the Environment on 18September 2013, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) $6,281.28
(b) It would require a significant diversion of resources to identify which business cards ordered after 18 September 2013 were as a result of the Department's name change. Letterheads are all electronic and there are no costs involved in making changes.
(c) $1,225.27
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
Department of the Environment: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1685)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the change his portfolio to remove water management, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Nil
(b) Nil
(c) $102,957.70. This includes costs associated with data transfer (including records, emails, shared drives), provisioning of external access for Department of Agriculture and Water Resources staff to the Department of the Environment network and changes required within the Financial System.
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
Department of the Environment: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1686)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of his appointment on 21 September 2015, will he provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Nil
(b) $7,963.55
(c) $11,667.34
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
Department of Health and Ageing: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No 1690)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to her department from the Department of Health and Ageing to the Department of Health on 18 September 2013, where it assumed the sports portfolio, will her department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
a) Changes to departmental signage was limited to the removal of the words 'and Ageing' from Directory Boards. With the exception of Brisbane ($957), Canberra ($3,852), Melbourne ($350) and Parramatta ($190), changes to signage were managed by another agency under a Memorandum of Understanding for the management of the department's properties.
b) New departmental envelopes were produced in January 2014 ($1,914 ex-GST) as existing supplies were exhausted. The name change to departmental business cards and to template letterheads was done internally as business as usual.
c) Any change was undertaken as business as usual.
d) Nil.
e) Any change was undertaken as business as usual.
Department of Social Services: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1692)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to the Department of Social Services on 18 September 2013, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing material, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The costs associated with the name change to Department of Social Services in relation to DSS building signage was $30,301.37 (GST inclusive).
(b) The costs associated with the name change to Department of Social Services in relation to stationery, including business cards and letterheads was $109,924.58 (GST inclusive).
(c) The costs associated with the name change to Department of Social Services in relation to web design and IT services was $47.85 (GST inclusive).
(d) There were no costs associated with the name change to Department of Social Services in relation to vehicular signage and painting.
(e) The costs associated with the name change to Department of Social Services in relation marketing material, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs:
Marketing materials were updated with the DSS logo and visual identity as new products were developed or updated.
As this was an ongoing business as usual process we are unable to provide itemised costs in relation to the production of marketing material resulting from the name change to the Department of Social Services.
Department of Social Services: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1693)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of his appointment of 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The Department has not incurred any costs for signage as a result of the appointment of the Minister for Social Services.
(b) The Department spent the following on stationery as a result of the appointment of the Minister for Social Services:
Item |
Amount |
$ Cost (GST Inclusive |
Ministerial staff business card design and production. |
7 orders of 500 cards |
$499.65 |
No other stationery (related to this appointment) has been produced to date.
(c) The Department has not incurred any costs on web design and IT services as a result of the appointment of the Minister for Social Services.
(d) The Department has not incurred any costs for vehicular signage and painting as a result of the appointment of the Minister for Social Services.
(e) The Department has not incurred any costs for the production of marketing materials as a result of the appointment of the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs.
Department of Human Services: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1694)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on :
In respect of his appointment on 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.Answer
Mr Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Nil.
(b) As at 6 November 2015, the Department of Human Services (the department) has spent $3,079.45 (including GST) on business cards and envelopes.
(c) Design and maintenance of the Ministerial website (mhs.gov.au) is managed by the department using business-as-usual staff resources at no additional expense.
The following ICT assets have been assigned to the Minister:
Item |
Quantity |
Unit Cost (Ex. GST) |
Ongoing Cost (Inc. GST) |
iPhone 6 |
1 |
$912 |
$10.00 p/m |
Toshiba z20 |
1 |
$1,625 |
$35.00 p/m |
(d) Not applicable. Vehicular signage and painting is not included as part of the Minister's Executive Vehicle Scheme arrangements.
(e) Nil.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1695)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on 18 September 2013, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including
(a) signage,
(b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads,
(c) web design and IT services,
(d) vehicular signage and painting, and
(e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
As at 15 October 2015, the costs were as follows:
(a) $59,010 for signage.
(b) Nil.
(c) Nil.
(d) Nil.
(e) $14,500 for promotional products.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Costs associated with appointment of Assistant Minister
(Question No. 1696)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the appointment of the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs on 21 September 2015, has the Minister's department incurred any costs as a result of this appointment; if so, will the department provide an itemised account of all associated costs including (but not limited to)
(a) signage
(b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads,
(c) web design and IT services,
(d) vehicular signage and painting, and
(e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
As at 15 October 2015, no costs have been incurred.
