The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30 made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Turnbull government is getting on with the job and this is yet another example of the Turnbull government doing exactly that in this 45th Parliament after the election earlier this year. This bill, the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, forms part of the government's commitment to help transition the Australian economy from the mining investment boom to a more diversified economy, with broader based growth, and long-term strength and resilience.
The crowd-sourced equity funding bill I am introducing today achieves this goal by opening up new and innovative sources of capital funding for Australian small businesses and start-ups—a key driver of growth and jobs.
This government is not just talking about creating jobs and growth—we are talking to industry and taking real action to achieve these outcomes.
This measure is another example of the Australian government providing economic leadership through this period of transition, and backing Australians and backing Australian small businesses to back themselves.
The government is supporting Australia's economic transition by placing jobs and growth at the centre of our policy agenda, which in turn enables us to address our social and fiscal challenges.
As a government, we are focusing on the policies that will boost investor confidence, drive productivity gains in our economy, particularly through innovation, and open up new markets through our successful and ambitious trade agenda.
This bill being introduced today is an important part of this forward-looking agenda.
The bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to facilitate crowd-sourced equity funding in Australia, and implements the commitment made by the government in the 2015-16 budget as part of our Growing Jobs and Small Business package.
Crowd-sourced equity funding is a truly innovative concept. It allows businesses to obtain capital from a large number of investors through an online platform, where each investor typically contributes a small amount of money in return for an equity stake in the business.
In 2014, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee completed a review into the crowd-sourced equity funding landscape in Australia. It found this form of fundraising is costly and impractical for businesses, largely due to regulatory impediments in the Corporations Act that imposed an excessive compliance cost for start-ups and other small businesses.
The government acknowledges the detailed recommendations put forward by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. This bill responds to these recommendations by establishing a legislative framework for crowd-sourced equity funding that addresses the regulatory impediments identified in the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee's report.
The framework the government is introducing will enable public companies to issue equity through crowdsourcing with reduced disclosure compared to what is required under a full public equity fundraising.
For newly registered or converted public companies that meet the assets and turnover tests, the framework provides concessions from some corporate governance and reporting obligations. To ensure investors are able to make informed investment decisions and not be exposed to excessive potential losses, the framework sets out the minimum disclosure requirements and a $10,000 per issuer per 12-month period investor cap for retail investors. It also sets out a number of obligations that intermediaries will need to perform as part of providing a crowdfunding service.
It is not the government's role to pick winners, but it is the government's responsibility to create the right economic conditions for small businesses and start-ups to grow and thrive and take steps to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers. The framework set out in this bill will enable Australia's innovative early-stage businesses to obtain the capital they need to turn good ideas into commercial successes and the jobs that will follow.
Crowd-sourced equity funding will offer a new funding option for small businesses. It complements other forms of crowdfunding already available, such as rewards-based crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending, to offer start-ups greater choice in how they fund and finance their operations.
It will serve as both a complement and a source of competition to more traditional funding options for small businesses, including bank debt products.
The government has consulted extensively on the design of the proposed crowd-sourced equity funding framework. The model detailed in this bill strikes the right balance between supporting investment, reducing compliance costs and maintaining an appropriate level of investor protection.
In December 2014, the government released a discussion paper that raised options for a potential crowd-sourced equity funding model for Australia. The government consulted on this over early 2015, including through two industry round tables. Over 40 submissions were received as part of this process.
The government also took into consideration the recommendations of the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee review, including specific requirements for businesses, intermediaries and investors. International experience was also taken into account, in particular the framework in New Zealand.
The consultation process indicated broad stakeholder support for a regulatory framework for crowd-sourced equity funding. Many stakeholders also recommended adoption of a framework quickly, noting that delays would risk impeding the development of the crowdfunding market in Australia. A number of crowdfunding platform operators also indicated interest in becoming licensed to provide platform services in Australia.
In August 2015, the government released an outline of its proposed framework for public companies, reflecting many of the key aspects of New Zealand's approach, such as licensing and other gatekeeper obligations for intermediaries, reduced disclosure for companies raising funds, and a liberal approach to retail investor caps along with investor protections such as risk warnings for investors. Following a four-week consultation period, over 50 submissions were received.
The government undertook targeted consultation on the draft legislation prior to its introduction into parliament, making a number of improvements to the draft legislation on the basis of this feedback.
The government has also consulted with state and territory governments, which have agreed to these amendments to the Corporations Act and consequential amendments to the ASIC Act, in accordance with the Corporations Agreement 2002.
I would like to thank all of the stakeholders who participated in these consultations over the past two years. It is important that the regulatory framework for crowd-sourced equity funding operates effectively in order to maximise the benefit to businesses, intermediaries and investors. Stakeholder feedback has assisted with the development of a framework that achieves this. I would now like to turn to the provisions of this bill.
Schedule 1 to this bill inserts a new part into chapter 6D of the Corporations Act. This sets out the various elements that comprise the crowd-sourced equity funding framework.
Australia's crowd-sourced equity funding regime will allow eligible companies to fundraise up to $5 million per year from the crowd. The ability to raise such amounts will enable entrepreneurs of innovative, early-stage businesses in Australia to obtain the capital they need to turn good ideas into commercial successes.
To ensure the regime is appropriately targeted, companies will be required to meet turnover and assets tests before they are eligible to fundraise under this part. The threshold is set at $25 million. This will enable a broad range of companies to make use of crowd-sourced equity funding and provide investors with a wider range of investment opportunities. As the market develops, the ongoing appropriateness of these thresholds can be reviewed.
Under the framework, public companies will be eligible to use crowd-sourced equity funding. Following a consultation paper on proprietary company funding options released in 2015, the government is continuing to consult on extending the regime to proprietary companies, which are generally prohibited from offering shares to the general public. I have instructed Treasury to continue developing a framework for proprietary companies as a priority and would expect that an extension of the framework will be introduced through subsequent legislation in the near future.
In the meantime, this bill provides proprietary companies that wish to raise funds from the crowd access to the option to convert to a public company and receive exemptions from some of the more costly governance and reporting requirements for up to five years.
For small business people, time spent on regulatory compliance is time not spent working to ensure the success of their business. Businesses wishing to access crowd-sourced equity funding must at this stage be public companies. However, the government is conscious that the demands involved in transitioning to a public company structure, and complying with the corporate governance and reporting obligations, can be onerous, particularly for the amount of funds that an early-stage business would typically seek.
Schedule 2 to this bill sets out a number of concessions for newly registered or converted public companies that have restructured in order to access crowd-sourced equity funding. Provided a company undertakes crowd-sourced equity fundraising within 12 months of registering as a public company, it is eligible for exemptions of up to five years from requirements to:
hold an annual general meeting;
have annual reports audited if it has raised less than $1 million from crowd-sourced equity funding; and
provide its annual reports to investors, other than by publishing it on its website.
Further, companies fundraising under this framework will be able to offer equity securities to retail investors with lower disclosure than currently required. This will improve access to crowd-sourced equity funding for small businesses and start-ups as a full disclosure document can be costly and time consuming to prepare.
The government recognises that reduced disclosure may also diminish investors' confidence about their capacity to make informed decisions about an offer. The government proposes to set out disclosure requirements in the regulations that will ensure that investors have access to the key facts about the company, its structure and the fundraising. Investors will also be able to interact directly with the company to ask questions relating to an offer, and the company will be able to respond to any questions.
The government has listened to stakeholders on how to best balance the fundraising needs of businesses and investor protection. The framework in this bill permits retail investors to invest up to $10,000 per issuer per 12-month period, allowing investors the opportunity to make substantial investments in a product, while also seeking to mitigate the size of their exposure. This bill also provides a regulation-making power to amend this amount as the market develops. Retail investors will not be limited in the total amount of investment in crowd-sourced equity funding they can undertake, allowing them to diversify their investments. Investors will also be protected in the form of cooling-off rights for a period of 48 hours after making an investment.
The final element of this bill I would like to highlight is the importance of intermediaries to the operation of an equity crowdfunding market. As a gatekeeper, intermediaries provide an important quality assurance role, and in recognition of this intermediaries will be required to hold an Australian financial services licence.
Requiring intermediaries to be licenced provides issuers and investors alike with confidence in the integrity of the intermediary and their capacity to carry out the obligations of operating a crowd-sourced equity funding platform. The framework sets out certain obligations that intermediaries will need to perform, including the requirement to conduct checks on issuers before listing their offer.
Ongoing responsibility for issuing licences and monitoring the operation of the framework set out in this bill will sit with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. To support this, ASIC was provided with $7.8 million in funding through the 2015-16 budget.
This bill also makes amendments to chapter 7 of the Corporations Act to ensure the Australian market licensing regime can, in the future, be tailored to intermediaries operating crowd-sourced funding platforms. Schedule 3 to this bill provides the minister with the power to exempt certain market operators, including intermediaries, from specific obligations under the Australian market licensing regime. This will enable the government to further reduce the compliance burden for operators of emerging and specialised markets, such as the crowdfunding market, as it matures. These amendments commence on the date this bill receives royal assent.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. The government proposes to make regulations to support the operation of the measures in this bill.
The crowd-sourced equity funding framework will take effect six months from the date the bill receives royal assent.
This package will help foster innovative economic activity, unlocking new sources of funding.
Introducing this bill today delivers on the government's budget commitment.
It also delivers on the government's commitment to back small and start-up businesses to help the Australian economy transition from the mining and investment boom to a more resilient and diversified economy that delivers jobs and growth to all Australians.
I also want to place on record my appreciation on the work done on this matter by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services and our predecessors in our respective roles, including the minister at the table, the former Treasurer, as well as the former Minister for Small Business, Mr Billson, who was a keen advocate of these measures.
This has been an initiative of this coalition government that we hold very dear in supporting small and start-up businesses to realise their aspirations by accessing the funding that can turn their vision into a reality and support the economic activity, investment, jobs and livelihoods that are absolutely necessary to see Australia continue to thrive and grow in what is a very difficult economic climate globally.
It is yet another example of this government, the Turnbull government, getting on with the job in the 45th Parliament, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:47): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the efficiency of the hazardous waste permit scheme and to ensure it is fully cost recovered.
The permit scheme regulates the import and export of hazardous waste to ensure it is disposed of appropriately. Appropriate disposal is important so that people and the environment are not exposed to hazardous waste and are therefore protected from its harmful effects. The permit scheme implements Australia's obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.
The amendment bill introduces a modest set of efficiency reforms that focus on removing duplicative and unnecessary permit processes, thereby reducing delays and costs to business and government. The reforms have been designed to ensure that the standard of environmental and human protection provided by the Hazardous Waste Act remains high.
Currently, the government only recovers approximately 30 per cent of the costs it incurs in administering the permit scheme.
Several amendments to the Hazardous Waste Act, as well as the imposition of a flat-rate levy on permit applications under a new levy bill, are required to implement full cost recovery.
These cost-recovery reforms ensure that those who use the permit scheme pay for its administration, rather than the community.
The cost-recovery reforms may also help discourage the generation of hazardous waste and encourage the establishment of domestic disposal facilities.
Together, the efficiency and cost-recovery reforms in the bills represent an important step in the modernisation of the Hazardous Waste Act and its permitting scheme. I commend the bill to the House
Debate adjourned.
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Levy Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure the hazardous waste permit scheme can be fully cost recovered. The Bill introduces a flat rate levy on permit applications.
These amendments support the cost recovery amendments introduced in the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Export and Imports) Amendment Bill 2016.
Debate adjourned.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Ley.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (09:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016 amends the National Health Act 1953 to support the efficient operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
The PBS has been providing affordable access to medicines for Australians for over 60 years and is rightly respected for the high quality, cost-effective services it delivers. In the past year, over 291 million PBS prescriptions have been dispensed through almost 5,900 PBS approved suppliers, including community pharmacies and hospitals, and over $10.8 billion has been paid in tax-payer funded subsidies for those medicines.
For the PBS to maintain its ability to support an increasing number and range of services, it is essential that it embraces change and new technologies. The legislative changes being proposed today are part of a process of renewal for the rules and systems that underpin it.
This bill proposes amendments which will support the PBS in three different ways. Specifically, the changes will improve efficiency across the entire scheme by:
allowing for computer decision-making for administrative processes to make the prescribing of 'authority required' scripts more efficient for doctors;
reducing red tape for pharmacies in the aftermath of disasters such as fire or flood;
ensuring that concessional entitlements work correctly until the last day of a person's life.
Use of computer programs for administrative actions and decision-making
The first of the amendments provides the opportunity for the PBS to take a major leap forward in its use of technology. The new provisions support the use of computers for fully automated processing of administrative decisions.
The functions that could be automated include any function for which the decision-making power is held by the Minister for Health, the Secretary of the Department of Health, or the Chief Executive Medicare.
The advantages of using automated processing to determine whether an incoming application, request, or claim meets certain criteria are many. Computer programs handle complex algorithms with ease, are available whenever required, are not subject to bias, and respond instantaneously.
Automated processing reduces errors, increases accountability and generates easily auditable transaction records. Users can be confident that decisions are uniform and fair.
Substitute decision for computer decisions
However, as a safeguard, the amendments also provide for the person who holds responsibility for a function, or their delegate, to make a decision personally or make a substitute decision to replace the computer decision, if required. This is important to ensure that if a computer program is not operating correctly or has taken an action that is different from the decision that would have been made by the responsible person, that action can be over ruled and replaced without the need for formal review under administrative law. Appeals for computer decisions and substitute decisions
An added protection is that where merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is currently available for a PBS decision, this will continue to apply regardless of whether the decision has been made by a computer or a person or has been substituted by a person.
Use of computer decision-making
The first administrative functions to transition to computer decision-making are the assessment of payments to pharmacies for dispensing PBS medicines and the processing of requests from prescribers for approval to write certain prescriptions.
Online PBS claims processing
Since 2004, PBS Online has provided real-time connectivity between pharmacies and the Department of Human Services. This interaction allows patient entitlements, prescription details and special authorities to be validated and the claim payment to be assessed during the dispensing process.
Computerised decision-making will enable the claims computer system to match payment assessments against a pharmacy's certification of supply and take the administrative actions that would otherwise be taken by the Chief Executive Medicare.
Online PBS prescribing authorities and approvals
For prescribers, computerised decision-making will mean that requests to prescribe 'authority-required' PBS medicines will be able to be processed online via prescribing software.
At present, most prescribers contact the Department of Human Services by telephone or in writing for approval by a government officer.
When requesting authority prescriptions for their patients, prescribers are asked a number of questions by the Department of Human Services in order to confirm patient eligibility.
The questions are based on the restriction that has been recommended by PBAC and approved by the minister as part of the listing of medicines on the PBS.
The questions can vary from checking appropriate age, sex and weight of the patient to more complex queries such as the result of the patient's last platelet count or whether the requested medication will be used in conjunction with another medication or as a monotherapy.
The telephone approval system has been an ongoing concern for doctors for many years. It is one of the health processes most often nominated for red tape reduction.
In 2015-16, the Department of Human Services received 6.8 million requests for prescribing approvals by telephone and post.
Because the approval number must be included on the prescription, telephone requests are made during the patient consultation. The average time taken per call is one minute and 27 seconds.
With the introduction of the Online PBS Authorities system, the majority of telephone requests will be able to go online. For requests not suitable for online processing, the prescriber will be able to speak to a person. For complex therapies, most requests will still need to be in writing, at least for the time being. As online capability expands, more complex requests will be handled online.
The development of online transactions for authority approvals has involved many contributors. These include medical software providers, medical and pharmacy organisations, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the Department of Human Services. I acknowledge their skill and hard work in delivering this project.
Supply of PBS medicines at alternative premises following a disaster
The second group of amendments in the bill will reduce administrative requirements for PBS pharmacies following a disaster.
The current legislative provisions for supplying PBS medicines at other premises reflect that life does not always go to plan and that pharmacies, like any other business, can find themselves caught up in catastrophes and events beyond their control.
In the aftermath of a disaster, the ability for a pharmacy to resume operating without delay can be important not only to the business but to the recovery of the community and to individuals who may have lost possessions, including medicines.
Operation of pharmacy location rules
Since 1990, the ability for a pharmacist to obtain approval to supply PBS medicines has been subject to pharmacy location rules. Their purpose is to ensure that access to PBS medicines is available via a suitable geographic spread of PBS-approved pharmacies, including in rural and remote regions of Australia.
The operation of the location rules is being considered separately as part of the review of pharmacy remuneration and regulation led by Professor Stephen King. The changes in this bill are not related to the review.
The location rules also include limits on how frequently and how far a PBS pharmacy can move from its current site. This helps to keep pharmacies connected to their local areas and communities.
However, for exceptional events some flexibility is required. Refusing to allow a pharmacy to move to other premises could make an already difficult situation worse and would not be in the interests of the local community. Current provisions for supply at other premises
Under the current legislation, a PBS-approved pharmacist can supply PBS medicines from other premises prior to obtaining PBS approval. Claims are paid at 90 per cent of the full amount until approval for the other premises is obtained. The current provisions allow a pharmacist to set up quickly at another site in an emergency and supply PBS medicines while the approval process for the new location is being sorted out.
Because a PBS approval number is tied to specific premises and cannot be transferred, obtaining PBS approval for the new site involves submitting a relocation application to the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority, even if the move is only temporary.
The application must contain full documentation, including evidence of legal right to occupy, council approval, public access, and distance measurements from other pharmacies. In addition, it must contain evidence of the exceptional circumstances or event.
In a disaster situation, preparing an application of this kind can be onerous. The pharmacy proprietor may need to recover in conditions where local government services and other businesses are also disrupted. It may be weeks before the required information can be compiled. This compounds the losses for the pharmacy as the flat 10 per cent reduction on payments for PBS claims continues until the approval is in place. The lost PBS subsidies cannot be recovered later.
Moving back to the original pharmacy means repeating the process in reverse. Overall, two full applications and two new PBS approval numbers are involved. For each new approval number, dispensing labels and pharmacy stationery need to be reprinted and a new public key infrastructure software certification is required for claiming.
The process carries high administrative overheads in a stressful situation and for what is usually a temporary move.
Another problem with the current arrangements is that although they are intended to be used in exceptional circumstances, experience has shown that this is not always the case.
Instead, the provisions are sometimes used where a PBS pharmacy is relocating for any reason. In these situations, supply of PBS medicines commences at the unapproved premises while the approved pharmacy is still operating. PBS claims are made from the approved pharmacy at the full rate, and from the unapproved premises at the 90 per cent rate, using the same PBS approval number. This continues until an application for PBS approval at the new site is successful, which may take several months. Use of a PBS approval number at two sites simultaneously in this way is contrary to the policy intention of the current law.
New provisions for supply at alternative premises following disaster
The proposed amendments will improve arrangements for PBS pharmacies genuinely affected by disaster. The changes will allow an affected pharmacy's PBS approval number to be used to supply PBS medicines at alternative premises in substantially the same locality for up to six months until either supply resumes at the original pharmacy or a new PBS approval number is obtained for a different site.
PBS claims will be paid at the full rate, not at 90 per cent, while an approved pharmacy is operating from alternative premises after a disaster.
The amendments make it explicit that the new provisions apply only for disaster or exceptional circumstances, only when the PBS approved pharmacy cannot operate, and only for one alternative premise at a time.
The pharmacist will be required to provide information to the secretary of the Department of Health regarding the disaster or event, the reasons the approved pharmacy is beyond use, and the nature and location of the alternative premises. The secretary will be responsible for determining whether exceptional circumstances and locality requirements are met and for granting permission for up to six months. A permission can be extended for an additional period via a similar process if clean-up or repairs take longer than expected.
What does or does not constitute disaster or exceptional circumstances, what is or is not substantially the same locality, and the kinds of documents or evidence required in an application can be set out in legislative instruments, if necessary.
Benefits for pharmacies affected by disaster
The average number of pharmacies affected by disaster annually is usually around three. The number in the past year has been higher, seven in total. One was due to storm damage and six due to fire.
The new provisions will reduce administrative effort, time and costs for pharmacists and support continuity of access to PBS medicines for the communities they serve. The simplified requirements will allow a forced temporary move to be handled accordingly, rather than be treated as two separate full-scale relocations. Payment of PBS claims at the full rate will reduce unnecessary losses to pharmacy businesses.
Repeal of current 'other premises' provisions
The amendments also repeal entirely the current provisions regarding supply of PBS medicines at other premises prior to PBS approval.
This will mean that the only situation in which it is legal to supply PBS medicines at alternative premises is when the approved pharmacy cannot operate due to disaster or exceptional circumstances, and only for as long as necessary due to the disaster.
The repeal of the current provisions will also provide clarity that supply of PBS medicines must not occur at or from an approved pharmacy and other premises, under the same approval number, concurrently, in any circumstances.
Where current arrangements are being used inappropriately to relocate an approved pharmacy or to supply PBS medicines via a pharmacy which is not PBS-approved, transitional arrangements will allow a maximum of six months for a PBS approval to be obtained, or for supply at, or via, the unapproved pharmacy to cease.
Payment of PBS concessiona l entitlements on date of death
The third change in the bill is a technical correction relating to concessional entitlements.
Health policy has always been that concessional entitlements apply for PBS medicines obtained on the day of a person's death. Under social security legislation, where eligibility is decided, concessional entitlements cease on the day prior to death. This timing is to allow the payment of other social services benefits to apply from the date of death.
To account for this difference, claims for PBS prescriptions supplied for a concessional beneficiary on the day they die need to be adjusted. Since streamlined processing of claims was introduced in April 2015, this adjustment no longer occurs.
The proposed amendments modify the definitions of concessional beneficiary and dependant for PBS purposes to ensure that PBS entitlements apply until midnight on the day a concessional beneficiary or a dependant dies.
Over 146 million PBS prescriptions were supplied for concessional beneficiaries last year. Of these, less than a thousand were supplied on the date of death. For these prescriptions, there is a shortfall in the payment to the pharmacist equal to the difference between the general patient co-payment and the concessional co-payment. This is currently a difference of $32.10 per prescription. The amount that would be owing across all PBS pharmacies is estimated to be accruing at around $2,000 a month.
Retrospective commencement of the amendments from 1 April 2015 provides for back payment of outstanding amounts on prescriptions since then.
There is no change to PBS costs as PBS policy and funding has always provided for subsidy of these prescriptions. There is no change to the operation of other social services entitlements.
I acknowledge the patience of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and its members in relation to these outstanding payments. I trust that this technical change will assist in resolving the situation as soon as possible.
Summary and close
The changes proposed in this bill will deliver efficiencies that will improve the operation of the PBS. I am confident they will be welcomed by PBS users.
The ability to use computerised decision-making for PBS processes reflects the government's commitment to e-government and to using digital health services to improve health outcomes for Australians.
For pharmacists, the changes will reduce payment times and administrative red tape.
For prescribers and patients, online prescribing approvals will return precious minutes lost to telephone calls back to consultation time.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (10:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
I am pleased to present a bill which will make the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) digitally ready in a legal sense, in line with the government's broad digital transformation agenda.
DVA is undertaking veteran-centric reform to significantly improve services for veterans and their families by re-engineering DVA business processes.
In anticipation of planned business and ICT reforms that will reduce claims processing times and automate and streamline existing processes, amendment is required to provide a sound legislative basis for computerised decision-making.
This bill also proposes some amendments to information-sharing provisions, as well as making two minor technical amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act that were intended to be made as part of the Statute Update Act 2016, but which were overlooked.
Computerised decision-making (s chedule 1)
In the context of veteran-centric reform, these provisions would enable the secretary of DVA to arrange for computer programs to:
make decisions and determinations,
exercise powers or comply with obligations, or
do anything else related to making decisions and determinations, or exercising powers or complying with obligations.
The last point is very important with respect to automating parts of DVA's business and improving outcomes for clients. For example, where a particular provision requires notice of a decision to be given, this new computerised decision-making provision will enable the computer program to both make the decision and send the notice.
The proposed computerised decision-making provisions are modelled on section 87 of the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011.