Department of Social Services: Costs associated with appointment of Assistant Minister
(Question No. 1698)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the appointment of the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs on 21 September 2015, has the Minister's department incurred any costs as a result of this appointment; if so, will the department provide an itemised account of all associated costs including (but not limited to) (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business card and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) Nil Costs
Department of Indusrty, Innovation and Science: Costs associated with name change
(Question No. 1699)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 13 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research to the Department of Industry on 18 September 2013, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to Question on Notice AI-74 from Additional Estimates 2013-14. To provide further detail would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Costs associated with amalgamating portfolios
(Question No. 1700)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 13 October 2015:
Will his department provide all costs associated with amalgamating the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism with the Industry portfolio on 18 September 2013.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
To provide this detail at this late a date would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Costs associated with name change
(Question No. 1701)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 13 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Industry to the Department of Industry and Science on 23 December 2014, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
To provide this detail at this late a date would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science: Costs associated with name change
(Question No. 1702)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 13 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Industry and Science to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science on 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to Question on Notice SI-111 from Supplementary Budget Estimates 2015-16.
Department of Industry, Innovatioin and Science: Costs associated with appointment of Minister
(Question No. 1703)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science on 13 October 2015:
In respect of his appointment on 21 September 2015, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The total rebranding costs as at 9 December 2015 are detailed in the below table. Logos and relevant IT changes were updated internally using departmental resources.
Rebranding type |
Cost $ (GST inclusive) |
Signage |
Nil |
Stationery (envelopes, business cards and with compliments slips) |
1,065 |
Web design and IT services |
N/A |
Vehicular signage and painting |
Nil |
Marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs |
N/A |
Total |
1,065 |
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Costs associated with change of scope
(Question No. 1704)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
In respect of the name change to his department from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on 18 September 2013, will his department provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery, including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) $19,670
(b) $15,491
(c) Nil
(d) Nil
(e) $1,709
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport
(Question No. 1705)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 15 October 2015:
Will his department provide all costs associated with abolishing the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport on 18 September 2013.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Incorporating the regional Australia, territories and local government functions of the former Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport into my Department produced a net saving to Government.
Department of Indusrty, Innovation and Science: Costs associated with appointment of Minister
(Question No. 1706)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia on 13 October 2015:
In respect of his appointment on 21 September 2015, will he provide an itemised account of all associated costs, including (a) signage, (b) stationery including business cards and letterheads, (c) web design and IT services, (d) vehicular signage and painting, and (e) marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The total rebranding costs as at 9 December 2015 are detailed in the below table. Logos and relevant IT changes were updated internally using departmental resources.
Rebranding type |
Cost $ (GST inclusive) |
Signage |
Nil |
Stationery (envelopes, business cards and with compliments slips) |
2,598 |
Web design and IT services |
N/A |
Vehicular signage and painting |
Nil |
Marketing materials, including logos, pamphlets, and audio-visual materials such as DVDs |
N/A |
Total |
2,598 |
High Speed Rail
(Question No. 1734)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on
15 October 2015:
Further to his answer to my question without notice on high speed rail (House Hansard , 24 February 2015, page 1094), did he receive a written response from each state that he wrote to; if so, (a) what commitment (if any) did each state make to his request for discussions, and (b) in light of the replies from the states, what action is the Government taking to progress the acquisition or reservation of the corridor.
Mr Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
1. All of the jurisdictions responded to the letter and agreed to work together on high speed rail (HSR) issues.
(a) Overall, jurisdictions are supportive of HSR and are willing to discuss the next steps, including corridor issues.
(b) The Department has coordinated a consultation process with jurisdictions on HSR issues. Officials have been working together to identify priority areas of the corridor, and are seeking to protect them through State and Territory planning mechanisms.
Chronic disease peak bodies: funding
(Question No. 1737)
Ms Hall asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 19 October 2015:
(1) What is the status of funding for chronic disease peak bodies previously funded under the Health System Capacity Development Fund. (2) Will chronic disease peak bodies continue to be funded beyond 31 December 2015.
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Chronic disease peak bodies funded under the Health System Capacity Development Fund have had the opportunity to apply for funding under the new Health Peak and Advisory Bodies programme. The Approach to Market for this programme was open between 18 July 2015 and 26 August 2015.