Information sharing (schedule 2)
Schedule 2 contains two types of information-sharing provisions:
1. public interest disclosures, and
2. information sharing under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Act 1988, subject to it being enacted.
Public interest disclosure
In relation to the proposed public interest disclosure provision, this would enable the secretary of DVA to disclose information about a particular case or class of cases where the secretary certifies that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.
The Privacy Act 1988 legitimately limits the circumstances surrounding the handling and disclosure of a person's personal information, as set out in the Australian Privacy Principles. The purpose of the public interest disclosure provision is to put beyond doubt that the secretary may, in certain limited circumstances, release information about a case or class of cases.
The public interest disclosure provisions are modelled on paragraph 208(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1999, which have been operating for the last 16 years. These are powers that have been available to the minister for human services since 1999 and have proven to work well.
In deciding whether to make a public interest disclosure, the secretary of DVA must follow rules set by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and there are limits about disclosing personal information, which could result in the secretary committing an offence. These ministerial rules will be modelled on the rules currently in place for the Department of Human Services. I have begun consulting with the shadow minister on how they can best apply to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and I thank her for her cooperation in that regard.
Examples of the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the secretary of DVA to disclose information about a case or class of cases include where there is a threat to life, health or welfare, for the enforcement of laws, in relation to proceeds of crime orders, mistakes of fact, research and statistical analysis, APS code of conduct investigations, misinformation in the community and provider inappropriate practices.
Because this is the first time this department has been given these powers, five safeguards have been incorporated to ensure that they are exercised appropriately. They are that:
the Minister for Veterans' Affairs sets the rules for how the secretary exercises the powers
only the Minister for Veterans' Affairs can set these rules
only the secretary can exercise the powers
before disclosing any information, the secretary must notify the person in writing, give the person a reasonable opportunity to make written comments on the proposed disclosure, and the secretary must consider these comments, and
if the secretary fails to comply with the requirements I before disclosing personal information, they will commit an offence that is punishable by a fine of 60 penalty units.
Information sharing between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence
The information-sharing provisions under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Act 1988, subject to it being enacted, are necessary to overcome an anomaly that currently exists between the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
The anomaly is that the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission is unable to provide the same sort of information to the Secretary of the Department of Defence or the Chief of the Defence Force under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 about current serving members as it is able to under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.
It is important that the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force are able to receive the same sort of information about all serving members, particularly in the context of monitoring occupational health and safety or for monitoring the cost to the Commonwealth of a service injury or a service disease.
The amendments would achieve this by aligning information-sharing provisions under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Act 1988 with those in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.
Technical amendments ( s chedule 3)
The purpose of the Statute Update Act 2016 is to update provisions in acts to take account of changes to drafting precedents and practices. In particular, that act updates references to penalties expressed as a number of dollars with penalties expressed as a number of penalty units. Such changes enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.
The two technical amendments replace references to specific dollar amounts in penalties under the Veterans' Entitlements Act with references to penalty units, which is the current Commonwealth drafting practice. There are no substantive changes to the law—this is a technical amendment only.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I am very pleased to be introducing this bill, which provides an important plank for the foundation of veteran-centric reform in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Television and Radio Licence Fees) Bill 2016
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016
Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill 2016
Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Customs Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2016
Customs Tariff Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2016
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Report
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:17): As the Chair of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the report from the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests concerning an application from Mr Mercurius Goldstein for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives, November 2016.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
The report read as follows—
Response by Mr Mercurius Goldstein to remarks made by the Deputy Prime Minister
The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, made a reference to me, in the House on 18 April 2016, which adversely affected my reputation.
I did not so vote as the Member for New England inferred in his reference to me by name in the House. As I was not a member of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers' Association, but was their guest at a meeting of their members, I did not assume to myself any voting rights at the meeting. Any such vote or abstention by me would be moot as I was not a member with voting rights at the meeting in question.
As the vote of members was taken, I was seated on an elevated stage before an audience of some 100 or so persons gathered, most if not all of whom would have been able to see that I did not raise my hand at any time during the vote, neither for nor against the motion.
Economics Committee
Report
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:18): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Review of the four major banks: first report, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr COLEMAN: by leave—I am pleased to present the first report of the House Standing Committee on Economics as part of its review into the major banks.
In September, the Treasurer referred this inquiry to the committee, asking us to review the operations of the major banks. In October, we held public hearings with the chief executives of the banks over three days in Canberra. We now present our first report.
Banking regulation should have two key goals: promoting financial stability and achieving strong outcomes for consumers. Financial stability is critical—but so is ensuring that consumers get a fair deal.
Due to Australia's strong regulatory framework and the banking sector's management of financial risk, no Australian bank regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has failed. We need only consider the economic impact of bank failures in other nations to understand the importance of a stable banking system.
However, while Australia's major banks have remained financially strong, they have let Australians down too frequently in too many other ways. There have been too many failures and too many scandals. In this report we focus on practical, concrete recommendations that will give consumers better outcomes from the banking system.
The committee makes 10 recommendations in this report. Each is designed to make the banking system work more effectively for the Australian community.
First, we should establish a banking tribunal. A banking tribunal will be a one-stop shop that allows individuals and small businesses to gain recompense when they are wronged by a bank. The current system does not provide consumers with a simple means of redress, often leading to individuals having to pursue banks through the courts. This must change. A banking tribunal will provide practical relief to people with legitimate cases against banks. We should establish a banking tribunal, and it should be in place by July next year.
Second, we need to shine a bright and public light on senior executives when banks breach the trust of consumers. The inquiry hearings and the written answers to the committee's questions provided by the banks made it clear that senior executives are not suffering the consequences of poor consumer treatment. Simply put, when customers are continually let down, bank executives should be fired. This is not occurring at present. The committee recommends that banks are required to publicly name senior executives who are responsible for divisions that breach bank licence conditions, and also publicly state the consequences for those executives. Breach reports are not currently made public: they should be, and the responsible senior executives should be named, along with the personal consequences for those executives. If a senior executive is not terminated following a breach of a licence condition, the bank should be required to justify this decision. In the committee's view this reporting regime is likely to lead to a substantial change in the level of focus of senior executives on these matters, to the substantial benefit of consumers.
Thirdly, the committee recommends that ongoing monitoring of competition in the banking sector be introduced. In the committee's view, it is remarkable that no entity is currently focused on making recommendations to government about how to improve competition in the banking sector. This is particularly the case given the fact that the chairmen of both the ACCC and ASIC have stated that there are clear problems with competition in the banking sector. While the ACCC looks for breaches of competition law, it acknowledged to our committee that it does not monitor the banking sector to address systemic competition issues. Effectively, the ACCC says, 'There is a systemic problem with competition in the banking sector, but we are not doing anything about it.' This must change. The committee recommends that the ACCC, or the proposed Australian Council for Competition Policy, be required to continually monitor competition in the banking sector, and provide recommendations to the Treasurer on regulatory measures to improve competition every six months. While the upcoming Productivity Commission review into financial sector competition is welcome, it is critical in the committee's view that a permanent, ongoing function is established in this area.
Fourthly, we need to force banks to open up access to data to give consumers more power. Through access to their own customer data using open APIs, consumers will be able to get better deals from banks. Banks and smaller financial services providers will be on an equal footing in offering products to consumers, as they will be able to look at the same data. This means more and better competition in the provision of banking services. Banks should be forced to open up access to data by July 2018. This process must be backed by the force of law, with substantial penalties for noncompliance. While the banks say that they are open to allowing open access to consumer data, this process is unlikely to be positive for their business models, as it will make public data which is currently proprietary to them. As a consequence, the regulator must be vigilant in ensuring the compliance of banks with this process. Motherhood statements about supporting open data are meaningless—what is required is open APIs by July 2018. The UK are already on this path—we must join them.
Our fifth recommendation is that the government monitor the impact of the New Payments Platform over 2017, and if necessary introduce further measures to make it easier for consumers to switch accounts. The current government account-switching service is an abject failure, as indicated by evidence provided to our committee about the tiny numbers of people who are using it. The committee is optimistic that the combination of the New Payments Platform and open data will have a substantial positive impact on the ability of consumers to easily switch accounts. However, government should assess the situation after the introduction of the national payments platform to see if more needs to be done.
Our sixth recommendation is about making it easier for Australian start-ups to get into the banking sector. More bank start-ups means more competition, and better deals for consumers. During our inquiry, the committee became aware of a troubling fact: in the last decade, only one Australian entity has obtained a licence to become a bank. While some subsidiaries of foreign banks have been licensed, our local start-up sector in banking is effectively non-existent. This is deeply concerning. While some of the reasons for this relate to commercial matters, the committee believes that it is probable that regulatory matters play a role also. APRA has done an outstanding job in protecting the stability of the Australian banking sector. But it is impossible to say that our regulatory system has encouraged domestic competitors to enter the banking market: it has not. The committee believes that APRA's rules related to the establishment of a new bank may be unduly restrictive, and should be thoroughly reviewed by government. Rules such as the requirement that no one entity owns 15 per cent of a bank may be having the impact of stopping new start-ups from setting up, as typically one investor will own more than 15 per cent of an early stage company. In addition, the committee believes that APRA should improve the transparency of its processes in assessing banking licence applications.
The committee's seventh and eighth recommendations relate to putting more steel into internal bank processes that are meant to protect consumers. There are two main ways in which banks should protect consumers before a dispute becomes public: firstly, they should have good internal risk management systems, so that problems are identified before they hurt customers; and, secondly, they should have good internal dispute resolution processes, so that when a dispute does arise, customers get a fair and speedy outcome.
It is very clear from the many examples of serious problems affecting bank customers that both risk management and internal dispute resolution processes are not working as they should. To address this, the committee recommends two actions. Firstly, banks should be required to commission a full, independent external review of their risk management systems. These reviews should be completed by July 2017, with the reports provided to ASIC. ASIC should then monitor the implementation of the recommendations of these reviews. Better risk management will mean less problems for customers.
The rules related to internal risk management processes are clearly flawed in the committee's view. At present, there are broad principles provided by ASIC about how internal dispute resolution processes should be run by banks. But ASIC does not have any power to find out how banks are actually running their internal dispute resolution schemes. So nobody is really clear on what the banks are doing in this important area. What we do know is that these schemes are far from perfect, given the number of matters that are not resolved by internal processes, and end up in the courts or other bodies. In the committee's view it is clear that ASIC should be given the power to require the banks to report to it on what they are doing in their internal dispute resolution schemes. This increased scrutiny should mean more rigorous internal processes at banks, and better outcomes for consumers.
Our ninth and 10th recommendations relate to wealth management. One of the notable features of the inquiry was the high proportion of customer issues within the banks that relate to wealth management. All of the banks have poorly treated substantial numbers of customers in wealth management. This is completely unacceptable. To help address this issue, the committee recommends that ASIC publish an annual public report on the wealth management industry, which details misconduct and names the companies and individuals involved. The report should also contain details of the consequences for those companies and individuals. At present, these matters are not made public, and public scrutiny is likely to lead to better behaviour by banks.
The committee's 10th and final recommendation is that whenever a financial advisor has breached their legal obligations, their employer is required to inform that advisor's clients. This often does not occur at present. In the committee's view it is clear that clients should have a right to know when their advisor has been guilty of misconduct.
The recommendations contained in this report will substantially improve the banking sector if implemented. Banks must be much more accountable to consumers than they are today, and these recommendations will achieve that goal.
This first report will be added to in the future. The committee has an ongoing mandate to review the banking sector, and will continue to work on the issues in this report and other matters. To that end, the committee expects to hold further public hearings with the major bank chief executives in the first quarter of next year, soon after its next public hearing with the Reserve Bank on 24 February.
I would like to thank the committee, and the committee secretariat led by Stephen Boyd, for all of their work on this report.
The recommendations contained in this report will substantially benefit bank customers if implemented. The committee looks forward to the government's response to these recommendations.
I commend the report to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:30): by leave—I speak on behalf of the Labor members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics in saying that we reject the government members' report and we have submitted a dissenting Labor members' report. Australians need and Australians want a royal commission into the banking and financial services industry. This report of the government members represents the Turnbull government siding with the big banks. Labor has been listening to the victims, the Australian people, who are fed up with the actions of the banks and want something done about it. They want greater scrutiny of banking practices, they want the bank rip-offs to stop, they want the bank culture to change and they want redress for victims when they fall foul of this insidious banking culture. The Australian people want a royal commission into the banking industry. It is the Australian people that have been calling for the royal commission, and Labor is listening, and this is reflected in the Labor members' single recommendation as a result of this inquiry, which calls on the government to immediately establish a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector in Australia.
The Labor members' report goes in some detail into our views of the purposes of this House of Representatives economics committee inquiry, and it is our view that this inquiry into the banking industry through the House of Representatives economics committee has been established for one purpose and one purpose alone by this government—and that is to avoid a royal commission into the banks in this country. Mr Brian Hartzer, the CEO of Westpac, admitted in his evidence to the committee that this issue was discussed with the Treasurer prior to the committee even being established. Under questioning from me, Mr Hartzer admitted that the issue of a royal commission and this inquiry was discussed with the Treasurer's office prior to the inquiry even being established. It is evident that the banks were aware of the dates that this committee would be hearing the evidence in Canberra before the Labor members were even appointed to the committee. When the Labor members tried to alter the dates of the committee hearings here in Canberra to take evidence from the banks to allow more time for preparation for the committee and a greater amount of time to question the banks, the Liberal members used their majority on the committee to deny that request. It is evident that the dates for this banking inquiry were predetermined with the banks before the committee was even established. Again, this represents the government doing the bidding of the big banks in this country.
The Labor members' report goes into some detail of the banks' unethical behaviour and customer rip-offs. It is not just the Labor Party that holds a dim view of what has been going on in the banking industry over recent years. No doubt the Australian people have a similar view, but even the new Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, admitted recently during a hearing of the House of Representatives economics committee that he holds such a view. When asked about the culture of the big banks at the moment, his reply was:
I cannot help but agree with you that there have been too many examples of poor outcomes, particularly in the wealth management and insurance industries. That is disappointing to us all.
That is the view of the Reserve Bank governor in Australia, the principal economist appointed to oversee the stability of our monetary system and our banking system. When the CEOs of the banks appeared before us, they all began with apologies. They admitted that all the scandals and all of the rip-offs represented their organisations doing the wrong thing by the Australian public.
We then look at some of the actions of ASIC and the number of planners and financial advisers who have been banned because of poor behaviour in the banking industry. The Commonwealth Bank has had 20 advisers banned, the NAB has had 21 planners banned, the ANZ has had three planners banned and Westpac have had two planners banned. We talk about the Commonwealth Bank's open advice review, which led to a thorough review of all of the files and all of the clients who have been wronged by the Commonwealth Bank's financial planning arm and the fact that there are still many clients and former clients who remain unhappy with this process. We look at the scandals in CommInsure and the fact that ASIC has recently reviewed the life insurance market and found that, on average, there is a decline rate for life insurance claims of 16 per cent, with some organisations with average rates as high as 37 per cent. We look at the 2016 ASIC matters that have been inquired into by that organisation in respect of the banks.
We make some very detailed comments about the Reserve Bank cash rate and the fact that all of the bank executives gave evidence to the inquiry that the RBA cash rate was not the major determinant of the way in which they set their mortgage rates for customers. Yet a mere number of days after the bank executives had given this evidence to the House of Representatives economics committee, Greg Medcraft, Chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—himself a former banker—said in evidence to the House of Representatives economics committee and tabled a briefing note showing that bank funding costs 'completely tracked' the cash rate, which he said reflected the fact that '60 per cent or more of their funding comes from deposits which are based on the cash rate'. So there you have completely conflicting evidence from the bank executives and from the head of the regulatory body entrusted with the job of overseeing their operations. Is it any wonder that Australians are fed up with the actions of the banks? They are entitled to ask why there is little or no competition in this particular market in the banking and mortgage sector industry in Australia.
We then look at some of the bank structures and the poor outcomes that are incentivised in their organisations. I am speaking here of the cross-selling of products to customers, particularly insurance and credit products, when they may not be in the customer's best interests. We have all experienced this. You go into your local bank branch to do some banking and, no sooner have you mentioned your name to the teller, they are trying to sell you a credit card or they are trying to sell you some form of insurance. What most Australians would not know is that it is not the teller's fault, it is not the employee's fault; it is almost part of their job description. They are incentivised to try to cross-sell these products to their customers, and the incentives are in the form of bonuses that are reflected in their pay structures.
Although we have recently had the Future of Financial Advice reforms, which detail that, in such occurrences, the teller should always act in the best interests of the customer, FoFA does not apply to a lot of products that are being sold by these organisations, particularly credit products. Many of the representatives and employees will have sales targets that are linked to their pay. Most of the banks denied that this was a big issue with their employees. They said that they all operated what they call 'balanced scorecards' and that there are other factors like customer satisfaction, safety and other issues that go into the make-up of this balanced scorecard. But, when we look at all of the banks' so-called balanced scorecard approach, up to 30 per cent of that scorecard is made up of sales.
Sales typically appear to be the only issue that is discussed between the employee and their management when it comes to looking at that balanced scorecard. The National Australia Bank chief executive admitted that if an employee is not achieving their required sales target through that balanced scorecard approach then that may result in them being put on a performance improvement program and that may ultimately lead to them being dismissed for not meeting those targets. That is ingrained in our banking sector. All of them do it. Admittedly, Westpac appear to be moving away from it. They have admitted that they are moving away from this type of approach to setting pay in their latest round of enterprise bargaining negotiations. But that only applies to the Westpac core banking group; it does not apply to some of their subsidiaries like St George.
All of the banks operate what they call leader boards, which are basically league tables of where your branch sits within the network on how you are performing with sales. Many of the employees and union members that we spoke to told us that this is the key issue. 'Every day the managers are pushing. We've got to increase our position on the leader board by selling more products to customers.' That is the culture in which the banks are operating in Australia and that is why we are getting these poor outcomes for consumers.
The evidence that has been given also is that the current regulatory environment is simply inadequate to deal with some of these scandals and these issues. It is evident in the number of rip-offs and scandals that we have seen in the banking industry over recent years. It is evident in the fact that a number of whistleblowers said that when they took cases of unethical behaviour or wrong behaviour to their immediate managers, they were told, 'Don't worry about it; we'll have a look into it' and nothing was done.
In the Nguyen case in respect of the Commonwealth financial planning arm, it took the whistleblowers actually walking into the office of ASIC to get someone to take notice of what they were saying and get some action taken. These people had written emails, they had written faxes to ASIC and no-one took any notice. They had to blow their cover and walk into the ASIC offices and say, 'You need to have a look at this.' It led to ASIC having a look at it and, of course, this led to the Commonwealth financial planning scandal, which has already been the subject of two Senate inquiries in this place and led to, literally, thousands of files having to be reviewed, many people having their financial licences banned and many Australians losing quite a bit of money.
The other point that was made through these inquiries is, unfortunately, it takes an individual going to the media to get the banks to look at their issues and to get redress; indeed, for the financial services ombudsman to look at some of the issues. The other point is that the regulators have made the case that they are simply not properly funded to adequately oversee what is going on in the banking industry. The government members on the committee have made a number of recommendations in the report about additional responsibilities for FOS, for the ACCC, for ASIC and for APRA. They want them to take on additional responsibilities—it is evident in all of their recommendations. But there is no additional funding recommended at all by the government members in their report to ensure that the regulators have the wherewithal to undertake those additional inquiries. This is evident in the committee evidence that was received from Rod Sims, the chairman of the ACCC, who made the point that the agency cannot even look into competition in the banking industry of its own initiative. Here you have the competition regulator and they cannot even have a look at what is going on in terms of competition in the banking industry without a referral from the minister, from the government—and they have not received that. This is a clear difference in the way that the UK competition operator does its work. I then put the question to Mr Sims, 'If you did have that power, do you think you would be able to do that work?' He said, 'We're not properly funded to do that work anyway at the moment.' This is an issue that is not dealt with by the government members in their report.
We then go on to talk about the lack of executive accountability. Of all of the scandals, of all of the wrongdoing, of all of the victims in the banking sector over the course of the last few years, not one banking executive has lost their job or been punished because of what has gone on.
The greatest irony in all of this is that the person that blew the whistle on what was happening in CommInsure in the Commonwealth Bank, Dr Benjamin Koh, had to go to an executive independent member before he got any action on highlighting the fact that planners were asking him, as a doctor, to amend his medical reports to deny insurance claims. When he blew the whistle on this, he was investigated by the Commonwealth Bank and, ultimately, dismissed. He is now the subject of an unfair dismissal claim before the Fair Work Commission. It should not have to come to that.
No executive faced any accountability for the actions of the banks over the course of the last few years. We make the point that the UK Financial Conduct Authority has strengthened their accountability framework to make bank executives more accountable. All of this evidence highlights the point that we need a banking royal commission in Australia.
I want to finish with a couple of comments regarding the government members' recommendations. To try an avoid a royal commission, their principle recommendation is to establish a tribunal that replaces the Credit and Investments Ombudsman, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Let me tell you, this proposal is half-baked. It raises more questions than it answers. The member for Burt, in his questioning of the bank executives, was able to elicit from Brian Hartzer, the CEO of Westpac, that this issue of a tribunal was discussed between himself, the Treasurer and other banking executives at a meeting prior to the House of Representatives Economics Committee inquiry even being established. It is clear that the fix was on and that, prior to the inquiry even being established, this tribunal was discussed between banking representatives and members of the government as a way to avoid a royal commission in Australia.
Consumer advocates have raised deep concerns about the tribunal and many believe that it will result in worse outcomes for consumers. In their report, the government members are unable to state how this tribunal will work, particularly in its structure. Will it be based on a member-based mediation service, similar to the FOS, or will it be a statutory body with judicial qualities, like the SCT? Who will preside over it? What will be the jurisdictional limits? What will be the scope of matters to be dealt with? What procedures and rules will this tribunal operate by? Will the rules of evidence apply? What will be the role of lawyers? What will be the rights for appeal?
In all of these issues, the government members point to the fact that there are two further inquiries going on: the Ramsay inquiry into external dispute resolution and reviews being conducted by ASIC and FOS into FOS's small business operations. Their answer to those questions is to refer them to a further inquiry. Again, it is half-baked, it is underdone and it just reflects, in my view, that this whole process has been rushed. The whole process of this inquiry has been rushed, and these recommendations have been rushed, with one view in mind from the government: to avoid the establishment of a royal commission.
The Labor members and the Australian public are sick and tired of this avoidance of scrutiny of the actions of the banks. They want a royal commission. That is why Labor has recommended, in its submission to this inquiry, that a royal commission be established into the banking sector.
In conclusion, I thank the secretariat for their very hard work. I look forward to working with them in future to hold these banks to account.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:48): by leave—This report is the government turning a blind eye to bad behaviour in the big banks. As a member of the committee, I will not be agreeing with the majority recommendations. The Greens will be issuing a dissenting report.
The big four banks suckle at the government's teat and receive billions of dollars in implicit subsidies. That helps them make world-leading record profits because they know that, if they ever get into trouble, the government will step in and help them out. That gives them a leg up over their smaller competitors, and it gives them the kind of advantage that any struggling manufacturer in this country would love, or that a tourism operator dealing with the high Australian dollar at times would dream of—namely, to know that the government will underwrite you if you ever get into trouble—because it allows you to go to overseas markets and borrow much, much more cheaply.
The Reserve Bank has called this out; the IMF has called this out and said that something needs to be done about the fact that these big four banks are receiving billions of dollars in implicit subsidies. The big four banks came along to this inquiry and admitted it. They did not disagree with what the Reserve Bank or the IMF had said, and accepted that any other payments they might make probably do not offset the advantage they get because the government treats them as being too big to fail. But when we asked them at the inquiry, 'Would you be prepared to pay a bit for that advantage—to give something back to the public purse for the leg up that you, the big four, get?' they said no. They said, 'We are not prepared to do that.' They are leaners, not lifters.
It is time that this parliament stopped the cosy relationship that government has with the big four banks, where it is giving them a leg up at the expense of their smaller competitors and other businesses, and took some action. Any reading of the evidence from this inquiry suggests that the government is simply willing to turn a blind eye to the cosy subsidies that are given to the big four banks. And, sadly, there is absolutely nothing in the government members' report about that evidence given by the big four banks to us, which is one of the reasons that the Greens will be dissenting and suggesting that it is about time that we imposed a public support levy on the big four in recognition of this implicit public support they get that any other struggling business in this country would love.
But what was also alarming about the evidence that came to us during this committee hearing was: the exposure of the big banks to a growing and overpriced housing market in this country, because we learnt through this inquiry that the world-leading record profits that the banks are making are, in large part—and in growing part—dependent on writing more and more loans for more and more expensive housing. We heard some distressing evidence from some—there are claims, and these claims have been made on ABC television—that, in some instances, people's incomes have been inflated in order to allow for higher loans to be written.
There is something fundamentally wrong in the Australian financial apparatus when we have huge amounts of money going into unproductive areas—like increasing the cost of existing housing, which puts housing out of reach of many young people and everyday Australians—and only serves to increase the banks' bottom line. And that is what is happening. The money that is being lent out increasingly by the big four banks is not going into productive infrastructure. It is not helping businesses expand. It is going into pushing up the cost of housing. And what we learnt from the inquiry is that the banks' CEOs make money out of this. Their bonuses are, in part, dependent on growth and return on equity to their shareholders, which is, in turn, dependent on writing more and more loans for housing.
So there is a very worrying vicious circle developing in the Australian economy that means it is in no-one's interest to step back and say: 'Hang on—is it right that housing prices keep going up in this way; that record low interest rates fuel the growth in housing prices, fuel the profits for the banks and fuel the CEOs' salaries, all the time putting housing out of the reach of younger Australians?' But the government has turned a blind eye to that evidence in its report as well.
What we need—if you sat down and listened to the evidence that we have heard, including what the committee has heard in other evidence that has been given by other regulators—is to step in and stop this vicious circle. That means taking action on negative gearing, and it means taking action on the capital gains tax discount. But, sadly, that is missing from the government's report as well because the government knows that to take action on that might actually hurt the big banks, and heaven forbid that the government would want to do anything that involves standing up to the big banks.
Lastly, one of the key reasons for the two Senate inquiries that we have had and for the holding of this committee inquiry is what is called the question of vertical integration—the fact that banks in Australia also have big wealth management arms, and those wealth management arms make a lot of money out of selling financial products to people and then returning the profits back up the line to their owners, the banks. So, when they sell those products, the people selling them have a perceived conflict of interest because they have to make money to kick back up to the banks, their ultimate shareholders at the top, but they also have the customer coming to them, saying, 'Hang on, I would actually hope that what you're doing is in my best interest.' It is because of that perception of conflict that we have seen so many scandals where people have been sold products that ultimately get them into trouble that can mean that they lose their house.
We learnt throughout this hearing that no-one had lost their job as a result of this. It seems that there is a very, very clear pattern in the Australian banking industry. People get sold products that get them into trouble. Things go wrong, and it is everyday people who suffer. It is not the banks that expose it. That is left up to whistleblowers or journalists. It is then exposed. The CEO then fronts up, wrings their hands and says, 'I'm sorry; we made a mistake.' But, when you lift the lid on that so-called apology, you find that, back at the ranch, the same people are still in charge of the wealth management divisions within those banks. It seems that the problem all comes from the same source, an inherent conflict, and yet at this inquiry the big banks denied that there was any problem. They denied that there was any problem and suggested that the best answer was continued self-regulation.
The government's only solution is to say, 'Well, we'll put in a new body that might or might not have the powers to deal with problems after they arise,' instead of cutting off the problems before they even arise in the first place. We have an opportunity with this committee and in this parliament to stop the problems from occurring in the first place and to turn off the tap. We have the opportunity in this parliament to say: we need to look at whether vertical integration is the right way to go, or perhaps we need to look at the overseas models where they are breaking up the big banks and saying it is time to separate the deposit and lending arms from the wealth management arms because of that conflict and that perception of conflict. So we recommend in our dissenting report that there be a royal commission and that the royal commission look very, very closely at that question of vertical integration.
Lastly, can I say that it is clearer after this committee report than it was beforehand that a royal commission is needed, because, when committee members have all of 15 minutes to ask questions of bank CEOs, and the bank CEOs then disappear and come back again half a year later, that is nothing like the kind of forensic and intensive investigation that can be done by a body that is charged with getting to the bottom of this problem. We need to see beyond the veneer. We need to see beyond the apology that happens when a CEO fronts up to the committee. We need to look at the practices in the bank, because, if we are hearing that the same people are still in charge, that should send the alarm bells ringing for everyone. I think the decision to refer this matter to a committee rather than holding an investigation has backfired, because we will now have the opportunity every six months or every year, when these big bank CEOs front up, to be reminded that the same people are running the show and that nothing much has changed at all.
I want to thank the committee secretariat for all of their assistance, and I look forward to continuing as a member of this committee.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:59): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): 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 day of sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:59): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (11:00): I call the very patient member for Fisher.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:00): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. India has a substantial and growing need for energy to sustain its development and massive population growth. Along with coal, nuclear power plays a key role in that country. As the fastest growing major economy in the world, with gross domestic product growth rates consistently above seven per cent, India is hungry for energy to sustain its development.
To put India's need for energy in perspective: energy use has almost doubled since 2000. However, energy consumption per capita is still only around one-third of the global average, and some 240 million people have absolutely no access to electricity. Three-quarters of Indian energy demand is met by fossil fuels—a share that has been rising as households gradually move away from burning wood and other biomass for cooking. Coal is the backbone of the Indian power sector, accounting for over 70 per cent of generation, and is the most plentiful domestic fossil fuel resource.
By 2050, when India's population is expected to reach 1.7 billion people, India aims to provide 25 per cent of its energy from nuclear power. Completion of the nuclear reactors already under construction will add substantially to India's existing nuclear power generation capacity, but to fuel that capacity India will need up to 2,000 tonnes of uranium each year. At this very moment Australian uranium companies are actively pursuing the new market opportunities that India presents.
In 2008 the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is made up of almost 50 nations, recognised India's commitments to support international nonproliferation efforts, including continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing; separating its civil and military nuclear activities; and accepting International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. I am happy to say that, to its credit, India has met these commitments.
Successive Australian governments have worked to establish arrangements enabling uranium sales to India. This has been done despite the fact that India is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which therefore raises the possibility of a domestic legal challenge in Australia. The Australian government is satisfied that Australian uranium can be supplied to India within the current framework of our relevant treaty commitments. However, a possible Australian domestic legal challenge would be based on an assertion that Australia is not complying with its obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty—and possibly under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—because India's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency does not apply to all of its nuclear activities.
Australia has developed arrangements for nuclear cooperation with India in conformity with the framework agreed to by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008—a group that includes all of the major nuclear supplier countries and others that are active in nonproliferation efforts. The Nuclear Suppliers Group decision recognises that, because India is not a party to the nonproliferation treaty and because it has nuclear weapons, an India-specific model for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards needs to apply to nuclear material and related items transferred to India. Thus, the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in India apply to facilities designated by India for civil purposes, as well as to any imported nuclear material or nuclear related items, including uranium sourced and provided from Australia.
Australia has a hard-won, hard-fought reputation as a safe, reliable, cost-effective supplier of energy, and one of Australia's uranium miners is close to finalising an initial contract for supply to India. At least one other is pursuing commercial negotiations with Indian buyers. In light of this, the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016 will provide certainty to exporters by mitigating the risks that exports of uranium to India could be hindered by a domestic legal challenge. The bill clarifies that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken with due regard to Australia's obligations to nuclear safeguards under non-proliferation treaties if particular conditions are met. Those conditions relate to the application of nuclear safeguards under India's agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the requirements of the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change observed in 2014 that achieving deep cuts in greenhouse gases will require more intensive use of a range of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear energy. Nuclear power has the ability to make further significant contributions to the reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide. India aims to raise nuclear capacity from six gigawatts today to 63 gigawatts in 2032, an increase that is comparable to Australia's entire power generation capacity. As of this month, 30 countries worldwide are operating 450 nuclear reactors to generate electricity to power homes and businesses. Many of these nuclear power plants have been in operation for decades. However, the interesting statistic is that another 60 new nuclear plants are under construction in 15 countries to meet ever-increasing demand. Nuclear power plants provided 10.9 per cent of the world's electricity production in 2012. In 2015, 13 countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity.
For its part, India has 22 nuclear plants in operation and another five under construction. India's ambitious plans to expand nuclear energy generation are likely to make a valuable contribution to its pledged reductions in emissions intensity. Worldwide nuclear energy avoids, on average, the emissions of about 2½ billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Nuclear energy facilities do not emit criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases when they generate electricity, but certain processes used to build and fuel the plants do. This is true for all energy facilities.
Independent studies have assessed nuclear energy's life cycle emissions and found them to be comparable to wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric generation. According to the US Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration report, Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases 1997, the single most effective emissions control strategy for utilities is to increase nuclear generation.
In fact, in 2015 nuclear energy accounted for 62.4 per cent of US emission-free generation, and US nuclear energy facilities avoided 564 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2015 across the US. This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is released from nearly 128 million cars, which is more than all US passenger cars. Without the emission avoidances from nuclear generation required reductions in the US would increase by more than 50 per cent to achieve targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear energy also prevents approximately half a million tonnes of nitrogen oxide, which is equivalent to that released by 44 million cars.
I understand that the mention of nuclear energy sends shivers down some people's spines. I too grew up in a world that was living through the Cold War—that ideological game of international brinkmanship between the USA and the USSR and their surrogates. During those decades, nuclear war was a clear and present danger, existing not just in movies. The threat was real because nuclear energy seemingly meant nuclear weapons. But nuclear energy is not fundamentally objectionable. However, it must be managed carefully and with strict controls. Indeed, it has the ability to literally turn the lights on for hundreds of millions of people around the world and lead them out of poverty and into a modern, interconnected world. Nuclear power plants are the most reliable source of electricity, operating 24 hours seven days a week for 18 to 24 months before shutting down briefly to refuel.
Our uranium, used in Indian nuclear power plants, will provide reliable baseload power on demand. This bill reflects Australia's responsible decision to supply uranium to India on the basis of the Nuclear Suppliers Group decision and the safeguards that India and the International Atomic Energy Agency have put in place to implement it, as well as the conditions in the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. This bill will give legal and commercial certainty to uranium mining companies in Australia so that they can fulfil contracts to supply Australian uranium to India for civil use with confidence. It will ensure that newly established export streams and the jobs that they support will not be at risk from a successful Australian domestic legal challenge to a decision enabling uranium supply to India. Any future bilateral trade in other nuclear-related material, or items for civil use, will also be protected.
I am heartened by the stance of those opposite on this particular issue. It is a welcome thing to see—a more bipartisan approach, particularly on an issue like this that can significantly lead to reduced poverty in a country such as India. It is a pity that we cannot come together more often as we have on this particular bill.
Australian uranium will help to power India's growth and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. I commend the foreign minister for pursuing this issue to assist the Indian people. It will also ensure Australian businesses and workers are able to benefit.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): I thank the member. I also thank him for his patience, as was mentioned by the previous Deputy Speaker.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:14): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Fisher. I may have referred to him as the member for Fairfax recently in this chamber. I apologise to both the member for Fisher and the member for Fairfax—they are both here. I do not think either of them is offended, though.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms BUTLER: Both complimented! I agree that it is good to see bipartisanship on this bill, the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016. Of course, the agreement between India and Australia in relation to this particular energy source was something that was instigated by the Labor government when we were last in government. It is something that has been continued by the coalition government, and we are seeing some of the consequences of that in this bill today.
Australia greatly benefits from our relationship with India, which is the world's most populous democracy. Australia and India have a lot in common, going well beyond our love of cricket. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed this chamber he talked a lot about cricket but he also talked a lot about our shared values as democracies, as people with a mutual commitment to the rule of law, freedom and openness. It was a really wonderful day for this parliament to have the benefit of hearing from the Prime Minister of India in 2014.
In my own state of Queensland we are fortunate to have a big and diverse Indian community. I am very grateful to have been welcomed to a number of events conducted by the Federation of Indian Communities Queensland, under the leadership of Mr Palani Thevar, who is very well regarded and well respected. It has been a tough time for the Indian community in Queensland recently, with the tragic murder of a bus driver of Punjab descent when he was just going about his business; he was at work in Moorooka in Queensland. It was felt very keenly by the Indian community and it was felt very keenly by the community at large. There was a great outpouring of sympathy and condolence for the family and friends of that young man. But there are a lot more happy times than there are sad times when it comes to our relationship with the Indian community in my state of Queensland—and I know that to be the case across this country. That is because of the benefits that Australia gets from our engagement with India and with the Indian peoples. It enriches us culturally and on a very human level of friendship and understanding. Of course, it is also important economically. Trade with India is very important to our economy and must continue to increase. Two-way trade in goods and services between Australia and India totalled only around $18 billion in 2014-15. We can do better through continued work to strengthen the relationship between our two countries.
It has been around two years since the Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Agreement between the government of Australia and the government of India. In November 2015 the Australian government issued a response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report in relation to that agreement. The report had urged the Australian government to commit significant diplomatic resources to encouraging India to become a party to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to negotiate the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. The Australian government responded to that recommendation saying it has consistently supported diplomatic and other practical efforts to promote entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and negotiation of the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and will continue to do so.
I want to place on record my encouragement for both our nation and India to continue to work towards both of these aims. The world would very much welcome India becoming a signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Doing so would be a further act of leadership by India in relation to nonproliferation, building on India's existing record of leadership in relation to nonproliferation. It was the Prime Minister of India who in 1954 called for a standstill agreement on nuclear testing, and India has had its own unilateral moratorium on tests in place for almost 20 years. If India were to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it would be an important step towards having that treaty come into force. That would be of great benefit to the entire world.
In speaking to this bill I also want to acknowledge that the treaties committee report in relation to the agreement between Australia and India contained additional comments from Labor members. Those comments included a range of concerns. The work of the committee was very important. It was because of concerns raised both in the additional comments from Labor members and in the majority part of the report that the governments of Australia and India exchanged correspondence setting out their mutual understanding of the 'consent to enrichment' provisions of the agreement.
Another concern that Labor members raised was about tracking. The tracking arrangements are contained in the administrative arrangement to the nuclear cooperation agreement. That arrangement is said by the government to be confidential. I want to place on record the importance of the government ensuring that the tracking of nuclear materials occurs properly and reporting is rigorous. The Labor members of the committee also raised concerns about how Australia could be assured that international atomic energy safeguards would apply to nuclear material in India. This bill, if passed, will apply only where officials are satisfied that those safeguards will apply.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill notes that the preamble to the Australia-India agreement recalls commitments made by India to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs and to place its civilian programs under IAEA safeguards. It also notes that in paragraph 2 of article 7 of the agreement it is provided that IAEA safeguards shall apply to India's civilian facilities in accordance with the India IAEA agreement. I urge the Australian government to continue to ensure that those safeguards apply.
Officials engaged in the uranium trade should seek to be genuinely and properly satisfied that strong safeguards are continuously in place. Australia should continue to work within the international community and continue to press for non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament globally. I thank the many Australian officials and the many Australian members and senators from both sides of this parliament for all of their work that they have done in relation to non-proliferation and disarmament and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:21): This Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016, which enables uranium sales by Australia to India, with very strong safeguards in relation to the use of that uranium, is the culmination of what has been a near decade-long effort and mostly bipartisan, which—to support the words of those former members speaking in this chamber—is just fantastic to see.
It is nevertheless a very challenging issue we are dealing with. It was in 2006 that the then Prime Minister, John Howard, first signalled Australia was prepared to consider uranium sales to India subject to appropriate safeguards. Before that it was the policy of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party that uranium would not be sold to any country that was not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and India is among the four nuclear weapon states that are not signatories to that treaty. So the statement by the then PM represented a significant change to the joint approach that had been in place since the treaty was developed in the 1960s.
Today, notwithstanding the treaty, there are nine nuclear powers. The original five—United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China—plus now Israel, Pakistan, quite possibly North Korea, and India. A qualified success for the treaty, some might say, with a near doubling of the number of nuclear armed powers but the general view is that, but for the NPT, that number would be significantly higher as would be the obvious dangers of a much larger nuclear club.
What the world has been grappling with since the outbreak, apart from maintaining pressure to ensure there is no further widening of the club, is how to deal with those states that have broken away from it. Very significantly, under the terms of the treaty, none of those states can access uranium or nuclear technology from signatory states even for totally peaceful purposes unless they forsake those weapons, and of course none of them will do that, for a variety of reasons. No doubt the central reason is the one ascribed to North Korea in just the past few weeks by the outgoing United States Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who said of North Korea that they regarded their nuclear weapons program as 'their ticket to survival'. Not that I in any way condone their activities in North Korea. Having lived and worked in that region for many years, including spending time in both South and North Korea, you would find me one of the last people in this chamber to be making excuses for North Korea. Nevertheless, as James Clapper articulated, each state has had what were clearly irresistible forces at play in establishing their nuclear arsenals, and that would fit the Clapper description.
The history of Israel is very well known and the forces at work in other breakaway states are just as obvious. India has had border issues with China—an early nuclear power—for many, many hundreds of years, and any interest in parity with China would of course be logical. And it is no secret that India has had a particularly tense relationship with Pakistan, such that both now have nuclear arsenals. Each in large part, no doubt, was prompted by the other's access. The bottom line, however, is that these nuclear states will not forgo their nuclear status, and we have to find ways of dealing with that reality. In the case of India, to which this bill relates, there are two large, interlocked issues that have led many states, over the past decade or so, to accept that, as long as safeguards exist—outside of but linked to the nonproliferation treaty and the several regional treaties that interlock with it—and as long as they can be met, there is a pressing case to foster the peaceful use of nuclear power in that country.
India is a democracy, the largest in the world. It is the second most populous country on the planet, only marginally behind China's 1.35 billion people, with 1.25 billion people. I have worked in India. I have seen the scale of the moral challenge and the economic challenge that that country faces to bring literally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and, in the case of many, extreme poverty. Over 300 million Indians, around a quarter of the population—almost as many people as live in the United States—have zero access to electricity. This is a situation that obviously has to improve as quickly as is humanly possible, and India has embarked on that task with such tremendous determination that it now has the fastest economic growth—consistently over seven per cent—of all major economies, and that includes, notably, China.
A major part of the plan, a fundamental part of the plan, is to expand nuclear power from 5.3 gigawatts of capacity in 2014 to between 150 and 200 gigawatts by 2050. There is no real alternative to this growth in the nuclear share of its generation—expected to be from two to 25 per cent—any more than there is an alternative to continuing strong growth in the use of coal, such is the scale of the task and the viability of various alternative generation options. The suggestion from a prominent Green in the Senate that we should reject this bill because, by selling uranium to India, we would simply be contributing to an arms race with Pakistan and that instead we should be encouraging India to concentrate on solar power is just more of the garden-pixies stuff that we usually hear from our typical source of feel-good nonsense, the Greens.
India is in fact investing mightily in solar, but it will also have to continue to invest mightily in coal and in nuclear if it is to provide the people of India with what even the Greens take for granted: the ability to turn on some lights, to protect food in the fridge, to maybe run a washing machine or turn on a TV—things that we all take for granted but that would indeed be luxuries for so many millions and millions of people in India. In terms of coal, as disconcerting as it is to the Greens, the Adani coalmine in Queensland, which has had to run the gauntlet of Green opposition, will produce enough energy to power 100 million Indian homes for 90 years. Yes, India needs solar. It needs coal energy. And India needs nuclear energy.
It was the United States that first recognised the imperative of finding a way through the impasse created by the NPT and triggering a process that would ultimately enable India to tackle this enormous developmental task, thus taking us to where Australia is today with this bill.
In 2005, then President Bush said that, subject to the appropriate safeguards being in place, the United States wanted full cooperation with India on the peaceful use of nuclear power. That was followed in 2006 by a similarly qualified statement from John Howard. The Prime Minister was even more positive in 2007 that those safeguards could indeed be developed. But then Labor won office and overturned that position, and this remained the case for almost four years. To her qualified credit, Julia Gillard, in 2011, as Prime Minister and with support from the likes of the pragmatic Martin Ferguson—one of the very few good, sensible performers through that Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle—took a proposal for the reversal of that position to Labor's national conference and won a victory on the floor.
In a very real sense this was a catch-up measure; hence the qualification of credit due to Julia Gillard. It was clearly a catch-up measure because, during Kevin Rudd's first stint as Prime Minister in 2008, Australia did not stand in the way of a crucial step towards the deal that was subsequently struck. That step was approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group—the 30 countries, including Australia, that, between them, provide uranium, the fuel rods and the technical expertise that is required by the nuclear fuel cycle—of a set of principles that could clear the way for access by India, subject to India agreeing to safeguards to be overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
By enabling passage of that proposal to find a way through the NPT impasse via the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Kevin Rudd was of course being what Kevin Rudd always was: a politician who played both sides of the debate. Publicly he opposed the deal, because that is what the Labor Party wanted at the time, but he did not stand in the way of the process that set it in motion, the outcome of which was ultimately endorsed by his successor in 2011. Julia Gillard set in train the detailed negotiations to consolidate the safeguards agreed by the group, and that would have to be endorsed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, when he became Prime Minister in 2013 concluded that process and signed off in 2014 on the Australia-India bilateral agreement, which came into force last November. Indeed, what we have here now is a bipartisan effort.
What the US recognised, what the Nuclear Suppliers Group recognised and what John Howard, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott recognised was that access to uranium for the peaceful purpose of power generation was and is so important to India that refusal to find a way through would be improper on moral grounds, while also representing an unnecessary risk to wider relationships. It was such an important foundational issue for India that, if we had failed to meet their needs, we would not really expect to be regarded as true supporters and worthy partners in the massive task that they have underway in that country to bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And we have found a way to do it that preserves the spirit of NPT.
India has agreed to all the constraints that were demanded in terms of accountability—especially in relation to accountability in separating their civil nuclear program from their weapons program—to enable trade to begin. Its commitment to those constraints has been accepted by our own Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office in DFAT, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as by the United States, by all members of the Nuclear Supplier Group and, importantly, centrally, by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will have oversight.
The benefits from the passage of this bill will be shared—it is good for both countries. India gets from Australia a reliable, secure source of uranium to help it meet its targets for a massive increase in the availability of energy for domestic and industrial wealth-generating use, and Australia gets a very significant economic and jobs boost. The Minerals Council estimates that the workforce in the uranium industry could double, from 4,000 to 8,000 people, as we provide around 30 per cent of India's growing uranium needs—with most of these jobs, it should be noted, in regional areas.
In 2013, the Australian uranium industry earnt $623 million. In 2030, it could be $750 million and even double that, around $1.5 billion, depending on India's progress in meeting its targets. What is more, this engagement will inevitably open up many more opportunities of mutual benefit—in agriculture, mining, infrastructure and the already very important education sector, and areas like water technology, health, legal services, financial services and more. India is already a top 10 market for Australia. It is our 10th largest trading partner and our fifth largest export market, led by coal and education services.
The opportunity to expand this already significant trade into a much more complex, deeper, more fruitful relationship is linked to this bill. If we do not pass it, these opportunities will be diminished. With passage of this bill, India will be convinced that we are a worthy partner in the massive job that they have underway in that great country to bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and the benefits down the track could be greater than anything we now can imagine. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (11:36): I join the chorus of bipartisanship by rising to speak to the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016 and I thank all honourable members before me for their contributions to this debate. Five years ago, almost to the day, my predecessor, Stephen Smith, the former federal member for Perth, answered a question during question time in this place reflecting on the nature of Australia's relationship with the US. In the process of talking about the shift of the geostrategic centre of gravity to our region, he not only reflected on the rise of China but also emphasised the often unacknowledged rise of India. India is the world's second most populous country, its most populous democracy and is by now the third largest economy by purchasing power. A country of over one billion people has a lot of challenges, of which providing low-carbon energy is one.