(2) The new Health Peak and Advisory Bodies Programme will fund national peak bodies across the health portfolio. The programme funds activities that support national secretariat functions, consultation with members on policy and programme matters, information sharing on health policy, and the provision of informed and impartial advice across all health sectors. Commencement of funding to successful Health Peak and Advisory Bodies Programme applicants will begin from 1 January 2016.
Kunduz, Afghanistan: Bombing of a hospital
(Question No. 1752)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 10 November 2015 —
In respect of the reported bombing of a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in October 2015, (a) can she provide information on the circumstances surrounding the incident, and (b) what representations has the Australian Government made to the United States Government about the incident.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) On 25 November, General Campbell, Commander of US forces and the Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, briefed media on the findings of the US investigation into the air strike on the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz in October.
The investigation determined the strike was the direct result of human error, compounded by systems and procedural failures. In his briefing, General Campbell advised he has acted on the recommendations to make immediate changes to ensure the lessons from this incident will be applied in the future. No ADF personnel were involved in the decision making around this air strike.
The Australian government publicly expressed its support of a thorough, effective and transparent investigation into this tragic and distressing incident.
(b) None.
Australia and New Zealand Trade You Tube Video
(Question No. 1753)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 November 2015:
In respect of her department's YouTube video about trade between Australia and New Zealand (posted on 29 October 2015), (a) what costs were incurred in making this film, and (b) how many views has it had on social media as at 10 November 2015.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Sports Diplomacy animation on YouTube video features trade, investment and tourism facts between Australia and New Zealand. It was released to coincide with Australia playing New Zealand in the recent Rugby Union World Cup final.
The Department incurred a cost of $99 USD for software. The production of the animation was undertaken within DFAT.
The video had 271 views as at 10 November 2015.
Sports Diplomacy Strategy 2015-18
(Question No. 1754)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 10 November 2015:
In respect of the Sports Diplomacy Strategy 2015-18, can she provide an itemised account of all costs including but not limited to, (a) research, (b) launch, including (i) catering, (ii) venue hire, (iii) travel, and (iv) accommodation, (c) celebrity endorsement, including (i) agent fees, (ii) travel, and (iii) accommodation, and (d) merchandise.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Research
No formal research was undertaken.
(b) Launch
Cost |
Value (GST Exc) |
Catering and venue hire |
$6,946.98 |
Invite design |
$1,270.00 |
Audio visual and sound |
$1,229.10 |
Banner Design |
$570.00 |
Banner Printing |
$600.00 |
Guest Speaker - Attendance, travel and accommodation |
$1,500.00 |
Total |
$12,116.08 |
(c) Celebrity Endorsement:
No celebrity or athlete was paid for their endorsement.
(d) Merchandise:
No merchandise has been produced.
Smartraveller
(Question No. 1757)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 10 November 2015 —
In respect of the upgrades to the Smartraveller website, (a) what sum was spent on web design services, and (b) what was the purpose of the upgrades.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
a) A total of $158,364.00 (GST inclusive) was spent on web design services.
b) The smartraveller.gov.au site was refreshed to make information on the site more concise and accessible to help keep Australian's safe when travelling overseas by providing them with up to date travel advice.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1760)
Mr Conroy asked the Prime Minister 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;
and 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 Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Yes. There were 12 internal fraud referrals. Following assessment, only one matter was allocated for further investigation.
(i) This related to the alleged provision of a false medical certificate.
(ii) This matter took place during the 2014-15 financial year.
(iii) The estimated loss to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) was two days' leave entitlement, equating to approximately $520.00.
(iv) At the conclusion of the investigation and on advice from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the matter did not proceed to prosecution but was referred to the conduct section for disciplinary action.
(b) Yes. PM&C received 57 referrals of fraud or serious non-compliance allegations relating to programme funding for assessment during 2014-15.
(i) Of these 57 referrals, 11 were referred for formal fraud investigation. These matters related to alleged misappropriation of programme funding and/or providing false information to PM&C.
(ii) The incidents reported occurred during the period 2008-2015.
(iii) The 11 external matters are still under investigation. The amount lost cannot be quantified until the investigations have been finalised.
(iv) PM&C has a robust approach to fraud control in accordance with Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework. The PM&C Fraud Control Plan is supported by regular fraud risk assessments and reviews of control activities to mitigate the risk of fraud occurring in the future. Fraud awareness training is available to staff and is being actively promoted. Further, lessons learned and systemic issues identified from the fraud assessment and investigation process are provided back to line areas to improve future practices.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1761)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, 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 Truss: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to Attachment A.