The following year, Julia Gillard made a prime ministerial bilateral visit to India, as we know, and high up on the agenda was Australia's transfer of nuclear fuels to India to help them address their energy challenges. It is that context which frames this bill. Labor's platform forms the basis of our support for this bill. We recognise that India is an important strategic partner for Australia. We appreciate the great benefits to both nations that can result from strategic cooperation and we acknowledge the importance of India's application of strong safeguards regarding the safety of the trade in civil nuclear fuels consistent with international guidelines of nuclear supply.
Australia is subject to a number of international agreements regarding nuclear transfers, including the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We are a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and have been a member of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These memberships and treaties bring with them legal obligations and make miners in our country subject to strict compliance regimes around the safety and security of nuclear fuels. In that context, this bill clarifies that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken not to be inconsistent with Australia's international obligations around nuclear safeguards if particular conditions are met. The bill will provide legal certainty to resource companies, a matter which I will explore further in a few moments in relation to the importance of a stable and certain mining sector.
In relation to safeguards, what are the safeguards that enable Australian uranium to be exported to India? There are many, but the key principles—at least the way I see them—are as follows. Firstly, the key elements of these agreements include India's agreement to separate its civil and military nuclear programs and facilities. This is as self-explanatory as it is sensible. Secondly, India has agreed that its civil nuclear facilities will be subject to external safeguards and IAEA inspections. Thirdly, Australia and India have agreed that the uranium exported from our country will only be used for peaceful purposes consistent with the objectives of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or for any other military purpose. These safeguards are upheld by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, and that framework, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, framework, which I have previously referred to, and the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation, with particular reference to article 7 of that agreement.
In relation to the Australia uranium export context, Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and today we have three mines currently in operation. Australia's known uranium resources are the world's largest—almost one-third of the global total. In 2015-16, Australia was the world's third-ranking producer behind Kazakhstan and Canada. As we know, all production is exported.
While I acknowledge that in my home state of Western Australia the issue of uranium has at times been vexed, I am pleased to note that, at a national level, the Labor Party has taken a cautious but positive approach to uranium mining and export under very strict regulation. This is largely through the work of predecessors Martin Ferguson, who approved the Four Mile uranium mine in 2009, and the subsequent efforts of Gary Gray, the former member for Brand, during his time as Labor's resource spokesperson. Indeed, much credit must and should also be given to former Prime Minister Gillard, who overturned the ban on the sale of uranium to India and paved the way for the negotiations that have led us to this point in time and subsequently to this bill.
I would like at this point to return to the legal certainty and stability that this bill will create for the resources sector here in Australia. This bill will provide that certainty and, as a result, the strong expectation and indeed the assumed reality are that it will bring government revenue and, most importantly, it will bring jobs. We can contrast that with what is currently being discussed in the context of, again, my home state of Western Australia and what the Western Australian leader of the National Party, Mr Brendon Grylls, is doing at the moment in relation to his proposal on increasing royalty rates on the iron ore prices for two of the large mining companies in my home state—the effect of which is almost certainly going to undermine investment certainty in our resources sector.
I would just like to spend a few minutes on this issue and the importance of stability and certainty. As many in this chamber will be aware, what is being proposed by Brendon Grylls is a $5 a tonne iron ore mining tax that would, at first instance, apply to BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which is, according to Mr Grylls, expected to generate about $3 billion per year. Unsurprisingly, it has been condemned and criticised roundly by those two companies, Rio and BHP, who would be the first companies that would have to pay. Both would have to pay, approximately, an additional $1.5 billion a year. Both have said it will hit jobs and investment in Western Australia. However, leaving aside what is obviously the self-interest of those companies in relation to criticising that bill, if one steps back and takes an independent view as to the efficacy of this proposal, one will soon arrive at the same conclusion as BHP and Rio—and there are a few reasons for that. Firstly, the problem with the design of this tax is that it bears no relation back point to profitability. Royalties, and particularly the significant increases like the royalties that Grylls is proposing, become effectively a tax on production; not a tax on profits. What that means is that the fortunes of the companies to which the increase in tax applies is entirely at the behest and the mercy of the market—sometimes which is entirely out of their control—which then relates back to being a threatening prospect in relation to jobs. That is because, depending upon the buoyancy of the price per tonne of iron ore, the new royalty being proposed by Grylls could mean the difference in new projects not even going ahead, when they could actually be developed quite profitably under the current market conditions. This, of course, will destroy job creation and economic activity. For a state like Western Australia, where unemployment is running well above the national average, this is very much the last thing that we need.
Secondly, the problem with this tax is that the arbitrary nature of how it is being applied means that there is absolutely no comfort whatsoever for those other commodities that are the subject of state agreements. That includes other iron ore companies. It includes other commodity companies. But, if one also then extends the logic of Mr Grylls's proposal, those companies and producers that sit outside the realm of the state agreements should not find any comfort at all in relation to what is being proposed. Should this proposal gain significant or any traction, so to speak, by virtue of its implementation, what is there to stop Mr Grylls simply aiming his sights at commodities? Given that the agricultural sector often relies upon profitability in the context of prices per tonne, why would there be a ceasefire at commodities? Can you imagine just for a minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, the damage caused to our economy, particularly in Western Australia, if such an approach were applied, for instance, to tonnage rates for grain? There is really no distinction, when one thinks it through, between ore and grain in relation to what Grylls is suggesting, insofar as he is suggesting a unilateral change to a long-established way of conducting one's business.
Thirdly, if Mr Grylls is looking for meaningful ways in which to inject revenue into the Western Australian economy, this approach is looking entirely in the wrong direction. The inevitable effect of the manner in which the GST works and the redistribution as dictated by the Commonwealth Grants Commission means that the proceeds of Mr Grylls's proposal would actually be spread all over the country and not, as he is suggesting, go into the coffers of the Western Australian Treasury.
Again, I come back to the notion of bipartisanship, which has characterised the debate in relation to the passage of this bill. We can find the same sort of bipartisanship present in the approaches taken by both sides of the political divide in the assessment of the viability of this proposal. If one scouts around to look at the public comments in relation to this proposal, one can see that it has been roundly condemned by all sides of parliament, both state and federal. They are lining up a mile long to provide a view which roundly criticises this proposal. Look no further than the current Western Australian Premier, Mr Colin Barnett. Also look at this Prime Minister. Look at Senator Cormann and also our state Labor leader, Mark McGowan; the shadow Treasurer, Ben Wyatt; and a host of others. It is true that at one earlier stage the Deputy Prime Minister was cautiously backing in this proposal, but he has since retreated at a rate of knots. Perhaps that begins to tell you something as to the level of support for this proposal that actually exists.
But, pushing all of that aside, let us focus on the timing. Unlike this bill, in which the timing is very much right to provide some positive signs to an industry that has been struggling for many, many years that there is some stability and certainty insofar as the opportunities that the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill presents, the opposite can be said in relation to Mr Grylls's mining tax proposal. This is the worst possible time in the industry to impose a new tax on mining production. The Western Australian economy, led by the Liberal-National Party, is basically on life support. Total private sector investment in the state has collapsed by more than 30 per cent over the last two years and state final demand is down by nine per cent in the same period.
In conclusion, the passage of this bill will have a range of flow-on effects for Australia, all of them positive. The exportation of uranium to India will create an increased export market and jobs—most importantly jobs—over the long term. The projections suggest that, by the early 2020s, India could require up to 2,000 tonnes of uranium oxide each year in order to fuel its reactors. Australian uranium suppliers are well placed to take advantage of this significant market, with large known uranium reserves. There is also strategic benefit to increased cooperation with India. This bill is needed in order to ensure that Australian export of uranium to India can proceed unhindered and in a safe manner. It will give greater certainty to exporters and create Australian jobs, and it will also, most importantly, benefit Australia-India relations.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Rural Health) (11:51): Trade between Australia and India has been growing rapidly for many decades, in education, tourism, service industries, minerals and, indeed, energy. Like thousands of Australians, I too have travelled to India and it is a fascinating country, rich in history, culture and achievements. India is the world's largest democracy. Everyone knows there is incredible wealth in the country of India, but there are many areas that are poor, without sufficient access to power. The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, leads a very progressive administration and it has great plans to lift many people out of poverty. Currently, India has 22 nuclear power plants producing six gigawatts of energy. Three hundred million people, though, are without access to energy and electricity, and many of them are, as a result, living in poverty. Lifting people out of poverty requires a lot of economic development, which requires an awful lot of energy, and that is what the Indian government is attempting to achieve. It plans to raise nuclear power production to 63 gigawatts, or 25 per cent of India's total energy requirements, by 2032. It estimates it would need up to 2,000 tonnes of uranium per year from Australia to supply those needs.
The bill that we are debating here, the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016, clarifies that decisions made approving civil nuclear transfers are taken not to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under several treaties, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and also the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, as long as particular conditions are met. The conditions require the application of nuclear safeguards under India's agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This was originally signed in 2008 and there were additional protocols added in the India-IAEA agreement in 2009. This agreement is specific to India and defines and provides safeguards India now has in place at civil facilities. It covers nuclear equipment and material it imports, including uranium from Australia. We in Australia are part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and supported work to define a framework which allows nuclear trade with India. We have the Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement, the negotiations of which commenced under the previous Labor government in 2013, were continued by the Abbott government and came into force under the Turnbull government in 2015. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties agreed in 2015 to bring this treaty into force. The bill will codify what Australia's requirements are, and ensures various acts and existing treaties are met.
Indian civil and military nuclear facilities are separated, and the civil ones are placed under the IAEA India safeguards. Twenty-two civil facilities exist under this agreement. If this agreement were ever changed, there would be a requirement that the Australian minister must notify parliament.
India has a population currently of 1.3 billion people, which is 18 per cent of the world's total population. This is predicted to grow to 1.7 billion people by 2050. It is one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world. It is party to the Convention on Nuclear Safety and has been an active participant in triennial reviews since 2005. Following the Fukushima tsunami, India had two of its operating nuclear facilities reviewed again by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and again in 2015 the Integrated Regulatory Review Service noted India's strong commitment to safety. India now has agreements under the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the IAEA with Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, the Czech Republic, Argentina, Kazakhstan and Namibia. All of this demonstrates that India has extensive recognition internationally as a safe place to send uranium.
Australia supplies 10 per cent of the world's uranium and has 32 per cent of known world uranium supplies. We mine it at three mines: Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverley. Eighty per cent of that is in South Australia. Uranium demand is growing at 4.8 per cent per year. We export uranium to the United States, countries in the EU, Japan, South Korea and China, including Taiwan.
Australia's involvement in nuclear energy is long and rich. The first small reactor was constructed at Lucas Heights in the early 1950s, and I recently had the pleasure of visiting our now replacement OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights. It is a cutting-edge research multipurpose reactor that is used to produce radiopharmaceuticals and isotopes for medical diagnosis and treatment of cancers. It is not used to generate power that would drive electricity generation. But the production of nuclear medicine isotopes has grown from 550,000 doses to over 10 million doses per year, and now we, at the Lucas Heights facility, supply about 30 per cent of global demand, and this is a major export for the country.
Thousands of research hours are utilising the electrons that are produced in the reactor to solve complex problems in industry and metallurgy. Our national synchrotron in Melbourne is the other piece of nuclear technology that utilises the electrons for research—again, that being the site of thousands of hours of research work.
In conclusion, in strongly supporting this bill, I would like to briefly mention the benefits of nuclear energy. It is clear that nuclear energy is an internationally proven technology, used since the 1950s. It currently provides around 11 per cent of the world's electricity needs. It is especially suitable for large-scale continuous electricity demand which requires reliability—namely, baseload. It is a low-carbon electricity source—the only one which can provide large-scale baseload power. The life-cycle emissions from nuclear power are similar to some renewable energies but without the need for backup supply. There are 450 reactors worldwide and 60 under construction. It is growing the fastest in China, where they have completed 30 new reactors since 2002 and have a further 20 reactors currently under construction. India, with 22 nuclear reactors, has another five under construction, and there are a range of other countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Vietnam and Argentina, that are building or planning to build nuclear reactors.
Whilst the current uranium price is low, the forecast is that it will increase in the future to meet the growing demand for nuclear power in all these countries, including in India. It is interesting to note that Australia's current uranium exports generate more electricity than all of Australia's current electricity needs. This bill will facilitate and give commercial security to Australian exporters and miners of uranium, and we need to put in place certainty for contracts and supply agreements of this size and complexity to be secure in the legislative sense. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Infrastructure
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (12:01): by leave—Infrastructure is so much more than concrete, bricks and mortar, roads and train lines, housing and hospitals, schools and sporting grounds. Good infrastructure brings communities together, makes our towns and cities more livable, links business large and small with markets, widens the range of jobs and opportunities, makes housing more available and affordable.
If Australia is to ride the wave of opportunity that the 21st century offers, we need better infrastructure. Over the last decade our nation's economic growth has been turbocharged by higher resource prices and unprecedented levels of mining and resources investment. Key to continuing strong economic growth is the infrastructure that enables innovation, that enhances connectivity and expands our ability to sell the food and fibre for the big Asian markets opened up by our free trade deals.
Good infrastructure is vitally important too for our rapidly growing tourism sector—the easier it is for visitors to move around our country, the easier it is for tourism operators to communicate to their potential markets, the more livable and the greater amenity there is in our cities, the stronger the attraction is to Australia for the rapidly growing number of overseas visitors.
All of this is why the government has increased infrastructure investment to a record $80 billion to get vital projects underway across the country. This includes $50 billion for transport infrastructure and $30 billion for other infrastructure like the National Broadband Network, water infrastructure, regional grants programs and other major project financing. But money alone is not the answer. We need to get better at planning and building the infrastructure, and to do that we have to work together—all governments, industry, stakeholders, consumers, citizens. And we must take a much longer view, rather than the short-term one driven, of course, by election cycles.
So today I am updating the House and the Australian people on the progress we are making in delivering the infrastructure they need, and to outline my government's response to Infrastructure Australia's landmark 15-year infrastructure plan.
Infrastructure Australia
This plan is the first independent assessment of Australia's long-term infrastructure needs. It sets out priorities and recommendations to increase productivity and support economic growth. The plan will guide the Commonwealth government's key infrastructure policy directions. So today I commit the government to five key initiatives:
We will agree urban rail plans with the state governments for our five biggest cities—the mainland state capitals—that will inform our future investment priorities.
We will continue reforms to heavy vehicle user charging.
We will appoint an eminent Australian to lead extensive community consultation on the costs and benefits of road pricing for all vehicles.
We will develop a strategy to increase the productivity and efficiency of Australia's freight supply chain.
And we will collect and publicly release data on the performance of transport services, including freight and passenger services, so that we can target improvements to these essential elements in our infrastructure.
My government is supporting 69 of Infrastructure Australia's 78 recommendations and we have made significant progress in addressing many of these. We have committed funding towards 14 of the 15 projects on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. This priority list will continue to inform the longer term project pipeline, enabling the certainty that is so critical to attract more private investment in nationally significant public infrastructure.
Productive r egions
Australia's thriving rural and regional communities and businesses rely on safe and efficient transport services. These are vital to quality of life, to connect people to economic opportunity and to allow them to access the benefits of the big international trade agreements that our government has brokered. In response to the Infrastructure Australia plan, we will develop a strategy to increase the productivity and efficiency of Australia's freight supply chain. This will identify a set of reforms and investments to ensure we have sufficient capacity to meet the growing demand for freight and improve the efficiency of movements both road and rail. It includes creating the right settings for more private investment in the national network.
We are spending $5.6 billion completing the Pacific Highway duplication in New South Wales by 2020. Around 70 per cent of the upgrade has been completed and, once finished, travel times will be decreased by 2½ hours, as will accidents and the injury and death that too often and so tragically accompany them. We have completed 10 projects out of the 10-year, $6.7 billion upgrade of the Bruce Highway in Queensland.
One region that will especially benefit from increased investment in infrastructure is Northern Australia. This year we have announced successful projects from our $600 billion Northern Australia Roads Program, while the $100 million Northern Australia Beef Roads Program will help producers bring their beef and grain products to Asian markets. The first stages of construction will start next year on the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail, which will allow freight to move between those two cities in under a day, remove 200,000 trucks from roads each year and add $22½ billion to the Australian economy.
Road reform
Reforming the way that we pay for roads can help us provide better transport and a fairer, more efficient and more sustainable system of funding. Reforms for heavy vehicle charging are well underway in partnership with states and territories. We have now committed to work with states and territories and consult with communities to consider a more sustainable and equitable system of road pricing and funding for all vehicles, and we will appoint an eminent Australian to lead this task. Governments and the community need to be comfortable that any new system of road pricing is fair, and that the benefits outweigh the costs, before any change is made over the long term.
We will continue to invest in projects that ease congestion on our roads, improve commuter times and make them more efficient. Our leadership has secured a $3 billion injection in infrastructure in Victoria that includes a $1 billion upgrade of the Monash Freeway, funding to complete the upgrade of the M80 Ring Road and a further investment package to improve access and congestion in Melbourne's suburbs. We are investing $1.8 billion in the Perth Freight Link and more than $900 million to upgrade Gateway North in Brisbane to improve access to the port and the airport. In Sydney, the NorthConnex project, expected to open in 2019, will result in a traffic-light-free route between Melbourne and Newcastle.
Public transport
It is not just about roads. My government is investing over $4 billion in public transport to provide genuine alternatives for commuters, ease congestion and improve access in our cities and suburbs. But we are going further than funding individual projects. Infrastructure Australia found that our largest cities need urgent investment in public transport to improve transport options in outer suburbs and increase rail capacity. The plan also calls for more higher density housing in these cities that is well connected by transport, at the same time as encouraging the growth of smaller cities where housing is more affordable and amenity high. Rail can do this, but in order to best target Commonwealth support we need better planning. We will partner with willing state governments to agree urban rail plans for Australia's five largest cities and their surrounding regional centres. The outcomes will inform our priorities for investment in major public transport projects.
Technology and data
We want to support more projects that apply technological solutions and use data to improve infrastructure services and capacity. These are capable of delivering very big benefits at relatively low cost. I invite honourable members to reflect on the relatively inexpensive and enhanced amenity that has been provided by transport authorities allowing the real-time public transport data to be accessed by commuters on their smart phones. The ability to know precisely when the next bus or train is arriving, whether it is on time or early or late, enhances amenity, enhances ridership and does so using technology at very little cost. We want to see more of that.
Our $50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs Program encourages local government to partner with the private sector in using open data and technology to improve services, infrastructure and thus liveability. When government is asked to support new infrastructure we need assurance that all options for more efficient use of networks have been exhausted and that our investments are going to make a real improvement in services. We will collect data from users, governments and the private sector and we will publish how well our transport services are performing, both passenger and freight, identifying where improvements are needed.
Better decisions and innovative financing
We cannot ignore the reality of budget constraints facing all levels of government. The Commonwealth can no longer be a passive ATM. We have to get maximum value for every taxpayer dollar we invest and we must have a say in where and how Commonwealth taxpayers' funds are invested. We will prioritise projects that can demonstrate they provide positive returns to taxpayers, improve the liveability of our communities and grow the economy.
We will be involved in the planning early. The $50 million announced in the Smart Cities Plan targets projects of national significance in early stages, including major public transport projects, to accelerate their development and delivery. And we must create the right settings so we can better leverage private investment in public infrastructure. The WestConnex project in Sydney is a good example. In addition to a $1.5 billion grant, the government is providing a $2 billion concessional loan. We have also taken an equity stake in key projects like the Inland Rail and the Moorebank Intermodal freight precinct.
We have to explore all options, whether they involve concessional loans, user charging or value capture—in addition to grants. I am establishing an Infrastructure Financing Unit in my portfolio to make this standard practice across government. The unit will work with other departments. It will also work across state and local governments and with the private sector in developing the funding and financing solutions for landmark projects through the use of public-private partnerships, measured use of the balance sheet and value capture.
We can also rein in the costs of public infrastructure and, indeed, housing, and ensure projects are delivered on time and on budget with measures to stamp out union lawlessness and thuggery. The registered organisations legislation has now passed, and I urge the Senate to pass the ABCC legislation and show its support for the industry that builds our nation's infrastructure.
Smart Cities Plan
Liveable cities are one of Australia's greatest economic assets, and I am determined to make the Commonwealth a more engaged partner in cities. We want all our cities, not just our capitals, to be more liveable and better able to support our most precious and valuable resource—our people. As set out in our Smart Cities Plan, we will coordinate with state and local governments to grow the economy and boost the productivity of our cities, with a focus on liveability and sustainability.
We are doing this through city deals, and we have committed to three so far: Western Sydney, Townsville and Launceston. Each city deal will be unique, helping governments work together to stimulate growth and jobs. We will sign city deals for all capital cities where state and local governments will partner with us in a plan for growth. We will announce a competitive process for regional cities early next year. The Western Sydney city deal—Australia's largest planning, investment and delivery partnership—underpins a smarter approach to investment in this region. It will harness the enormous opportunities created by the Western Sydney Airport and deliver new jobs, more affordable housing, better transport and amenity.
The Western Sydney Airport is one of the most significant infrastructure projects in the region. There has been significant progress in this project during our term, with the environmental impact statement recently approved, placing a strict set of environmental conditions on the airport's construction and operation. The airport plan will be approved soon—a significant step towards a Western Sydney Airport seeing its first passengers in the mid-2020s. Construction work is well advanced on the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan which will ensure excellent road connectivity when the airport opens, and we are also working closely with the New South Wales government to ensure the airport is well connected by rail.
NBN
The National Broadband Network may well be the single biggest infrastructure project the Commonwealth has ever undertaken. There are now more than 3.4 million homes and businesses that can access NBN services, and more than 1.5 million premises currently connected. The project was failing when we inherited it in 2013 but with new management, a new plan, it is now meeting and beating its targets and it is on track to be complete by 2020.
Water
Increasing the supply of affordable and secure water for regional Australia—for agriculture, industry and communities—is also a key priority. And we are committing $2.4 billion, the largest investment in new water supplies for generations. This coupled with the big market opportunities in Asia will drive stronger growth and more jobs across regional Australia.
Energy
We are also tackling climate change in a smart ways to transition to a low-emissions economy. Our National Energy Productivity Plan will improve our energy productivity by 40 per cent by 2030. But energy security is paramount—we must keep the lights on and provide affordable energy at the same time as we cut emissions. Our policies are working—we are on track to beat our 2020 emissions reduction target. And we have ratified the Paris climate agreement and we are also on track to meet our 2030 emission reduction targets under that agreement.
Conclusion
So we have a big program of infrastructure commitments and reforms underway, with much more to come under the guidance of the independent, long-term vision provided by Infrastructure Australia's 15-year plan. My government is changing infrastructure in Australia—the way we plan it, the way we fund it and the way we partner to build it. Such reform is the only way to deliver the infrastructure that will best serve the modern Australian economy. And it will enable us to leave our children and grandchildren the infrastructure they will need in this, the 21st century.
But as Infrastructure Australia does make clear, many of the reforms relate to responsibilities of state, territory and local governments. So we will continue working with our state and territory colleagues—including at COAG—about how we can work together to deliver real change. And the infrastructure ministers, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, Paul Fletcher, and the Minister for Regional Development, Fiona Nash—all of them are working together with their state and territory colleagues.
The changes will enable us to make the better decisions about infrastructure priorities and investments—changes that will encourage well-regulated infrastructure markets that focus on better service outcomes. Our reforms will make infrastructure funding more sustainable in the long term. They will harness the innovation and technology to make it more efficient. Infrastructure stands alongside tax reform, living within our means, microeconomic reform and innovation in its importance to our future prosperity. By working together, we will build a legacy of liveable, sustainable, productive cities and regions for future generations. I present a copy of my ministerial statement.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister. I now call the Leader of the Opposition to speak in response to the Prime Minister's statement for a period not exceeding 18½ minutes.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:20): Well, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister summoned us all in here, and, as those 18 minutes ticked by, as we all moved further onto the edge of our seats, as he talked at length about the government's bold new plan to study a review into an inquiry strategy, I found myself thinking, 'I miss Warren Truss.' I can assure you that five minutes into that presentation was not the most exciting time to be an Australian.
Of course we recognise that infrastructure is fundamental to the future of our nation, but it has taken this government nine months to respond to one report. And all they are offering is a review, a discussion paper and a study. This Prime Minister is fast becoming the mirror man of Australian politics—he is always looking into it. On this side of the House we know that to grow the economy Australia needs to invest both in our people and our infrastructure—and Labor has a plan for both. We know that backing good projects creates good jobs. We understand that infrastructure makes our cities more productive, our suburbs more liveable and our regions better connected. It is why the previous Labor government created Infrastructure Australia. It is why we doubled the roads budget, increased the rail budget more than tenfold and invested more in public transport than every previous government in the history of the Commonwealth. It is why we developed a national port strategy, a national freight strategy, a national urban policy for our cities. It is why I have a shadow minister who knows every inch of his portfolio, and who lives and breathes every aspect of infrastructure policy. But the government has three different spokesmen who would struggle to cut a ribbon. You see the Instagrams of the minister for transport, the minister for cities and the minister for major projects all together in those hi-vis, staged, awkward moments. They are like the world's most tragic boy band—'No Direction'.
At the last election we presented Australians with our comprehensive plan to invest in key projects right around the nation: better ferry and bus transport in Tasmania; in Western Australia, the Perth METRONET; in South Australia, AdeLINK and the Gawler light rail; in Queensland, Brisbane's Cross River Rail; in New South Wales, the Western Sydney rail line; and, in Victoria, the Melbourne Metro. Public transport is not a hobby for us. Riding a tram is not an item on a bucket list. We do not look at a train carriage and see a selfie studio. We know that public transport is about quality of life, particularly for Australians who live and work in our growing suburbs. It is about making it easier for people to get to work quicker and get home sooner.
I want to make this point very clear: charging Australians more to drive their car without investing in public transport as an alternative inevitably means punishing those who can least afford it. Any proposal to change the funding arrangements for Australian roads should be based on equity and investing in public transport in the outer suburbs.
Labor believes in local content. We believe in maximising the use of Australian steel in infrastructure. Because we believe in training and skills and local jobs, at the last election we guaranteed that one out of every 10 people employed on nation-building projects would be an Australian apprentice. That is our approach—buy Australian first, build Australian first and employ Australians first. We are focused on action, on tangible projects, on amenities which make a difference to the daily lives of Australians.
All this government offers is a glossy pamphlet. No amount of photos and graphics can pretty up this government's dismal record on infrastructure. As soon as the government came to office, they set about cutting money from public transport and putting it into toll roads. They have cut money from important programs like Black Spot, heavy vehicles and Bridges Renewal. They have slowed down much needed upgrades to the Bruce and Pacific highways. They have made a mess of the process of Badgerys Creek by ignoring the locals instead of including them. They have marginalised the experts at Infrastructure Australia, treating it like an adjunct to the department. And they have ripped nearly $1 billion out of local governments around the country, hitting regional towns the hardest. But that is the Nationals for you; they always want the infrastructure portfolio—they love the title but they never use it to deliver.
It is the same way the Nationals treat their electorates generally—taking them for granted, treating them as a monopoly, as a sinecure. The Nationals preside over nine out of 10 of the poorest electorates in Australia but they never vote for anything to lift people out of poverty. If you want a measure of their disinterest, look at the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund: $5 billion in concessional loans announced with great bombast, great fanfare a year and half ago. But how many projects have received funding? Not two, not one but none, zero—not a single dollar on a single project. There is nothing for Darwin, for Cairns, for Rocky or for Mackay. That is the out-of-touch attitude that this government displays for people in communities in Australia's north.
And it beggars belief that today the Prime Minister spruiked his government's credentials on water when his own Deputy Prime Minister is preparing to trash the bipartisan agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin and dud South Australians. Now we keep hearing the Liberals talk about a $50 billion infrastructure spend by 2019-20. That is just a big fat lie. It is the opposite of the truth. The facts are there in black and white. In their 2014 budget, the coalition promised to invest $8 billion in infrastructure last financial year but only delivered $5.5 billion. That included a one-off $490 million for beleaguered Premier Barnett in Western Australia for a project that was already fully funded, so the real underspend was nearly $3 billion. The year before, the on-paper underspend was $900 million. But when you factor in another $500 million for a project that was fully funded, the real underspend was $1.4 billion. Consistently this government takes funds out of value-for-money initiatives and funnels cash into its own pet ideas that are not even ready to go.
At the last election, this infrastructure-lazy government did not pledge a single new major infrastructure project—nothing, no vision. Instead they made 78 separate local commitments. And although they claim to be a government for all Australians, miraculously, 76 of the local commitments were in seats held by the Liberal Party—or at least in seats that they held on 1 July. It was classic pork-barrelling, coalition style—visionless, vote grabbing tactics without Australia's national interest at its heart.
Wherever you live, the Liberal-National story is the same—overpromise, underfund and do not deliver. What you will not find in this report is the shocking injustice being dealt to the people of Victoria. It may amuse Victorian Liberal representatives here but it does not amuse Victorians. Twenty-five per cent of Australia's population receives nine per cent of this government's infrastructure funding. One in four Australians are learning that when the Liberals represent you in Canberra, you will get ripped off. One in four Australians are getting nine cents in the dollar from this government. Prime Minister, stop catching our tourist trams and start investing in Victoria.
What you will not find in this report is the $18 million that the government spent on taxpayer funded infrastructure advertising in the lead-up to the last election. What you will not find in this report is the brilliant, innovative, exciting and agile $1 million put aside for a road in Gresford to host an annual billycart race. Australia needs jobs and investment, and all the Prime Minister offers is a $1 million billycart track.
What you will not find in this report is any sense of contrition, humility or honesty for the biggest infrastructure stuff-up in Australian history: the Turnbull government's administration of the NBN. It hurts, doesn't it, Prime Minister? The truth hurts, Prime Minister. The most important—and I promise the Prime Minister I will give more than two paragraphs to talk about the NBN; touched a nerve there, haven't we, my friend—piece of infrastructure for a 21st century economy is a first-rate fibre national broadband network and, yet, on this Prime Minister's watch, the cost of the NBN has doubled, Australia has fallen from 30th to 60th on global internet speed rankings and consumer complaints have soared to record highs.
Just last week, we saw another broken promise: after insisting that the government's funding contribution was capped, the Liberals have been forced to step in with a $19.5 billion loan to complete the rollout—
Mr Turnbull interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: and the Prime Minister is reduced to interjecting like a cheer squad member of a failing football club. The Prime Minister should listen to what an alternative government sounds like. He thinks that what he has done to the NBN is his signature achievement—you just have to ask him—and, in a way, he is right: the Turnbull NBN summarises everything about this flailing, failing Prime Minister. It promotes itself as a new and modern 21st century experience, so you wait and you wait. You keep telling people it will come good eventually, and what do you get? Buffering and copper—the Prime Minister's waffle and the member for Warringah's idea of cutting-edge technology; the worst of both worlds.
The Prime Minister promised every premise in Australia would have access to very-fast broadband by the end of the year—how is that tracking? There are 37 days left in 2016, and only 7.8 million premises to go. I have done the calculations: 210,000 per day, over 8,000 per hour, 140 per minute. The member for Greenway nailed it the other day: the Liberals should not be hanging around in the chamber; they should be out there with a pair of pliers getting a move on.
Now the government's incompetence and inaction on infrastructure extends to rail. They announce yet another review but refuse to engage in a real debate about high-speed rail, which would revolutionise interstate travel in this country. High-speed rail is a proven technology. Millions of people in more than 20 nations around the world travel on it every day. Labor has pushed to advance this visionary project for more than three years. We want to establish a high-speed rail authority to start detailed planning work on a line between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra. This marvellous project would allow travel between our capital cities in as little as three hours, linking up the eastern seaboard in a way never seen before, freeing up one of the world's busiest air corridors, cutting down the oldest enemy of prosperity in Australia—the tyranny of distance—and the high-speed rail will drive jobs and economic development in regional centres all along the route.
Laying 1,600 kilometres of new track and upgrading old is not a project that will be finished in the life of one parliament or one government—or several Liberal prime ministers within the life of one government. But that is no reason to hold back; it is no excuse to wait. Delay is not an economic strategy or an infrastructure plan. High-speed rail is a test of this parliament's vision. It is a challenge for all of us to look beyond the political cycle and think of the future of this nation. It is time in infrastructure to think big. It is time to be ambitious. It is time to nation-build. It is time to rekindle the spirit of the snowy hydro-electricity scheme. Even if we will not be the ones who finish, let us be the ones who begin.
My shadow minister for infrastructure recently introduced legislation into this House to establish a high-speed rail authority. The government should ditch the reviews, ditch the rhetoric, ditch the pessimism. They should stop dithering and just get on board this Labor idea.
When it comes to infrastructure, we are up for being constructive. We are up for bipartisanship. But, in order to be bipartisan, you actually have to have a government that does something to begin with. If you want us to support one of your ideas, put forward an idea.
This whole statement from the Prime Minister, this whole empty exercise, reeks of a Prime Minister confusing motion with action, mistaking vagueness for vision and long sentences for the big picture. Australia needs something more. Australia deserves better. We deserve a real plan for infrastructure to grow the economy, to create the jobs, to ease the traffic in our growing suburbs and to bring new life to regional towns. Labor has a real plan for nation-building. When we get the chance, we will deliver for all Australians.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (12:35): I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (12:36): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:37): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016. Before I get into the exact detail of the bill, I think it is important to have a look at where nuclear power stands in the world today. The best place to get the details from is the most recent report from the International Energy Agency, their 2016 update, which was only released less than a week ago. It puts the total for nuclear power, in million tonnes equivalent, at 662 million tonnes equivalent of energy. That is out of a total energy consumption in the world at the moment of about 13,600 million tonnes equivalent of energy. So 6.7 per cent of the world's energy supply at the moment comes from nuclear power. In comparison, solar power, solar PV, is not one per cent; it is actually 0.1 per cent, one-tenth of one per cent, of the world's energy supplies. Wind is 0.45 per cent. So, combined, the world is currently getting 10 times more power from nuclear than it is from wind and solar combined.
It is also interesting to look at the projections of the International Energy Agency under what they call their new policies, which take in all the Paris climate change agreement pledges. In short, going out to 2040, the world is going to need a lot more energy. Between now and 2040, the world is going to need another 4,000 million tonnes equivalent of energy every single year. That is an enormous increase from where we are, at about 13,800 million tonnes at the moment. Of that 4,000 million tonnes oil equivalent that we will need, about 1,000 of the 4,000 will come from extra supply in India.
As we go forward, we have to wonder where that extra energy will come from. According to the IEA's predictions, wind and solar combined to 2040 will provide an extra 432 million tonnes of oil equivalent. But nuclear will provide an additional 519 million tonnes of oil equivalent. So out to 2040, even though the world is promising to invest trillions of dollars in solar and wind, to meet the increase in the electricity or the power that we will need, more will be supplied through nuclear than through solar and wind combined. Fossil fuels will also increase by over 2,000 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The world has a great challenge ahead of it in getting this extra energy that will be needed. Nuclear has to play a significant part, and it will supply an extra 519 million tonnes of oil equivalent.
In considering what energy mix we need going forward, it is also interesting to look at a recent report by UNICEF titled Clear the air for children: the impact of air pollution on children. The takeaway message from that report is how important it is that we provide parts of the impoverished world with low-cost energy. Where countries do not have low-cost energy, they often have to resort to burning wood, twigs, animal dung and agricultural waste to power their homes, to cook with and to heat their homes. To put the problems caused by this into context, using the World Health Organization figures UNICEF estimate that outdoor air pollution results in 4.3 million deaths annually but indoor air pollution—those who do not have access to low-cost electricity—results in 3.7 million deaths a year. Combine the deaths from both indoor and outdoor air pollution and we are talking about eight million premature deaths in a year; over a decade, we are talking about 80 million deaths from air pollution. To put that into some context, the First World War and the Second World War combined went for a decade and during that time it is estimated that around 77 million people died. But over the next decade, we are looking at more deaths from air pollution than those killed in both the First World War and the Second World War.
Yes, it is both indoor and outdoor air pollution that we should concentrate on, but it is indoor air pollution that has the greatest adverse affect on children under five. That UNICEF report estimates that in 2012, 127,000 children under the age of five died from outdoor air pollution. Even though that number of deaths of kids under five is a terrible and tragic figure, the UNICEF report estimates that 531,000 children died from indoor air pollution in one single year. This is the consequence of over one billion kids growing up in homes where they do not have access to low-cost electricity. In those IEA figures, the greatest irony is that the burning of animal dung and wood counts as renewable energy.
It is not only the extraordinary number of deaths that we should be concerned about; it is the lifelong effect of social and economic deprivation that is exacerbating poverty and inequality. It is a cycle. If children are affected by indoor air pollution at a young age, they will have low-grade illnesses, lower attendance at school, reduced overall health that puts higher health costs on the economy, lower income and decreased labour productivity. And so the cycle goes on.
Also adverse indoor air pollution disproportionately affects women and girls because traditionally they are the ones who spend more time at home and they are the ones who spend more time near a stove cooking and breathing in that particulate matter. It is that particulate matter that we should be concerned about. When we are looking at the energy mix of the world going forward we simply cannot ignore nuclear power, because we know that nuclear power gives us no particulate matter. It is the cleanest power that we have. There is no particulate matter and no CO2. That is why we need to do the things that we can to encourage countries that are going to expand their nuclear programs in a peaceful way.
With our great uranium resources we need to help those countries progress, and that is what this bill is about. It encourages the Indian economy and enables Australia to provide them with uranium. India has an enormous task ahead of it. We know that between now and 2020 India is estimating that, as well as its nuclear program, it is going to double its domestic coal production to one billion tonnes, so from less than 500 million tonnes to over one billion tonnes. To put that in some context, the increase in India's coal production over the next 45 years is greater than Australia's total coal exports. India has 22 nuclear reactors and another five reactors on the drawing board. I believe that we have an obligation to work with India to supply them with uranium in a safe and practical manner. That is what this bill does. I commend it to the House.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:47): I rise to support the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016. India is an important friend of Australia. I am strongly in favour of measures that will strengthen and deepen Australia's ties with India. Over 450,000 people of Indian descent currently call Australia home. India is our largest source of skilled migrants. Between 2010 and 2015 we welcomed 180,000 new Indian migrants. With keen entrepreneurial spirit, Indian Australians have already made and continue to make a significant contribution to our community. India is the second-largest source of international students, with 53,000 international Indian students studying in Australia in 2015.
Over the past 10 years there has been a noticeable development in the strength and intensity of our relationship with India, from cultural ties and people-to-people links to significant political and trade interests. Our two great nations share many of the same values, with a common thread of law and language. In my electorate of Berowra we are blessed with a strong and active Indian community of around 5,000 people, who make a much-valued contribution to our community.
India is a growing power in the region. With 1.2 billion people, India is the world's largest democracy. India has the world's third-largest total GDP and impressive growth rates that have exceeded China's stellar growth rates in recent years. India is Australia's 10th-largest two-way trading partner and our fifth-largest export market. The Australia-India relationship is in the ascendancy and over the past few years our relationship has grown steadily in depth and intensity. It is a tribute to the hard work of our outstanding foreign minister, Julie Bishop, the foresight of former Prime Minister Abbott and the continuing commitment of Prime Minister Turnbull.
Two-way prime ministerial visits in 2014 built significant momentum in our relationship with India. Prime Minister Abbott visited India in September 2014, during which the two leaders signed a number of bilateral memoranda of understanding, including, relevantly, cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In November 2014 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Australia. It was the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 28 years. I was privileged to be in a crowd of 16½ thousand Australians to hear Prime Minister Modi speak at the Acer Arena in Sydney, where he observed:
We see Australia as a vital partner in India's quest for progress and prosperity. There are few countries in the world where we see so much synergy as we do in Australia. India is a nation of more than a billion seeking development. Australia is a developed country of a few million people and vast resources. I see Australia as a major partner in every area of our national priority.
Moving to the issue of uranium exports, Australia's uranium export policy restricts exports of sales for peaceful purposes. It requires that states to whom we sell uranium provide assurances that Australian uranium will not be used for weapons and will be subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In practice, this has meant that Australia does not export uranium to states outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, including India. A 2008 waiver granted to India by the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group allowed India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries. In 2014, Australia and India signed the Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement, which sets out strict conditions for the peaceful use, safeguarding and security of Australian uranium transfer to India for civil use.
This bill has a series of benefits. The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill provides guidance for the approval of Australian uranium exports to India. It ensures that any such approval takes into account the particular safeguard arrangements that the International Atomic Energy Agency applies to India and which India has committed to apply in respect of Australian exports of uranium through its nuclear cooperation agreement with this country.
This bill recognises the robust regime of accounting and inspections to ensure non-diversion of nuclear material from the peaceful use that has been set up by the IAEA India Safeguards Agreement. This bill clarifies that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are not to be inconsistent with, or have been made with due regard to, Australia's international obligations under either the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. These arrangements offer robust assurance that Australian uranium will be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.
By codifying Australia's international obligations in relation to the nuclear safeguards to be applied to India, this bill puts in place the domestic legal protections required to facilitate Australian export of uranium to India for civil purposes. It protects Australian exporters who are complying with all relevant international safeguards and obligations from the threat of a domestic legal challenge. Without this legislation, the risk of a domestic legal challenge could hinder the export opportunity available to Australian companies, several of whom already have potential sales contracts under discussion.
This bill makes an important contribution to our bilateral relationship, and it is an important sign of trust between our two nations. It adds to the suite of measures introduced to deepen our bilateral strategic ties and firmly places Australia and India on a path to further cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.
This bill represents a new trade opportunity for Australia. We have the ability to provide safe uranium to India, while simultaneously enhancing our economic opportunities abroad and investing in jobs here at home. The Minerals Council of Australia said in 2014:
India is set to be a significant developer of nuclear energy over the next decade and a half. While it is already one of the largest energy consumers in the world, it still has around 400 million people without access to electricity.
As well as Australia, India now has civil nuclear arrangements with, among other countries, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The significant benefit to Australia from passing this bill is the security given to the uranium export opportunity. The bill opens the pathway for Australian companies to pursue the new energy market opportunity that India presents. With a GDP that has quadrupled in two decades, economic growth rates exceeding even those of China, and the world's third-largest total GDP, in purchasing power terms, India is a huge market opportunity for Australian businesses.
This new market opportunity will contribute to significant growth in our bilateral trade relationship. Trade with India has grown in parallel with our bilateral political relationship and, in 2015, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade valued trade between Australia and India at $18 billion. The opportunities for Australian businesses and exporters to profit from this massive diversified economy and youthful population are endless, particularly with regard to agriculture, energy, manufacturing, mining and services.
The Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, currently under discussion between our two governments, will reap significant financial benefits and only further strengthen the ties that bind our nations together. With the prospect of a free trade agreement between Australia and India, it is imperative we pass this legislation. Nuclear power is already an important part of India's energy mix, and increased nuclear capacity in the future will help India reduce its carbon emissions and provide the secure supply of power it needs to continue its rapid economic development. The opportunity for Australia to supply uranium to India and to help fuel that development is a significant one. The first contracts for what promises to be a significant trade are already being negotiated.
There is already a strong relationship in energy cooperation between Australia and India. Coal, our largest export to India, was worth $5.5 billion in 2014-15. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2014 that achieving deep cuts in greenhouse gas will require more intensive use of a range of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear energy. In the same year, Prime Minister Abbott spoke in favour of the environmental argument supporting the sale of uranium to India. He observed that uranium 'is an important source of clean energy to a country that desperately needs power.'
As India's population grows and the country's economy develops it will need even greater amounts of energy. This bill will place Australia in a strong position to supply India with the energy required for its continued economic development, while supporting our mining sector and the thousands of hardworking Australian men and women employed in that sector. Exporting uranium to India will help create a clean energy future for India. Helping India to generate more energy from nuclear plants will help to protect the environment by reducing the greenhouse gases emitted during energy production.
In conclusion, this bill will place Australia in a strong position to supply India with the energy required for its continued development and contribute to significant growth in our trade relationship. It puts in place the domestic legal protections required to facilitate Australian export of uranium to India for civil purposes and ensures Australia's continued strength and prosperity in the mining sector. It is, further, an important sign of trust between Australia and India. It is an important sign of our deepening relationship and the depth of understanding between our two great nations. It is a sign of our commitment to a further strengthening of ties and a significant step on the path to the ongoing development of our bilateral relationship. We must pass the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill without delay. I commend it to the House.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (12:57): I want to join my friend and colleague the member for Berowra in speaking on this important bill before the House today—the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016. It is my pleasure to speak about this, having chaired the parliamentary friends of India group for the past three years here in Canberra, working very closely with the Indian diaspora in our major cities, Sydney and Melbourne, but also here in Canberra, to ensure that parliamentarians are across the important relationship that we have with India in the ongoing increase in trade, in volumes of migration and in the partnership that we share in our region to make sure that we have a safe, stable and economically prosperous region.
We do understand, I think, in this House now that this relationship between our two great nations is really finding its feet. For the first time in 30 years we saw the visit of Prime Minister Modi—one of the most significant modern leaders of India coming out of the Bharatiya Janata Party—with a real promise for economic reform and growth for India, having delivered that in the Gujarat province. We are seeing now, for the first time, the modernisation of the Indian economy. It is on the precipice of great growth and development, like we saw in China. This is a real opportunity for the great partnership between Australia and India to emerge in this century as one of the defining features of our bilateral relationship with India.
We see the relationship between our prime ministers. We see that the largest source country for migrants in my own portfolio is now India. Our largest student source country is variously India, with many foreign students now studying in Australia, and the skills need of India is one of the great export opportunities for our education sector here in Australia. It is the world's third largest and fastest-growing major economy, but, currently, exports to India are just about one-tenth of exports to China. That presents us with a significant potential and opportunity to expand and, hence, this bill before us presents us with a great opportunity to continue this strong economic relationship and provide the power to meet the real needs that an emerging and growing economy such as India will require.
We know that India is emerging as a stronger regional and global partner in our region with a great global role. It is a large democratic power in the Indo-Pacific. It means more outreach with us, it means more trade, it means more diplomacy and it means more cooperation between us. Our bilateral relationship has developed so fast over the last five years, and I think this is an important step in the right direction. It has had some misguided opposition in the past—I note this bill and the sale of uranium to India. I do not think there is any Australian, and I do not think there is anyone left in this House, who would want to see a return to the era under the Rudd government—I was here in this House then—where, to our detriment, a strain was placed on our relationship with this major strategic partner.
The access that India has sought to our uranium ore to meet the needs of its rapidly growing economy is important to understand from the psychological perspective of our Indian partners. We have so much in common with India: democracy, the use of the English language, a shared British heritage of colonialism—things that relate us so well with India. For Australia to have suggested at any point that we would deny our uranium to India, that there was no way of working out how we could arrange the provision of uranium to a country like India or that there was no way that we could form a bond of trust, an economic tie, a binding contract or a relationship with India which would ensure that we were satisfied we could meet our international obligations and that India could meet theirs was naive—and it was naive of the Labor Party at the time to think so. It was good to see the Gillard government reverse the Rudd government's error in this regard. It is good to see the opposition is supporting this bill because it is the right move for relations between our countries. It is the right move forward for our country and for India.