ATTACHMENT A
(a) internal source (b) external source |
(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 |
(iv) what is being done to prevent the fraud or theft occurring again. |
(a) Internal Source |
Employee provided fraudulent evidence in relation to paid leave. |
On three occasions between November 2014 and February 2015. |
Nil: Payment for three days leave was subsequently recovered from the employee.
|
The employee was found to have breached of the APS Code of Conduct and a sanction was applied under subsection 15(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. The Department has internal procedures for the appropriate use of leave and monitors use through regular reporting. |
(a) Internal Source |
While working oversees, the employee made a number of incorrect payments, and failed to make other payments. |
On a number of occasions between August 2013 until September 2014. |
Nil: An overpayment was subsequently recovered from the employee.
|
The employee was found to have breached the APS Code of Conduct and a sanction was applied under subsection 15(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. Employees are thoroughly briefed on relevant payments and procedures prior to working overseas. |
(b) External Source |
Departmental laptop stolen from employee's home. |
3 November 2014. |
$780.03 |
The Department has appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting mechanisms that meet the specific needs of the Department. |
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1762)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs 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.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) (i) and (ii) There was one instance of internal fraud concerning falsification of medical certificates. This occurred in November 2014.
(iii) $4,930. The department has instigated action to recover these funds.
(iv) and (b) (i) - (iv) Details are available in the Factsheet:Fraud Control and Anti-Corruption within DFAT, including the Australian aid program on the department's website (http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/fraud-control-within-the-australian-aid-program.aspx).
Department of industry, Innovation and Science: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1767)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, 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 of 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 Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The department investigated 52 reports of suspected fraud during 2014-15. 46 reports were received from external sources and six reports received from an internal source. Fourteen reports were transferred from the department as a result of Machinery of Government changes. Of the remaining fraud matters investigated, none resulted in a monetary cost to the department.
During 2014-15 the department investigated one matter relating to the suspected theft of a card scanner. The asset was not located and its loss is estimated to have cost the department $200.
The department has an effective governance structure for the administration of the fraud control arrangements, with clear reporting guidelines and mechanisms for reporting suspected fraud. There is an emphasis on prevention strategies in the management of fraud risk in the department.
Guidance on prevention, detection and reporting of fraud and theft is provided to all staff in the department.
Face-to-face fraud awareness training, security and fraud awareness online modules were made available to all staff and contractors throughout 2014-15. Where appropriate, fraud awareness presentations were also delivered to external service providers by subject-matter experts. As at 30 June 2015, 2,457 staff and contractors had completed face-to-face fraud awareness training. To prevent theft in the workplace staff are also regularly reminded of their requirement to adhere to the clear desk policy and to report security incidents and suspected fraud.
The department undertakes fraud risk assessments every two years and regularly assesses and monitors fraud risk. The department has a current Fraud Control Plan and Fraud Risk Assessment.
Department of Health: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1770)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Health, 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.
Ms Ley: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) In 2014-15 there were no proven instances of internal fraud or theft in the Department. (b) In 2014-15 there were no proven instances of external fraud or theft in the Department. (i) N/A (ii) N/A (iii) N/A (iv) During 2014-15, the Department implemented the whole-of-government fraud awareness eLearning package and continued to train staff in fraud awareness. An enterprise level fraud risk assessment was conducted to inform the update to the Department's Fraud and Corruption Control Plan. These measures are taken to prevent the occurrence of fraud across the Department. Security presentations are also provided throughout the year to keep staff informed about personal, property and information security.
Department of Defence: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1771)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, 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. We are referring to fraud or theft that has resulted in either a breach of conduct (internally, within the Department) or a misuse of departmental resources (externally, by a third party). Whilst we are interested in examples where this behaviour has been referred to the police, or is punishable under the crimes act, that is not the only information we are seeking.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) Yes.
(b) No.
(i), (ii) and (iii) There were 53 instances of internal fraud or theft detected in 2014-2015 within Defence for which a loss was determined.
The following table sets out: the category of offence detected; when the offence took place; and the loss that was determined.
Fraud or theft category |
Date offence took place |
Determined loss |
Defence Travel Card |
22/05/2014 |
3,183.5 |
Accommodation Entitlement |
18/01/2012 |
5,654 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
27/05/2014 |
225.00 |
Defence Travel Card |
20/07/2014 |
60.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
27/06/2014 |
398.00 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
14/08/2014 |
200.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
11/08/2014 |
33.60 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
18/07/2014 |
664.32 |
Rental Allowance |
10/01/2011 |
6,402.11 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
26/08/2014 |
250.00 |
Defence Travel Card |
10/08/2014 |
338.23 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
27/08/2014 |
26.35 |
Accommodation Entitlement |
13/03/2013 |
981.02 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
26/09/2014 |
4,134.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
10/09/2014 |
33.66 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
7/10/2014 |
1,800.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
23/05/2014 |
430.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
29/08/2014 |
450.00 |
Rental Allowance |
7/07/2014 |
7,250.00 |
Rental Allowance |
15/10/2014 |
1,879.11 |
Computers or IT Hardware |
14/10/2013 |
700.00 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
1/11/2014 |
1,750.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
4/07/2014 |
1,200.00 |
Travel Allowance - Non DTC |
14/09/2011 |
4,643.3 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
18/11/2014 |
50.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
20/05/2013 |
3,780.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
24/11/2014 |
250.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
27/11/2014 |
300.00 |
Defence Travel Card |
30/10/2014 |
2,970.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
25/11/2014 |
120.00 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
2/12/2014 |
99.00 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
9/12/2014 |
800.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
1/12/2013 |
1,568.73 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
16/01/2015 |
171.19 |
False Information |
1/10/2014 |
60.00 |
Allowance Other Not Specified |
3/09/2012 |
194.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
18/11/2014 |
400.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
29/01/2015 |
100.00 |
Rental Allowance |
17/12/2014 |
1,408.15 |
Rental Allowance |
25/10/2014 |
1,700.71 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
18/02/2015 |
940.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
18/02/2015 |
300.00 |
Rental Allowance |
23/09/2011 |
2,933.38 |
Defence Travel Card |
15/01/2015 |
1,448.91 |
Intellectual Property |
9/03/2015 |
109.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
16/02/2015 |
50.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
27/03/2015 |
413.80 |
General Property - Includes Cash |
10/04/2015 |
795.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
24/04/2015 |
450.00 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
12/05/2015 |
1,914.18 |
Military Equipment or Kit |
2/06/2015 |
100.00 |
Total loss to Defence |
|
69,278.70 |
(iv) In accordance with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework, Defence continues to meet its mandatory obligations to prevent, detect and respond to fraud. Defence has a comprehensive fraud control program established through the Defence Fraud Control Plan No.11. Underpinning the plan is:
A rigorous fraud risk assessment program specifically focusing on enterprise wide fraud risks.
A review of all finalised fraud cases to treat any areas of specific or systemic vulnerability.
The operation of a Public Interest Disclosure Scheme.
The engagement with Defence industry to raise ethics and fraud awareness.
A mandatory Ethics and Fraud Awareness Program for all personnel.
An Annual Data Analytics Work Program to detect fraud, anomalies, waste and potential misuse of resources.
A fraud control testing program informed by an intelligence led risk assessment capability.
The thorough investigation of all fraud allegations by qualified investigators.
The recovery of Commonwealth debts associated with fraudulent activity.
The continuing secondment of a Defence official to the Australian Federal Police Fraud and Anti Corruption unit.
The mandatory centralised recording of fraud investigation information into the Defence Policing and Security Management System.
Department of Veterans' Affairs: Instances of fraud or theft
(Question No. 1772)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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 Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Question |
Answer |
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? |
There were 263 new cases detected or received from various internal or external sources in 2014-15. Note: Not all cases received in 2014-15 have been finalised and not all will be substantiated or result in a cost to the department. |
if so, (i) what fraud or theft took place? |
There were 308 cases of suspected fraud finalised in 2014-15. Of these: 277 related to entitlements fraud 31 related to health benefits fraud |
(ii) when did the fraud or theft take place? |
This is variable. Fraudulent activity may span many years. |
(iii) what was the cost to the department of this fraud or theft? |
DVA identified $882,036.35 in confirmed fraud and non-compliance overpayments in 2014-15. |
(iv) what is being done to prevent the fraud or theft occurring again?
|
As part of the investigation of individual cases of suspected fraud, DVA may identify process or operational improvements to help prevent future cases of fraud or non- compliance. The nature of these improvements is dependent on the circumstances of the individual case. |