The rhetoric has to change. We must recognise that India is now a responsible nation and that strengthening our bilateral relationship is mutually beneficial. It is important to see the member for Melbourne and the member for Denison here. I know they are here pre-emptively, and I might pre-empt a little bit of what they will say. All members in this House should understand the modern nation that India is and represents and the good global and international citizen that it is. This government wants to ensure that our exports are properly managed and that they are dealt with in full confidence of the standards that we require—and that is what this bill provides for.
The bill provides guidance for the approval of uranium exports. It takes into account the particular safeguard arrangements that the IAEA applies in India and which India has committed to apply in respect of Australian exports of uranium through its nuclear cooperation agreement with Australia. I am confident these robust arrangements can assure the House, the parliament, the public and our two nations that Australian uranium will be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. The design is specific to India, which, of course, is not a party to the NPT. The purpose of this bill is to clarify that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken not to be inconsistent with, or have been made with due regard to, Australia's obligations relating to nuclear safeguards under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty if particular conditions are met. The conditions relate to the application of India's nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, including its additional protocol, and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy—the Australia-India agreement.
Given the expansion of nuclear energy around the globe and its use in many modern countries like France, India and China, we have to have arrangements and treaties and the confidence that uranium is being used for peaceful civilian purposes like power generation. We should not allow blind ideology to get in the way of these important technological developments that allow for millions of people to escape poverty, better themselves, improve their lives and have access to cheaper power and better constant sources of power for industry and for their own endeavour. Also, significantly—and I know the member for Melbourne would agree—we should reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel-based power over time. We should take advantage of the technological solutions that are available to human beings to reduce our reliance on fossil fields and generate baseload energy in a reliable and cheap way for the vast expansions that economies like India will require.
Mr Bandt: If only you said the same about renewables. Why don't you say the same about renewables? So hypocritical!
Mr HAWKE: I would say to the member for Melbourne that if we do cut ourselves off from technology we will not be able to solve the problems that face us. It is good to see modern economies and modern nations like India, France and other parts of the world taking on board available technological solutions to power generation—dealing with the problems of climate change and dealing with the challenges faced by emerging economies, and doing so in a sensible way. That is what this bill is assisting Australia also to do in the provision of uranium for civil purposes and nuclear power generation. The public can have confidence in the provisions that are in this bill, the negotiations that this government has undertaken with the government of India, the protocols that are in place, the requirements that Australia has put in place and the developments in the arrangements for nuclear cooperation.
I will not reiterate everything that has been said by previous speakers in relation to the details. However, I want to ensure that people understand that the bill codifies, for the special case of India, the content of Australia's relevant international obligations for the purposes of the relevant laws. The bill will give legal and commercial certainty to specific developments in this bilateral relationship and include a new bilateral maritime exercise; an agreed framework for security cooperation, incorporating meetings on cyber policy, counterterrorism and maritime cooperation; continuation of the foreign ministers framework dialogue; continued growth in the people-to-people links and the collaborations in science, education and technology; and the conclusion of the nuclear cooperation agreement.
Engagement with Australia by Indian ministers has improved. We have had the prime ministerial visit and seen minister after minister, including senior ministers, Finance Minister Jaitley and Coal and Energy Minister Goyal. Finding a way to normalise the nuclear status of India has been an essential part of the shift that we have seen in recent years. I believe that the bilateral relationship between India and Australia has been greatly strengthened by our support for its campaign for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The support that Australia has provided in this regard has reinforced the impression of us as a reliable partner, an honest broker and a good regional ally—as India has attested to.
In setting up the new safeguard arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and concluding nuclear cooperation agreements with countries like the United States, Canada and Australia, India has been willing, I think for the first time, to bind itself to the international standard safeguard arrangements over its declared civil nuclear sector. It is very important to remember that those arrangements exist between the United States, Canada and, of course, now Australia. India, as I have said, offers a significant new market for Australian uranium. Successive Australian governments have worked with India to put in place the nuclear cooperation agreement and the administrative arrangements to allow exports to proceed for civil power generation.
It is important that we pass this bill. It is important that we speak with tolerance and respect about our Indian allies when we make our contributions in this House and recognise that they are a peaceful power, that they are using our uranium for peaceful purposes and that they are, by generating power through nuclear power and given the rapid expansion that is expected in Indian economy, also making a great contribution in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So, when we do seek to make our contributions here today, I hope all members of the chamber will be respectful of that relationship and of that certainty that is required between two great countries like India and Australia.
It is important that Australians and Australian governments continue to consider accessing technological solutions to address the challenges that face our country as well. It is good to see attitudes changing towards nuclear science, medicine, technology—and hopefully also power generation in the near future—in the development of our country. When you consider the attitudes that have been held here in the past, the fact that we will be exporting uranium to countries around the world and that the major unions in this country are relaxing and removing their historic opposition to important developments in uranium, you can see that the grounds are shifting in support of what is and what can be a great technological solution to the power generation needs of our country as well.
It is my pleasure today to recommend this bill to the House. I think it is an extremely significant development between India and Australia. This will form the platform for great trade between our two countries and for the expansion of the Indian economy that we all want to see in the world today. It will mean peaceful collaboration and peaceful cooperation in our region with enhanced economic development and economic trade, and that is something we can all recommend. I welcome this bill and I welcome the continued ongoing trust in and mutual development of the bilateral relationship between Australia and India. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (13:09): The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016 clarifies that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken to be consistent with Australia's obligations relating to nuclear safeguards if particular conditions are met. Those conditions include the application of nuclear safeguards under India's agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. This legislation is the final step in allowing Australian exporters to supply Australian uranium for use in India's civil nuclear facilities. This process began with the former government's decision in 2011 to commence negotiations on a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with India. That agreement was concluded by the current government in 2014 and reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 2015. Together with the nuclear cooperation agreement and associated administrative arrangements, the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill completes the package of measures enabling the supply by Australia of uranium to India.
The decisions that consecutive Australian governments have made to clear the way for nuclear cooperation with India have taken account of the fact that India is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. These decisions are built on a framework agreed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 2008 that recognised India's commitment to support international nonproliferation efforts. India's commitments included continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing and separating its civil and military nuclear activities. They also include acceptance of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on civil nuclear activities. In the years since 2008 India has continued to meet these commitments.
The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill reflects Australia's decision to supply uranium to India on the basis of the Nuclear Suppliers Group decision and the safeguards that India and the International Atomic Energy Agency have put in place. It also reflects the conditions in the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. The bill will give Australian exporters confidence that they can fulfil new uranium supply arrangements to India with long-term legal certainty. The bill does not give blanket protection against legal action that might affect supply of uranium to India. Its purpose is to clarify one specific technical point: how Australia's commitment under the nonproliferation treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty should be interpreted when decision makers are considering permits for the export of uranium to India.
The International Atomic Energy agency applies robust safeguards to the civil part of India's fuel cycle, which is where Australia's uranium and any nuclear material derived from it will exclusively remain. The bilateral agreement between Australia and India contains assurances that the Australian uranium will not be diverted from peaceful purposes. These assurances are underpinned by strict inspection and accounting regimes.
Nuclear power is an important part of India's energy mix. Timely engagement in the Indian market will maximise opportunities for Australian companies. India has plans for nuclear energy to meet 25 per cent of its power needs by 2050. Nuclear energy will also help to power economic growth and poverty reduction in the world's fastest-growing major economy. India's plans to expand nuclear generation are likely to make a valuable contribution to its pledged reduction in carbon emissions intensity. Uranium mining companies in Australia are already negotiating the first contracts for what promises to be a significant trade.
As an emerging strategic power in the Indo-Pacific region, India is a natural partner for Australia. We share a robust democratic tradition. Our countries see eye to eye on the importance of the rule of law, free speech and free enterprise. Rooted in these shared values, Australia's growing collaboration with India on energy security and trade is an investment in the future for both countries. The process of developing bilateral nuclear cooperation with India began under Labor and has been carried forward by the coalition. I am pleased to observe that the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016 enjoys the same bipartisan support. The government will continue to work with the opposition to ensure that this important policy is implemented for the benefit of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side of the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (13:20): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (13:20): I am happy to rise and speak in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. The bill, as we have heard, will simplify and improve our country-of-origin labelling to assist consumers to identify—as they should be able to know and ascertain—where their groceries have come from. The new regime is also supported by the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016, which I note has been tabled in this House and the other place and which may yet be subject to a disallowance motion.
This new system of labelling for the country of origin in relation to foodstuffs has been a long time coming. Parliamentarians have been talking for literally decades about improving labelling systems, pointing to example after example of anomalous outcomes where non-Australian food has somehow been described as having been made in Australia. It is my hope and my expectation that this legislation will go some way to addressing the bulk of the concerns raised about the existing system.
In relation to the current regime, Australia's laws require all imported and domestically produced food to be labelled with the country of origin and preclude the making of country-of-origin representations that are false or misleading. The current system governing country-of-origin labelling is in the Australian Consumer Law, schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACL's provisions for Australian labelling are as follows. 'Made in Australia' requires goods to have been substantially transformed in Australia and requires that at least half of the cost of production or manufacture occur in Australia. 'Product of Australia' is used to label goods where all significant ingredients or components have Australia as the country of origin and all, or virtually all, of the manufacture or production of the good happened in Australia. 'Grown in Australia' requires every significant ingredient or component in a good to have been grown here in Australia and virtually all processes involved in production or manufacture also to have happened in Australia.
In many cases, this regime led to strange outcomes that may have fitted the letter of the legal requirement despite actually being against the substance or the spirit of the law. Because 'proportion of production cost' was the topic or issue defining the Australian-made products, producers could include the costs of packaging and labelling of products and even the cost of water involved in reconstituting dried products. So it could lead to somewhat perverse outcomes: fruit juice made with foreign fruit but Australian sugar, and bottles and labels could have been labelled as 'Made in Australia' despite the obvious. The same goes for cured meats. So bacon or ham cured in Australia but made from foreign pork also could have been, perversely, labelled as 'Made in Australia'.
Obviously, with Australian consumers deserving to know where their products have come from, something had to change. So what happened? Let us go back to a time in which the Labor Party was in government. We took this issue—
Mr Craig Kelly: No! Please, no!
Mr HAMMOND: very seriously. It never got any better, Mr Deputy Speaker. And it is certainly no better now, I can tell you right now, under this divided, conservative, weak, lily-livered government as opposed to when Labor was in government. Labor took the issue for consumers and consumer rights much more seriously than those opposite ever did and probably ever will. We started the review in relation to the country-of-origin laws. In government, we conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws and worked closely with the states through COAG to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. It is critical that consumers are protected without putting an undue burden on Australia's food processors which would simply have the perverse effect of sending more manufacturing offshore and costing jobs.
So what is it that we did? I am very happy to outline the number of steps taken by the Labor Party whilst in government. Labor actually committed to finding a bipartisan solution on food labelling in February 2015, calling on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. We highlighted the need to get all relevant ministers together to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. We also said that the government should start by addressing the recommendations of the bipartisan House of Representatives report on food labelling and that we stood ready to constructively consider any positive policy proposals that might actually result from this process. So that is why we joined with this government in supporting this new legislation.
In going to the new regime, what new arrangements for food labelling does this bill create and what does that do to help consumers make decisions at the supermarket? The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, altering country-of-origin labelling safe harbour provisions under the Australian Consumer Law. Safe harbour provisions are designed to provide businesses with certainty about the types of claims they can make regarding country of origin without breaching Australia Consumer Law. Changes to country-of-origin labelling requirements for food sold in Australia were announced in July 2015 and came into effect in July 2016 with a two-year transition period for industry.
The main change in relation to this new regime, giving consumers greater rights and a greater level of awareness in relation to what is contained within the products that they buy off grocery shelves, is that labels for most food that is grown, produced or made in Australia includes a logo—which is a kangaroo in a triangle symbol—as well as a bar chart and a text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients in any particular product that a consumer will purchase.
This amendment bill complements those changes, simplifying the tests used to justify a country-of-origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and altering the definition of 'substantial transformation' as it applies to the safe harbour provisions under the Australian Consumer Law. It also removes the current 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients.
The bill sets out a new regime as follows: goods can be represented as being grown in Australia, if each significant ingredient or component has been actually grown in Australia and all processes involved in the production or manufacture of the good also happened here. This is much the same as the previous regime, but the terms in the legislation have been significantly clarified. The rules around goods having a produce of Australia are not changing. Importantly, the requirements of goods with a 'made in', 'manufactured in' or 'originating from' Australia label are as follows: the good must have been last substantially transformed in Australia and, more importantly, no representation must be made that the goods were grown or produced in that country. Further, the bill also governs the use of country-of-origin marks such as the 'Made in Australia' gold kangaroo in a green triangle. It also defines the idea of a good being substantially transformed. The bill makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Climate Change
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:30): On Monday I was privileged to meet with representatives of Micah Australia who were here campaigning for greater action on climate change in the Pacific. Asia and Pacific nations are on the frontline of climate change. In 2015, 160 disasters were reported in the region, causing over 16,000 deaths and billions of dollars in economic loss. It is a particular issue for low-lying states like Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and Kiribati. Climate change for them is not a looming threat; it is a present danger.
Disaster events are set to increase in our region. In addition to responding in a reactive way, we need to ensure that communities are resilient and prepared in the face of these disasters. That is why it is so important for Australia to help in the effort to reduce climate change and mitigate the impact it is having on many poverty-stricken international communities in our neighbourhood. Australia's contribution to international climate finance has not increased significantly since the last Labor government, as a result of massive cuts to foreign aid by the Turnbull and Abbott governments.
Australia has a responsibility to our neighbours to help them cope with the challenges that they currently face and to take effective action on climate change. This should include an economy-wide emissions trading scheme and real action on renewable energy. Over 4,000 Australians have signed Oxfam's postcards to Josh Frydenberg, urging the minister to commit to greater action on climate change. I congratulate them and I thank Micah Challenge for raising this important issue.
Barker Electorate: Storms
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:31): I rise today to speak of the devastation to crops, orchards and vineyards in the Riverland that occurred recently. On the afternoon and evening of Friday, 11 November, a severe supercell thunderstorm passed through South Australia and Victoria, producing damaging winds, golf-ball-sized hailstones and heavy rain. Whilst there was damage to property across both states, one of the worst-hit regions was the Riverland, and there was extensive damage, causing harm to growers' livelihoods. Reports indicate there could be up to $200 million worth of crop losses and property damage across the region, with wine grapes, stone fruit, almonds and citrus crops particularly hard-hit.
The damage scar from the thunderstorm extended from Taylorville, near Waikerie, through Woolpunda, Barmera, Monash, Berri, Lyrup, Pike Creek and out to Yamba. People in these areas have lived through the millennium drought and are dealing with low commodity prices. Many growers were looking forward to bumper crops but are now faced with almost complete economic loss. I visited the region following the weather event, and it is simply devastating. Ripe fruit is rotting on the ground. Vines have been stripped. Others are on the ground. A recovery centre has been established, and counsellors at the Rural Financial Counselling Service are facilitating damage assessments for farmers. This is a resilient community. It was tested during the millennium drought and it is being tested again.
Pabari, Mr Taj
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:33): I want to tell the House and the nation beyond about a remarkable CEO who has had a bit to do with my electorate. He is the co-founder of a global software company. What makes him a bit different is that this CEO and founder of a global software company is 17 years old. He graduated last week from one of the great schools in my electorate, John Paul College. His name is Taj Pabari, and his company, which is called Fiftysix Creations, is a social enterprise that produces build-it-yourself computer tablets and coding kits for kids, which are being used in schools right around the world. Taj describes it as the 'Lego of the 21st century'. If you want to read more about it, check out today's Courier-Mail. He employs about nine full-time staff and 15 to 20 part-timers. They work out of Melbourne but also out of San Francisco and London. His team have educated 43,000 students around the world. They have ambitious plans to expand that to a million by 2020. He was acknowledged overnight as the 2017 Queensland Young Australian of the Year. When he was at school, he would get up at 4 am to do his CEO work before he went to school to do the usual curriculum.
Ms Brodtmann interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: He is an extraordinary person, as the member for Canberra just said. We congratulate him; we commend him; we thank him for being such an inspiring, remarkable, extraordinary young person.
Durack Electorate: South Beach Rescue
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:34): I rise to speak today on the exceptional courage displayed by four young boys from the town of Dongara in my electorate who saved the life of an elderly fisherman in rough seas off the coast at South Beach, Port Denison. The boys were watching the surf one Friday afternoon when they noticed a fisherman several hundred metres offshore caught in rough seas in a small dinghy. As they watched, a large wave hit the dinghy and the elderly fisherman was thrown from his boat. The boys sprang into action and, after acquiring the keys to the local surf lifesaving club, all four paddled out on rescue boards in the cold water to rescue the fisherman. Travis Owen managed to get the fisherman onto his board and bring him into shore while his friends managed to retrieve the boat and several of the man's belongings.
I will be presenting an award from Surf Life Saving Australia to Travis Owen next week here in parliament, but I wanted to take the time for this House to acknowledge the bravery and selflessness Travis and his friends showed to this perfect stranger. Travis and his friends are fine young men and I am extremely proud that they call the electorate of Durack home.
Broadband
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:36): A few moments ago, right there, the Prime Minister was bragging and slapping himself on the back and talking about what an amazing job he has done with rolling out the National Broadband Network. Well, I can tell you, right throughout regional Australia there are a whole bunch of people who were shaking their heads and saying, 'What planet is this guy living on?' They are people like Mr Langley of Burradoo, who cannot get his premises connected to the NBN, despite the fact that the NBN was rolled through his neighbourhood, and he cannot get an answer about when he will be connected. Mr Tuck of Kanahooka is still not connected almost six months after his building was completed, and the NBN has been rolled through his neighbourhood. Mr Turner, another bloke from Burradoo, who runs an IT consultancy home business, has had no phone and no data since 1 November. Then there is Mr Alekson, who runs a multinational business from Warilla. He has built his business in a new premises in an area where the NBN has been rolled out. He cannot even get a landline.
These are the guys to whom the Prime Minister is saying, 'There's never been a more exciting time,' lecturing us on how we have to be more nimble and agile. I am talking about people who are living in an area designated by the NBN as service class zero, and there are over 50,000 of them. Every time the PM says there has never been a more exciting time, these people are saying, 'What planet is this guy on?' (Time expired)
Diabetes
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:37): I am very pleased to be the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes and, last evening, I assisted the Parliamentary Friends of Eye Health and Vision Care in hosting an event to support Vision 2020's Eyes on Diabetes campaign. The event was also an acknowledgement of World Diabetes Day, which fell on 14 November—which was, of course, a parliamentary non-sitting day. We had the opportunity to submit ourselves to a retinal photograph, which, while identifying eye disease, is now recognised as being one of the best early identifiers of diabetes. There is obviously huge benefit in early diagnosis of diabetes, with another 100,000 Australians a year now being diagnosed as having the disease. Currently, two million Australians are dealing with diabetes. It is the leading cause of amputation, it is the leading cause of coronary heart disease and, most important, it is the leading cause of blindness.
That is why the diabetic community was so pleased with the budget announcement that non-mydriatic retinal photographs were to be funded under Medicare. This item became active on 1 November and will make a huge difference right across Australia. It is envisaged that these photography machines will be rolled out into regional and remote Indigenous communities, which, of course, are plagued by diabetes. Well done to all of those who have contributed to that and well done to the minister.
Western Sydney Airport
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:39): It is unthinkable that Western Sydney Airport might open unsupported by an integrated and fully functioning rail network. The Sydney Morning Herald published an article this morning that confirmed what we all knew to be true: the government has no plans to open Badgerys Creek airport with a rail line. What the government does not seem to understand is that without a rail line the airport will fail. You just have to look at Avalon Airport in Melbourne to see what happens when you build an airport with no infrastructure to go with it. Experts and bodies such as Infrastructure Australia see a rail link is a no-brainer. Retrofitting rail services would be hugely expensive, as well as technically challenging. If the government thinks the airport can rely on roads, they clearly have not sat in Western Sydney traffic. South-west Sydney is infamous for traffic congestion and long commutes. Piling more cars onto local roads and ignoring the consequences would constitute a planning failure of massive proportions.
This issue is of vital importance to the people of Macarthur and Western Sydney. They are entitled to be treated as more than just an afterthought. We have one opportunity to build an airport in Western Sydney, and if we are not going to do it properly we will just end up with a failed airport. This is our one chance to build this major infrastructure properly. If the government is going to do a half-arsed project, do not bloody do it at all.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I warn the member for Macarthur about unparliamentary language.
Berowra Electorate: Hills District Mums
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:40): Last week I was privileged to have a meeting in Beecroft with a dynamic new community group in my electorate, the Hills District Mums. Hills District Mums is a Facebook group. It is a fantastic network that brings local mothers together through Facebook not only to find out what is on for their kids in the area but also to share ideas on child rearing, to source advice on family issues and to grow and support local small businesses.
Hills District Mums was founded by Justine Slapp and Jenni Bohman. The two met at the Pennant Hills mothers group at a local community centre and soon saw the opportunity to create a similar mothers group through Facebook. They originally aimed for 200 members, but the rapid growth of the group surpassed all expectations. Today, Hills District Mums has more than 13,000 members and a committed team of 12 volunteers who help manage the group.
Justine and Jenni also created a parallel business through Hills District Mums, and it is one of our local entrepreneurial success stories. In 2015, they won the Sydney Hills business of the year award for community contribution and were recognised as having the most outstanding new business in the local business awards.
In our meeting last week we discussed issues of concern to the local community with 25 mums, including the important role that both the NBN and the NDIS are anticipated to play in the area, as well as the challenges of maternity leave, starting a small business and the importance of strong communities. This is clearly a great group of women who are dedicated to their local community. I want to congratulate Justine, Jenny and the members of the Hills District Mums for their outstanding efforts.
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:42): Ever since news broke that chemicals from legacy firefighting foam may have contaminated the areas surrounding RAAF Base Williamtown and the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, the Turnbull government has offered affected communities nothing but anxiety and uncertainty. Residents sit and wait for answers they are not sure will ever come from this government, and it seems that communities around the other 16 Defence sites currently being investigated are in for the same treatment: more delay, more waiting and more silence from this government.
It was Labor that initiated the Senate inquiry into contamination at Defence and other Commonwealth sites. It was Labor that developed a comprehensive policy response to the issue, and it was the Turnbull government that copied it. It was Labor that led on establishing an intergovernmental task force to coordinate a consistent response across the country. It was Labor that led on offering blood tests for residents. It was Labor that offered the financial assistance needed to keep Williamtown fishers fishing. And what do we get from those opposite? Nada. Not one of the Turnbull government's three Defence ministers has managed so much as a word on PFAS contamination—nothing. Communities right around the country are facing uncertainty. They should not be left to suffer in the Turnbull government's silence. Labor lead because we know silence is not a solution. Silence is not leadership.
Crime
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:43): Last week I was very pleased to join with the mayor of the Maroondah City Council, Councillor Tony Dib, to announce that we are going ahead with the government's $435,000 commitment to improve CCTV cameras for the Croydon main street and town square. The funding will provide an upgrade to 14 existing security cameras in the area and install seven new cameras. We know from prior experience that CCTV is a proven crime deterrent and that these new and improved cameras will provide vital crime-fighting information to local police at Croydon police station and help them improve safety for our community.
I want to assure the residents of Deakin that I will continue to work with police, the local traders and the council on ways that we can improve safety above and beyond these measures. My focus on community safety is more important than ever, with a weak Labor state government that has presided over lawlessness and soaring crime rates. Every day, we hear more reports of thefts, burglaries, assaults and carjackings, with parts of Melbourne becoming the playground of violent gangs.
In the face of this situation locally, we have seen Nunawading police station forced to close its doors to the public. So, with a Labor state government too weak to address crime, initiatives like the installation of CCTV in Croydon are more important than ever, and I want to assure my electorate that we will keep working for ways to improve that safety.(Time expired)
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:45): The Turnbull government has failed the people of Williamtown and Salt Ash. It has failed people whose homes, bodies, businesses and babies have been contaminated by firefighting chemicals that have leached from the Williamtown RAAF Base for decades. The government has failed these people because it made promises it has not kept—promises about containing these chemicals that are still leaching from the base; promises about remediating the land, which is all but worthless; and promises about solutions for our community, a way out.
Through its delays, its inaction and its disregard for the pleas for help, the government has forced the people of Williamtown and Salt Ash to take this matter into their own hands. They have engaged lawyers and they have launched a class action against Defence for the damage done and the losses caused. The government has done naught. This community—old farmers, young families and horse lovers—chose these idyllic small acreages to grow their vegies, raise their chooks and raise their children. All of that is gone, through no fault of their own. On 4 September last year, they awoke to front-page warnings not to drink their water and not to eat their vegetables or their eggs. Fishing was banned. Overnight, they were in the red zone. I tell you now, this government has categorically failed them.
Forde Electorate: State Emergency Service
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:47): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the volunteers at the Logan State Emergency Service, including local controller Jim Ferguson, for placing first in the 2016 South Eastern Region SES rescue competition. The event was held at Pimpama, and the Logan team faced off against SES crews from the Ipswich and Somerset regions. Each crew had to participate in three real-life scenarios. The crews had to work through scenarios such as trying to get casualties out of a burning building, a car accident and even flooded areas. The crews were judged on their reactions to the three hour-long tasks, their performance during the scenarios and the communication among team members.
It goes to show that the year-round training and practice has put our South-East Queensland SES crews in a good position to help our community when natural disasters and accidents hit. I would like to congratulate Jim and the whole team for an outstanding performance and, after winning this terrific competition, I wish them the best of luck as they prepare to take on the state's best SES crews in Townsville in April next year.
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (13:48): Following the member for Paterson's excellent contribution, I rise to talk about the devastating financial impact that the contamination around RAAF Williamtown is having on the residents of Williamtown and Salt Ash. What we have already seen is a 15 per cent decline in land values, which is placing families and farmers under huge pressure. We are seeing valuers refusing to go onto properties because of OH&S concerns. Imagine that—valuers will not even go onto the properties, which people are being forced to live in, to understand the impact of this contamination on land values. What is worse, the government committed to talking to the banks to give these communities breathing space so they could really get on top of this issue, but the government have already broken that promise. We have seen the banks taking advantage of that.
In the recent House of Representatives banking inquiry, which I participated in, we saw allegations that banks did not even give breathing space; in fact, they pressured residents of Salt Ash and Williamtown to increase their repayments at an outrageous time when they were facing huge crises. Imagine that—trying to get through a huge issue of contamination, with the heath impacts and the financial impacts, and banks are saying, 'Not only are we not going to give you breathing space; we are going to ramp up your repayments.' The government has done nothing to stop this. The government must step in to protect these communities. To preserve the financial and health futures of these residents, it is time for the government to do something, for once, on this issue.
Sunshine Coast: Trade
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:49): The coalition government is unashamedly focused on growing Australia's economy. In a world that is more interconnected than ever, Australia's future prosperity will rely heavily on our ability to market our products and our ideas to the world. Geographically, we are very lucky to be located in close proximity to Asia's economic powerhouses, but that is where our reliance on pure luck must end and intelligence and tenacity must kick in.
Located just an hour north of major air and sea ports, the Sunshine Coast is very well placed to take advantage of Australia's improved trading relationships with Japan, China and Korea. These conditions were made possible by the coalition's relentless pursuit of free trade agreements with key export markets. It is for this reason that the Hon. Steve Ciobo, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, answered the call of local Sunshine Coast businesses wanting to know how best they could tap into lucrative Asian markets. Hosted by the assistant minister, the Hon. Keith Pitt, Austrade conducted a free trade seminar in Mooloolaba recently to provide practical advice to some of the coast's best small- and medium-sized businesses on how they could best take advantage of free trade agreements secured by the coalition.
Recently I attended Walker Seafoods, which is the largest wild caught tuna fishery in Australia. It is only—(Time expired)
Victoria: Crime and Policing
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:51): I rise today to put on the record a few facts about what is going on in Victoria and what was going on in Victoria under the former Liberal government. Day after day I sit in here and I listen to the member for Deakin, the member for Corangamite and other Victorian members denigrate our state and denigrate our young people—all in the full knowledge that a Liberal government put not one extra police officer into the force in the state of Victoria in four years. Not one extra police officer did they train or did they put into a police station. Yet now they come in here and they use words like 'gangs', trying to paint pictures of young people in Victoria who have made mistakes, who have committed crimes and who will be held accountable for those crimes.
Mr Sukkar: Not under your weak government.
Ms RYAN: We do not need to paint our state in a negative light in this chamber, member for Deakin. I think that some members in this place need to take some time and think about the way they portray our state. They need to think about the impact they are having on families. They want to talk about crime and fear, and all the time they are creating fear in people's homes, in schools and in our suburbs. I hope that those members from Victoria have a long, hard think about their tactics.
Robertson Electorate: Copacabana Community
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:53): This coming Saturday the community of Copacabana is invited to a morning tea at eleven o'clock at the Allagai Bay Cafe to discuss local issues and to hear updates on some major election commitments. For instance, we are installing new and upgraded CCTV camera at Copa as part of the coalition government's Safer Streets program. The rollout includes cameras near the shops at Del Monte Place, two cameras at the skate park and one at Captain Cook lookout. With the support of our hardworking local police, the community and the Central Coast Council, work on installing the cameras is expected to start by April next year.
We will also talk about our $3.8 million investment to upgrade Oceano Street, which is riddled with potholes and needs fixing, and we will tackle an issue that has been brought to my attention on Facebook this week: the campaign to bring back Chantelle. It started when Nav Davis reached out to me with a story about how he and his mates at Copa made a wooden bench that they liked to sit on together and chew the fat—a bench made, in his own words, 'with their blood, sweat and tears'. They called their favourite homemade bench Chantelle. But now, in news that sent shockwaves through the youth in this beachside suburb, Chantelle is believed to be missing. Police have made some inquiries on their behalf, but there are no leads at this early stage. The Express Advocate newspaper has now jumped on board, so if you know where Chantelle might be, come to my community morning tea and help us bring back Chantelle.
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:54): My heart goes out to people in electorates where homes have been contaminated by firefighting chemicals. The information coming out, including from the member for Paterson, is frightening—the impacts on health, the impacts on livelihoods, the impacts on land values. There are concerns in my own electorate of Macquarie, where we have the Richmond RAAF Base, a much loved institution. That is one lot of aeroplanes we really like to see! Richmond RAAF Base sits on a river and there is a town at either end—Richmond and Windsor. We do not know what contamination has occurred on this site. There simply are not any answers.
In the overdue testing that was done by the government, only two of the 11 bores that were meant to be tested were tested. On that basis, we are told there are some positive results, that drinking water is not contaminated. But that really is not enough testing for us to have any idea about what the impacts are. We are in the dark at Richmond. It leaves uncertainty for the people around Richmond RAAF Base. The communities are going to be suffering stress for another year until we find out more detail. This is not good enough. Testing needs to be speeded up. Communities need to know now what impact this chemical may have on their lives.
O'Connor Electorate: Returned Servicemen
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:56): Last week I met a remarkable ex-serviceman, Brian, an Afghanistan veteran doing great work in my electorate of O'Connor and beyond. Brian was discharged from the SAS on medical grounds after returning home from active duty. Brian suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and, due to the nature of his illness, could not negotiate the process required to secure vocational retraining, income support or medical care. Like many returned servicemen, he struggled with the transition to civilian life. Tragically, he ended up having a complete breakdown.
Brian's loving partner, Karen, endured some rocky times but persevered to secure Department of Veterans' Affairs eligibility for the care Brian needed to make the journey back to a normal life. As part of his recovery, Brian is now committed to helping those who have fallen through the cracks as he did. Brian receives donations in kind to help fill his 'Help Save Our Veterans' trailer. He drives around Perth and the south-west distributing toiletries, clothing and bedding to the homeless and connecting with veterans living rough. He has opened his home, on a peaceful rural property, to those needing refuge while they find their feet. He and Karen help them access their entitlements and medical care, even driving them to specialist appointments in Perth. Together, they are working hard to expand their facilities to provide accommodation and support services for veterans, their partners and families while they rebuild their relationships and their lives. I commend Brian and Karen for their dedication to troubled Australian veterans and I commit to assisting them whenever I can.
Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (13:57): I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken today. That is what good local members do; they stand up for their communities when times are tough. I have had the privilege, through the member for Paterson, of meeting with families near Williamtown—parents like Samantha Kelly, the loving mother of baby William. These brave residents currently fear the worst. They are worried about the effects on their health, their homes, their children and their livelihoods. They have been waiting too long for decisive action from the Commonwealth government—action which involves listening as well as doing.
For me, it is this simple: imagine if your livelihood was under a cloud and your property was at risk. Imagine if it was your family and your children. Would you be satisfied with the inaction and mixed messages from the government? This is not a time to airily dismiss people's concerns or hide behind red tape and process. It is not an occasion where we can let our fellow Australians be passed from one phone queue to another. We have seen what happened at Fiskville, for example. Therefore, we cannot simply dismiss the concerns of Australians at Williamtown, Oakey and elsewhere—all around the country—who are looking to this parliament for a national approach. They are asking for our help. To those residents who are concerned I say: Labor will stand with you. We will keep fighting for you today and every day.
Small Business
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:59): It was my pleasure to attend the launch of the Shop Small campaign here on Tuesday evening. I would like to thank Minister McCormack and my colleagues for spreading the message on just how important it is to shop locally within our committees. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. There is great value to be found by shopping locally—all while supporting local jobs and providing security to local businesses and their families. Since Shop Small began this month, I have been happy to see the message being taken up throughout my electorate. There has always been a strong emphasis on supporting small businesses within the community.
Last month, I was thrilled to see an even greater turnout for the annual Bayside Business Expo held in Wynnum. The expo provides a great opportunity for small businesses just starting out and established businesses to network and share their knowledge. The expo also showcased what these local businesses had to offer.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the Senate has delivered a humiliating defeat to the government on the backpacker tax. Will the Prime Minister now accept the sensible compromise offered by the Senate, or will the Prime Minister instead confirm that, because of his government's actions and budget incompetence, Australia will have an internationally uncompetitive 32½ per cent backpacker tax from the beginning of next year if the Prime Minister cannot compromise?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right! The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): The only reason backpackers would pay 32½ per cent tax is because the Labor Party refuses to support the 19 per cent tax levy.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr TURNBULL: That 19 per cent tax rate will reduce the level of tax that would otherwise be paid by nonresidents, which is precisely what the backpackers are. That is up to the Labor Party. They could support that. They are the ones that are going to ensure, if they have their way, that backpackers are paying 32½ per cent, because they are nonresidents and because the ATO has ruled that they are nonresidents. This is a plain act of economic vandalism by the Labor Party. It is a plain act of undermining Australian businesses—Australian horticultural businesses, Australian tourism businesses.
The Labor Party has no shame. They have the gall to come in here and talk about the AAA rating and talk about economic responsibility, when what they want to do is reduce the level of tax that backpackers pay, apparently, to one that is even lower than that with the marginal rate which an Australian would pay. And they talk about protecting Australian jobs!
What we are doing is supporting a sustainable rate of tax for backpackers, and we ask the Labor Party, again, to act responsibly and to act in the interest of Australians and support that rate.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the next question, the level of interjections was far too high. I considered asking the Prime Minister to momentarily resume his seat while I dealt with some people. I will not put up with that level of noise; it disrupts the House. I am warning now the members for Jagajaga, Shortland, Lyons and—I have Jagajaga twice. There you go! That is the final warning.
Economy
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:03): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I saw that you missed the member for Wakefield out. My question is to the Prime Minister.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Swan, the clock is ticking.
Mr IRONS: Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's record of achievement and on the importance of pursuing further economic reform that creates jobs and growth for hardworking Australians?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the honourable member for his question. This week the government has again delivered important economic reforms. Only months into the 45th Parliament we are delivering on our commitments—commitments that I remind the Leader of the Opposition were endorsed by the Australian people at the election.
Yesterday, the parliament passed our superannuation reforms, securing $6 billion in gross savings. Those changes make the superannuation system fairer and more sustainable for all Australians. These were substantial, important reforms that we took to the election. We won, and they have now been passed by the parliament. We have delivered around $20 billion in gross budget repair and we have delivered tax cuts for half a million middle-income Australians.
These reforms help ensure that we remain the prosperous, generous, fair, First World economy which can afford a generous social welfare safety net; a country where essential services—education, health care and infrastructure—are well funded and accessible for all Australians. However, if we want to continue doing that, we cannot fall into the complacency that the Labor Party is trapped in. We need to continue that strong economic reform.
One of the key elements in economic reform is restoring the rule of law to the industrial relations sphere—to the construction sector; to the unions—and this week the Senate passed the registered organisations bill. This is a critical reform, one the Labor Party opposed, root and branch, and yet all it has sought to do, and all it now will do, is ensure that union officials have the same obligations of accountability, transparency, integrity—the same duties—to their members, as company directors have to their shareholders. It will be harder for the Kathy Jacksons and the Craig Thomsons to rip their members off. It will be a lot harder for them to get away with it and, when they get caught, the penalties will be much heavier. This is a reform that is manifestly in the interests of the workers of Australia.
But there is one more reform in this sphere that we are asking the opposition to support: restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission. How much more evidence of thuggery and of illegality, how many more breaches of the law and how many more fines that are brushed off like parking tickets do we have to bear before the opposition recognises that Australia must be governed by the rule of law?
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why he would prefer to have an internationally, uncompetitive backpacker tax rate of 32½ per cent instead of agreeing to the Senate's resolution that it should be the same as New Zealand at 10½ per cent? Why would the Prime Minister prefer to punish Australia's tourism, agriculture and hospitality sectors, rather than swallow his pride and accept a compromised rate of 10½ per cent?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:07): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the government, Mr Speaker. If the member opposite actually understood something about this, he would know that at 19c—the compromise position put forward by the government—a backpacker will take home and put in their pocket just as much by working in Australia as they would by working in Canada, the United Kingdom or New Zealand. What those opposite are proposing, what they want, is a lower rate of tax for foreign workers and a higher rate of tax for small businesses in this country. So I ask those opposite why they want Australian small businesses to pay higher rates of tax than they do in New Zealand, in Korea, in Malaysia, in Singapore, in the United Kingdom and, ultimately, in the United States.
Those opposite come into this place every day, lecturing about the need for more revenue measures, and in the other place and in here they have voted to give foreign workers a tax cut at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $500 million. That is the priority of those opposite. And this is the shadow Treasurer who said that it is a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax—'It's a Labor thing.' Well, it is not a Labor thing when they have to come into this place and vote for it. What they would rather do is vote for tax cuts for foreign workers.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:09): I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from Nepal led by the Hon. Dr Mahat, Minister for Foreign Affairs. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you and your delegation.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr GEE (Calare) (14:09): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why it is important for hardworking Australian farmers and workers that the parliament passes the 19 per cent tax rate for backpackers?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:10): I thank the honourable member for his question. Might I say, right from the very start, that when the rate was at 32½ per cent, we put money on the table—$40 million on the table—for a time—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo is warned.
Mr JOYCE: to make sure that we could negotiate a better rate. And then after discussions with the NFF, the VFF, farmers in the Northern Territory and the tourism accommodation sector, everybody agreed on a 19 per cent rate. Not only was the 19 per cent rate fair; a 19 per cent rate also reflected something that was saleable to Australian workers working in the same field. And now we have this ridiculous proposition: the member for Maribyrnong is going to punish Australian workers by having somebody working beside them on a half to a third of the tax rate doing exactly the same job. The member for Maribyrnong believes that Alberto from Milano, when he goes to work in a pub in Dorrigo and after he has had a torrid six months surfing, comes back, does exactly the same job as Brad from Bostobrick. The trouble is that Brad from Bostobrick is on twice the tax rate annualised over the year and, for the period of time he is there, he could be on three times. What do you say to those Australian workers when they know that they are being done over by you; and where are you getting your economic advice from? Senator Jacquie Lambie.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left. The member for Bendigo has been warned. The member for Hunter is now warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On two matters, Mr Speaker. One, I thought it was in his interest to take a breath, but, secondly—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has latitude, but it is not as extensive as I think he assumes.
Mr Burke: Comments should be directed through the chair and his use of the word 'you', I do not think was meant to be directed at the Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for defending the office of the Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr JOYCE: So what we have now is that the Labor Party is playing one game and it is political bastardry. They are playing a game—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr JOYCE: I withdraw—they know what they are doing. Do you honestly believe that the Australian Labor Party believes that the best form of economic advice they can get, rather than from the member for McMahon, is from Senator Jacqui Lambie from Tasmania? Is that now the vessel—the economic light—of the Labor Party?
Why are they doing this when they went to the election proposing a 32½ per cent tax? Why did they go to the election with a 32½ per cent per cent tax and now they are proposing a 10½ per cent tax for no other reason than to destroy the deal that is done so that we can start work and start getting the fruit off the trees? Are these the sorts of actions of a prospective leader of our nation that they would do something like this? It is the absolute height of hypocrisy that someone could say something like that and then say that his mantra is looking after Australian jobs and looking after Australian workers. All we see now is someone who is an immense disappointment, because when he had the chance to stand up, when he had the chance to be decent, he could not help it but just be what he is.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a).
Working Holiday Maker Program
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Given no Australian worker pays any tax on the first $18,200 of earnings, isn't it the case that under Labor's sensible backpacker tax proposal, there is no income level at which Australians would pay more tax than working holiday-makers? Why is the government misleading the Australian people?
Honourable members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. I am going to ask the member for Rankin to come back. I was finding it difficult to hear the question for an obvious reason that I will not keep repeating.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker is warned. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will repeat his question.
Dr CHALMERS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. Given no Australian worker pays any tax on the first $18,200 of earnings, isn't it the case that under Labor's sensible backpacker tax proposal there is no income level at which Australians would pay more tax than working holiday-makers? Why is the government misleading the Australian people?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:15): I thank the member for his question. The member might like to sit next to the shadow Treasurer and remind him what the tax-free threshold is. He will recall that, when he had an interview with Alan Jones some time ago and he was asked to nominate what the tax-free threshold was, he was all at sea. He might want to go down there and have a chat to the member for Lilley's apprentice and refresh himself on the tax-free threshold.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Solomon is warned.
Mr MORRISON: Our ambition for young Australians, and particularly those working in regional areas, is that they earn a bit more than $18,200, that they are able to work throughout the entire year. If an Australian were to work throughout the entire year alongside a foreign backpacker working in Australia, in comparison the Australian would be paying on average $132.65 per week in tax but the foreign worker standing next to them would be paying $99.75 a week. I asked in the House yesterday what union those opposite were members of. Maybe they are members of the foreign workers union, because they are the interests that they are seeking to represent in this place. Those opposite think it is a better idea for small businesses to pay higher rates of tax in this country by refusing to support the government's proposal to extend the threshold for small business up to $10 million a year, where they will pay 27.5c in the dollar in tax, where they will get access to the instant asset write-off and where they will get access to the depreciation pooling provisions.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce is warned.
Mr MORRISON: That is what we are proposing to do, and those opposite are opposing it. Instead, they come into this place and say, 'Give foreign workers a tax cut,' and ask every Australian worker paying income tax to foot the bill for $500 million. They went to the last election saying that if they were elected they would come up with a plan that cost exactly the same as the government's. The shadow Treasurer put that in his forward estimates. Well, he lied on the basis of what he has put forward here.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will withdraw that word.
Mr MORRISON: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:17): It is my pleasure to also welcome to the House three former members: Mrs Karen McNamara, the former member for Dobell; Mrs Natasha Griggs, the former member for Solomon; and Mr Stuart Henry, the former member for Hasluck. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the three of you.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Pensions and Benefits
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (14:18): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment. My constituent Rick is 63 years of age. He was unemployed. He was on Newstart and registered with MAX Employment. He looked for work for over two years. MAX stood to receive up to $10,000 for placing Rick in work. MAX Employment sent Rick to a so-called job interview with Softec Homes. Rick won the job but realised he was not an employee but a subcontractor required to pay invoices. Rick told MAX Employment several times that he was not getting paid. Rick is now owed more than $12,000. He has no money for a lawyer and no longer hears from MAX Employment, and winding up orders were recently issued for Softec Homes. What checks and balances are in place so that vulnerable jobseekers like Rick are not taken advantage of?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:19): I thank the member for Mayo for her question without notice. It is a genuine question without notice, and I am very glad that she is standing up for her—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Unlike yours, which are always so predictable—yours are always entirely predictable—I do thank the member for Mayo for her question. I think it is important to come into the House and to raise issues about your constituency and about particular members in your constituency who have approached you for assistance. Unlike the opposition, I can see from the member for Mayo's question that she genuinely is concerned about her constituent and would like a fulsome response. As she knows, I represent the Minister for Employment in the House of Representatives, as opposed to being the Minister for Employment in the House of Representatives, so I will take that question on formal notice and I will ensure that the minister, Senator Cash, responds to the member for Mayo directly and that, therefore, you can represent your constituent as well as you possibly can.
In a wider sense, I would say to the member for Mayo that in the last few years that the coalition government has been in government we have created over half a million new jobs in Australia. It is one of the great achievements of the coalition government—under both the Turnbull government and the Abbott government—that when we got elected in 2013 we brought a laser-like focus to creating jobs and to increasing growth. I am sure the Treasurer will correct me if I am wrong, but in the next 12 months we expect growth to be around three per cent in Australia—higher than any of the other countries in the G7 and easily one of the highest in the G22. The truth is that the policies that we are putting in place are designed to create jobs and support constituents like the member for Mayo's—whether it is policies to do with the PaTH program, which we passed through the House of Representatives yesterday, that support young Australians looking for work or incentives for employers to take on middle-aged and older workers for retraining and skilling programs.
In my own portfolio of Defence industry, the member for Mayo, as a South Australian, would know that we will benefit enormously because the Turnbull government is ensuring that $195 billion is spent on growing our defence capability over the next 10 years. While the No. 1 priority is the capability of our Defence Force, the No. 2 priority is maximising the jobs, the industry and the growth here in Australia. In South Australia—in the case of me and the member for Mayo—in terms of submarines and shipbuilding, we will take the workforce at Osborne north and south from about 2,000 to over 5,000 over the next few years. It will be a huge investment in terms of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I thank the member for Mayo for her question, and I am sure that the Minister for Employment will write to her, responding in a very detailed way.
Current Account Deficit
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is reducing deficit and arresting debt by returning the budget to balance? Is the treasurer aware of any alternative policy proposals that would increase the budget deficit, threaten Australia's AAA credit rating and jeopardise the jobs of hardworking Australians?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:23): I thank the member for Brisbane for his question and for his background in economics. He knows very well the importance of ensuring that we return the budget to surplus and that we continue to implement policies that grow the economy so you can lift revenues through jobs and people being able to get increased hours of work, and that is why we are progressing with our enterprise tax plan. Since the last election, the government has secured $20 billion and more in budget improvement measures passed through this place and the other place. That is a significant rate of progress that we have been able to achieve in implementing the budget measures that we took to the last election and announced in our budget in May and in the carry forward of measures that we have been pursuing, in some cases, for three years. In addition to that, we have seen real growth in expenditure reduced from some 4.2 per cent under the budgets of those opposite. Under the budgets of this coalition, starting with Treasurer Hockey and me, we have been able to get that real growth in expenditure down to 1.6 per cent. It has fallen from 4.2 per cent down to 1.6 per cent. Slowing the growth in expenditure is enabling us to get back on a trajectory to come to a balance in 2021 based on the current projections.
The warning that we have received from the ratings agencies is a warning that has been applied to this entire parliament, and that warning is to pursue and implement and pass the savings and revenue measures that the government have put in the budget to ensure that the trajectory and projection for return to a balance is achieved. Now, that is a very sober warning for those who sit opposite, and for the states' house in the other place, because it is incredibly important that if these measures are not passed, then the AAA credit rating of this country will be at risk. And if those opposite want to play Russian roulette with Australia's AAA credit rating by refusing the budget measures—
Dr Chalmers: What about the $50 billion tax cut?
The SPEAKER: Member for Rankin!
Mr MORRISON: and the consolidation path that this government has laid out in the budget, then the loss of that rating will hang around the neck of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. It won't be the first time, because we remember when the ratings were lost last time; it was lost under the Labor Party, and it was regained with Moody's and S&P's under the coalition government. But those opposite have an alternative plan—
Dr Chalmers: You don't have a clue.
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is warned!
Mr MORRISON: but it is not an alternative plan which makes sense because—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a).
Mr MORRISON: even as Saul Eslake said:
… it seems hardly sensible for a would-be Labor government to tolerate a significantly greater budget deficit over the next four years.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer has completed his answer.
Mr Fletcher: The real truth is Swannie.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Urban Infrastructure is warned. The member for Rankin was warned—he did not hear it, perhaps, because he kept interjecting, but I had indicated to him before to cease interjecting—and he will leave under 94(a).
The member for Rankin then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: To conclude, Saul Eslake said, based on the $16½ billion increase in a budget deficit under the policies of those opposite—that is, the Labor Party:
… they are potentially risking the AAA credit rating if they outline significantly bigger deficits.
(Time expired)
Turnbull Government
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, is having a range of policy ideas costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. Has the Prime Minister been helpfully presented with any of these costed policies?
The SPEAKER: That question is out of order. I am moving to the next question.
Trade
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:27): My question is to—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will not interject. I have ruled the question out of order on the basis that it does not go to the Prime Minister's responsibilities at all. We have covered this ground before. I can waste question time if you want. I think it is better if we just play on.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the government's ambitious agenda of export trade deals is creating jobs for hardworking Australians, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:28): I thank the member for Goldstein for his question, because he, like all members of the coalition, is a key part of this government's strong focus on making sure that we are driving opportunities for Australians to be employed, particularly through our strong agenda in relation to boosting exports. It took a coalition government and my predecessor, the member for Goldstein, to put in place three free trade agreements—with Japan, with South Korea and, of course, with China—that have underpinned the strong economic growth that we have had which, in turn, is resulting in strong employment growth for Australians. In fact, it is part of the reason why, as a country, we have had 25 years of continuous economic growth. Indeed, Gaia Skin Naturals, in the member's home state of Victoria, has seen a 36 per cent increase in their exports into the North Asian marketplaces as a direct result of the coalition's historic trifecta of free trade agreements that we put in place. In fact, Gaia general manager, Simon Vogrinec, says Gaia is experiencing double-digit growth and it has enabled the company 'to grow and their supply chain to grow, creating jobs in their local area'.
But the member for Goldstein asks about alternative approaches and is there, in fact, any risks to creating employment pathways for Australians. And I am sorry to say to the member for Goldstein that there are some risks, because what we see is that the Australian Labor Party, under this Leader of the Opposition, are more interested in playing political games than they are in delivering for Australian workers. The Leader of the Opposition, we know, likes to strut around the place saying he is all about putting Australian workers first. We have heard that many times, right? But, unfortunately, despite the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition that he is about Australian workers first, when he comes into this chamber and when the Labor Party comes into this chamber, what do they do? They vote to make sure that foreign workers have a tax advantage compared to Australian workers. What do they do on their costings? The shadow Treasurer actually incorporates costings pre the election of 32½ per cent for backpackers—32½ per cent incorporated as your costings before the election—but then, when it comes to the actual vote, you would rather play political games and instead try to give a big tax cut to foreign workers.
The simple fact is this: the tax cut that the Australian Labor Party wants to deliver to working holiday-makers will be funded off the back of tax increases for small business, funded off the back of tax increases for superannuation holders and funded off the back of making Australian workers less competitive than foreign workers. You say one thing in here and a different thing out on the street.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:30): Before I call the member for Sydney, I would like to inform the House that we have present in the southern gallery this afternoon a delegation of 35 Australian and Indonesian leaders visiting Canberra to take part in the fourth Australia-Indonesia Leaders Program. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Liberal Party
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: is the Prime Minister aware that the publisher of the former Prime Minister's book has said, 'I expect Tony to make the case for the Liberal Party to return to its conservative roots,' about his new book? Isn't it now clear that, no matter how many concessions the Prime Minister makes to the extreme Right of his party, it will always be followed by new policy demands? Why does the policy of this government always reflect the demands of the Liberal Party's extreme Right?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, I inform the House that I clearly ruled the previous question out of order. The final part of the member for Sydney's question is just in order, but I caution those asking questions that I will in future rule out of order questions that are a substantial proportion out of order just with a tag at the end. I call the Prime Minister.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:32): What does it say about the opposition that, when we have great matters of financial management, when we have had a ministerial statement and a bitter and virulent reply on infrastructure today, and when we have had a ministerial statement on national security and another bitter and inflammatory reply from the opposition leader, the opposition does not have the courage to ask one question on either matter? Instead, what we get are these childish, undergraduate questions about trying to play political games. Let me say to you, Mr Speaker: the big risk we have in this House now—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will cease interjecting—that is it.
Mr TURNBULL: is the risk of the opposition and the recklessness and complete disregard for the truth of the Leader of the Opposition. We saw yesterday the way he deliberately and recklessly misrepresented the remarks of the minister for immigration. He deliberately misrepresented them, and he did so in order to inflame unrest, animosity and racial hatred. The Leader of the Opposition's recklessness yesterday was extraordinary. This is what he said. He said that extremists—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance—the question is about a different member of the extreme Right. You've got the wrong member of that faction!
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat!
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Can I just say—I have spoken about the preamble—that, given the breadth of the preamble, I cannot think of a possible way that the Prime Minister could not be relevant to that broad question. I will think about it for the rest of question time, if you like.
Mr TURNBULL: This opposition leader is so incapable of telling the truth, so reckless about it, that he accused the immigration minister of saying things where in fact he said the complete reverse. He accused him of amplifying the proposition that being a Muslim citizen of this country is incompatible with their faith. He said he sought to blame entire communities for the action of a tiny minority. And yet what did the immigration minister say? He said:
I am not going to allow people who … have done the right thing by this country, … who have worked hard … to be defined by those … who are doing the wrong thing …
And then he said:
I am not going to allow the rest of the community … to be defined by those small elements who are besmirching the vast majority …
The opposition leader accused the immigration minister of saying the complete reverse of what he said.
And today, in his infrastructure statement, there were more falsehoods, more reckless untruths. He claimed that the government had to rush in with a loan for the NBN. You know something? That has been part of the plan forever. It was part of Labor's plan. It was part of our plan. The cap was only on the equity. Does he not understand the difference between debt and equity? Is he a fool or a knave, Mr Speaker? I think he is both. (Time expired)
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will cease interjecting.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, you were not warned for turning around; you were warned for interjecting continuously—in a way that threatens the hearing of the Manager of Opposition Business, I have to say.
Workplace Relations
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister explain why it is important to exercise good judgement in making decisions about public policy, particularly in relation to reform of the union movement and the rule of law on building and construction sites?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:37): I thank the member for Deakin for his question because I know that he is actually interested in good public policy and exercising good judgement and making good calls. When you want to be the Prime Minister of Australia, as the Leader of the Opposition does, you have to show good judgement. You have to make good calls. You have to be consistent. You actually have to have some character. And the problem we have in politics in Australia today is a Leader of the Opposition who has totally disregarded any pretence of having good character or good judgement.
This week, he led the Labor Party to vote against workers' interests by voting against the Registered Organisations Commission. Next week, he will lead the Labor Party to vote against the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This week, he grotesquely misrepresented the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in order to inflame ethnic tensions in this country, with a total disregard for our multicultural history and the way we live in harmony. Yesterday, he grotesquely misrepresented the Deputy Prime Minister, claiming things about the Deputy Prime Minister and the Murray-Darling Basin that were utterly and totally untrue. This is the pattern that we have had from the Leader of the Opposition since his audacious 'Mediscare' campaign, and it is time he was called out by everyone in politics and in Australia for his total disregard for being the kind of Leader of the Opposition who deserves to even be considered for the prime ministership of Australia.
But perhaps his worst error of judgement was parachuting Kimberley Kitching into the Senate over the objections of his own faction and his senior leaders in his own frontbench team. This is a person referred to the Commonwealth DPP by the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption for impersonating union officials. This is a person who could not remember to pay $6½ thousand worth of parking fines. This is a person who was referred to by the Fair Work Commission as an unreliable witness. In fact, when she headed the HSU, the national secretary said they stumbled from crisis to crisis in the Health Services Union. And I am not surprised that the member for Isaacs is hiding in the aisle. The member for Isaacs does not want to be called out. But he is no great fan of Senator Kitching. But we know somebody else who is a big fan, and that is the member for Melbourne Ports. The member for Melbourne Ports said Kitching was of equal stature to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, MP Richard Marles, Senator David Feeney and Workplace Relations and Education Minister Bill Shorten. Kimberley Kitching is of equal stature. Does the member for Isaacs agree with that? Has the member for Isaacs come into the House yet and taken a personal explanation to explain that he did not insist on resigning if she was put into the House? No, because he did. He insisted on resigning and he squibbed it. The member for Grayndler also squibbed it. (Time expired)
Medicare
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. After the election, the Prime Minister admitted there was some fertile ground in relation to the government's policies on Medicare. On 11 November, the Prime Minister said that this stemmed from the 2014 budget and the co-payment. So can the Prime Minister Prime Minister confirm that the former Prime Minister and member for Warringah's 2014 budget is to blame for the community's suspicion of the government's current Medicare policies?
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:41): The measure referred to in the 2014 budget was abandoned. It was abandoned because it was not acceptable to the public. And every member of the cabinet, including myself, takes full responsibility for the 2014 budget. But we learn lessons from the measures that we take that are not successful, that are not received, and we are addressing that. There is clearly a vulnerability there; we acknowledge that. But what we have done is be straight, honest and upfront about it. What the Labor Party has done is seek to lie and deceive people. The outrageous 'Mediscare' scandal where text messages were sent—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: And they all laugh about it. That is not the opposition; that is a parallel universe. They think telling lies is funny. They think misleading old people is funny. They keep targeting people who are old, who are vulnerable, who have many medical expenses. They think carefully selecting them and sending them a lying message which appears to come from Medicare is great politics. In the bubble that is the Labor Party, they might think it is great, but everywhere else in Australia they have one word for it; it is fraud.
Australian Building and Construction Commission
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister outline to the House why the Australian Building and Construction Commission is important for delivering new health and aged care for hardworking Australians in a timely manner?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for Sport and Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:43): Thank you to the member for Flynn, representing the fabulous Western Queensland. I have had an opportunity already to list some of the health and aged care services that have been delayed, thanks to union stand-over tactics on building construction sites, and I can add a few more to the list today: the Richmond Epworth Hospital, the Geelong Hospital, Sandringham's Mercy Hospital and the St John of God Hospital in Geelong. That is why we need the ABCC restored, so that future sites of important health services and aged care residential facilities are not delayed. And every time I hear of patients or older Australians being unable to take advantage of new buildings because of the stand-over tactics of this Labor Party's union movement, I know that they are failing to take action where they need to.
We need the ABCC. Who do you trust to maintain law and order on these sites? Certainly not the Labor Party. Will the Leader of the Opposition control his CFMEU backers when they hold up these hospital building sites? No. This is the Leader of the Opposition who had the captain's pick of Kimberley Kitching into the Senate. Her disgraceful conduct at the Health Services Union is a matter of both comedy and legend.
During Kimberley Kitching's two years as general manager of HSU branch No. 1 in Victoria, the cash balances went backwards by $3.2 million. Where did it all go? She used the funds of vulnerable workers in the Health Services Union to try to get into parliament for two unsuccessful preselection campaigns. She was alright in the end—the Leader of the Opposition rode to the rescue. But the most egregious thing she did was to sit the online right of entry tests for at least four people. So she misrepresented people. She was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for impersonating someone to gain right of entry. The people who gain right of entry at building sites are supposed to have safety and concern for the workers front and central. She came into the office and said, 'Did another one; got 100 per cent again.'
A government member: Bragged about it.
Ms LEY: She bragged about it.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
Ms LEY: She drove around Melbourne in her flashy Series 5 BMW—parking wherever she likes and running up parking tickets valued at $66,000—while the members in the Health Services Union struggled with difficult jobs in difficult circumstances.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will cease interjecting.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne Ports will leave under 94(a).
The member for Melbourne Ports then left the chamber.
Ms LEY: And who stands ready to protect her every day of the week? This Leader of the Opposition—because it is not about the health of the nation or delivering projects on time and on budget and it is not about the health of patients; it is about the health of the accounts from which Labor unions draw money to support these members. (Time expired)
Mr Broadbent: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I clearly heard three times somebody catcalling the minister. This is unacceptable behaviour. I do not know who it was. I cannot identify the person, but they should withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Member for McMillan, I heard, through all the wall of interjections, that something was going on. I am going to say to those members—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration will cease interjecting while I am addressing the House. It is highly disorderly to interject in that manner. I am not going to go through the Practice, but it is very clear for those members who want to read it. And if I catch anyone either catcalling or trying to impersonate members, there is a long history of being ejected from the House, and it will not just be a warning. If anyone wishes to withdraw, now having been informed of that, I will now give them the opportunity.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, we are not going to do that, Minister. If anyone wishes to withdraw, I will give them an opportunity. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Intellectual Property
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. A few moments ago, the Prime Minister referred to the targeting of old people. Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister was unaware that this government had threatened to sue a Sydney grandfather for his use of the Medicare logo, and today the Minister for Human Services said that he was not aware of his department's threats to sue. Is the Prime Minister aware of whether the government has also threatened to sue the Liberal Party, the Minister for Trade, the member for Forde, the member for Bonner and the Minister for Health for their use of the Medicare logo, or are these actions limited to a Sydney grandfather?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:48): I can say that I am strongly in favour of deference and respect being accorded to grandfathers. I have to say that I have not experienced much of it from the opposition benches.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: There is one there—very good.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will not use props.
Mr TURNBULL: The way in which the Labor Party in the federal election campaign sought to misuse the Medicare logo was one of the great scandals. I might say that when that was repeated in the ACT election and Medicare complained to the ACT branch of the Labor Party, they apologised and withdrew the offending material. As far as the gentleman in, I believe, Melbourne is concerned, I will speak to the minister. I will have a look at the legal advice and I will review it.
Mr Burke: I seek leave to table the four examples that I referred to of the Liberal Party doing exactly what—
Leave not granted.
A government member: It didn't happen.
Mr Burke: They are your documents.
Law Enforcement
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government has taken to remove dangerous outlaw motorcycle gang members from Australian society. Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is great to see the hard work he is doing up on the Sunshine Coast and integrity restored into the position of member for Fairfax; well done.
One of the great achievements of this government is that we are working with the state police authorities, the intelligence agencies and the crime commissions. We are identifying criminals who are here on visas—so noncitizens—who are out in the community, they are people who are committing crimes, and we are cancelling their visas at a record number. We are making the Australian community a safer place. We want to do that for families. We want people to be able to raise families and live in our community and to do it in a safe way.
I am proud of the fact that we have now cancelled a total of 115 visas of noncitizens who are members or associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Why is that important? It is important because we know that the OMCG members are the biggest distributors of amphetamines in the country. They are involved in extortion, they are involved in armed robberies and they are involved in every sort of criminal activity—
Dr Aly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will not interject.
Mr DUTTON: and they should be stamped out, and that is what we are doing.
The problem that I have—and I think the problem that the Australian public understands—is that there is a very close link between outlaw motorcycle gang members and the CFMEU. That union, unlike other good unions in the country, is involved in the sorts of practices on building sites of intimidating workers, subcontractors, small-business people and workers who go to work each day just trying to earn a quid for their families. They turn up on building sites, and they have the bikies turn up, because they are contracted by the CFMEU to muscle those people off building sites. It is unacceptable. During the election, one of my favourite photos was taken—
The SPEAKER: The minister knows—
Mr DUTTON: I am sorry; of course. It was taken of John 'Gypsy' Morrison. He is a member of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang and he is doing this little secret handshake with the local organiser of the CFMEU, Eddie Bland. They are there, strangely enough, with the 'Only Labor can save Medicare' sign—the propaganda that was used during the campaign. What we know is that the CFMEU have donated $11 million to the Australian Labor Party. What all of this says, and what the Leader of the Opposition has reinforced this week, is that he presides over these relationships. He sanctions the relationships between the CFMEU, the bikies and other people who are involved in criminal activity, because this Leader of the Opposition—the Australian public understands what Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard told us—cannot be trusted. He is a person of terrible character, and he wants to be the prime minister of this country. He is certainly not up to the job.(Time expired)
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. There was an emergency meeting between the Prime Minister and the South Australian Liberal leader today. Given the South Australian Liberal leader has today called on the Prime Minister to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, including the 450 gigalitres, will the Prime Minister now pull his deputy and the leader of the Nationals into line over his divisive threats to the bipartisan Basin Plan?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question. We addressed this yesterday at some length but, to be brief, we are committed to the Basin Plan. It is the Basin Plan that was enacted in November 2012 by his colleague the member for Watson when he was the minister for water. We are committed to, and will comply with, the intergovernmental agreement on implementing water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. In particular, I draw the honourable member's attention to clauses 4.6 and 4.7, and the commitment is the same as it is in the Basin Plan, that 'Water recovered must be recovered in circumstances where the socioeconomic impact on basin communities is neutral or positive.' We recognise that is—
Mr McCormack: A triple bottom line.
Mr TURNBULL: A triple bottom line—exactly. The honourable member assists me. That is the commitment. That is the agreement. And it is an agreement that the Labor government entered into with the states. So it is perfectly clear what the deal is. We are committed to it. I gather the Premier of South Australia is committed to it, too—in fact, I know he is committed to it. And we will deliver on the plan, but it is an agreement which does require that triple bottom line, and honourable members, particularly from irrigation areas and from South Australia, need to recognise that this is a deal that was done with a triple-bottom-line commitment. It was entered into by a Labor government when the member for Watson was the minister. It is very clear. It is set out there. We are committed to it and we are working to deliver it.
Trade Union Joint Police Task Force
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister update the House on the work of the Trade Union Joint Police Task Force? How is the task force tackling the threat of corrupt practices in the union movement?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:56): I thank the member for Durack for that question. She, like all members on this side of the House, will not tolerate corruption in the union movement. The real question facing this parliament is: why does the Labor Party?
Just this week, we have seen two former officials from the National Union of Workers arrested. A man was charged with 24 fraud offences, and a woman was charged with almost 150 fraud offences, and police allege that, over the course of six years, they engaged in a sustained, intentional defrauding of that union and its members to the tune of more than $870,000. If this sounds familiar, it should be, because you have heard it all before in this place from the opposition that ran a protection racket for Craig Thomson when he was here in the parliament. Yesterday, we saw the arrest of a third union official. This one has been charged with 10 fraud offences totalling an alleged value of more than $220,000.
Every day, we are reminded of the need for the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And let us not forget: it was this Leader of the Opposition that abolished the ABCC, and he has got form on this because he is always unwilling or unable to stand up against union corruption. Let us just look at his record. He allowed Joe McDonald, the notorious assistant secretary of the CFMEU in Western Australia, back into the Labor Party, despite him being convicted of 40 breaches of industrial law. He has turned a blind eye to John Setka, who has got a rap sheet longer than my arm, including five counts of assaulting police—a guy who likes to bash police officers. And look—I've got a photo of him here, taken in Moonee Valley—
The SPEAKER: The minister knows the rules on props.
Mr KEENAN: Where would that be taken? At Bill Shorten's election night party, of a guy who likes to bash police officers.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. His answer is over. I made it very clear on referring to members by their correct titles. I am sorry; we will move to the next question.
Broadband
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. In 2013, the Prime Minister promised every Australian household would have access to the NBN by the end of this year. Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that, to deliver on his promise, he has to connect 7.8 million premises in the next 37 days? Or does he have such a high opinion of his talents that he considers it a breeze to connect 210,000 premises per day? That is over 8,000 premises per hour, or 140 premises per minute.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:58): I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member will recall that, at the time we inherited the NBN from her government, only 51,000 premises had been activated in six years of Labor government. In the last four weeks, nearly 90,000 premises were activated. We are activating nearly twice as many premises every four weeks as the Labor Party did in its entire six-year term in government. That is the difference. We are getting on with the job and we are building the NBN. There are 3½ million premises that can get it now, and about 1½ million—or somewhat more, in fact—are actually connected and activated. It is meeting its targets and it is beating them. But the Labor Party is relentless in its desire to mislead and spread falsehoods about the NBN.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Greenway.
Mr TURNBULL: Let's look at this. Let's look at what the Leader of the Opposition said today in a considered ministerial statement. He said:
… after insisting that the government's funding contribution was capped, the Liberals have been forced to step in with a $19.5 billion loan to complete the rollout …
Ever since the first corporate plan since the election, ever since the first strategic review of Labor's NBN it has always been clear that the NBN would have to borrow a substantial amount of money to complete the project. It was always clear. And it was always clear that the $29½ billion commitment was for equity—that is, to buy shares in the company, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, as distinct from borrowing money. So it has been perfectly clear for years and years that the government was going to have to provide a loan, or a loan would be given from third parties, to the NBN Co to complete the rollout. That was always clear.
But, you see, the Leader of the Opposition is so dishonest that he is prepared to stand up and read a speech and say 'after insisting the government's funding contribution was capped'—that is not the case. We said the equity contribution was capped, and it is. We were always going to need to borrow money. He knew that, everybody knew that. And he says we have been forced to step in. He has deliberately misled on this matter. He knows what the facts are—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister—
Mr TURNBULL: He has no regard for the truth.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister needs—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton can withdraw from the chamber now under 94(a). I am not going to keep calling him.
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I know why the Manager of Opposition Business rose on his feet. The Prime Minister needs to withdraw 'deliberately misled'. The word 'deliberately misled' can only be by a substantive motion. It is the word 'deliberate' that is the problem.
Mr TURNBULL: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I withdraw that, but the fact of the matter is—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: All right.
Infrastructure
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister explain to the House the significance of the government's response to the Infrastructure Australia 15-year plan? How will other initiatives support the government's $50 billion Infrastructure Investment Program, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:02): I do thank the member for Robertson, who does have a strong interest in infrastructure and who is a very strong voice for her electorate. As she rightly observes, today the government responded to the 15-year plan which has been released by Infrastructure Australia, provided to the government earlier this year. We have announced a number of key initiatives as part of our response to this important plan.
The government has announced that we will be working with state governments to agree on urban rail plans for Australia's five largest cities and their surrounding regions to inform future Commonwealth investment. We have dedicated that we will be progressing the next steps for heavy vehicle user charging reform. We have announced that we will be establishing a study led by an eminent Australian into the potential benefits and impacts of road user charging for light vehicles, recognising that any change here would be a 10- to 15-year journey and would go ahead only if it met tests of fairness, better roads and vehicles able to move around more freely.
We have announced a data collection and dissemination plan for transport and a national freight and supply chain strategy. These initiatives build on the coalition's $50 billion spending program in relation to transport infrastructure. When you add in other infrastructure, including the National Broadband Network and water infrastructure, the coalition is spending $80 billion on infrastructure. That is our commitment to infrastructure—consistent spending and policy direction informed by Infrastructure Australia, the government's independent adviser on infrastructure.
I am asked if there are any alternative approaches to infrastructure policy, in contrast to the approach we have taken. There is an alternative approach that the Leader of the Opposition has that might be called his 'look away for $11 million' approach. The fact is that the industrial action, the corruption, the criminality of the CFMEU that we see on building sites all around Australia means that Australians are paying more for infrastructure than they would need to pay if the rule of law applied on building sites. For example, according to an analysis conducted by Deloittes for Master Builders Association of Victoria, an extra $621 million over four years is what has to be paid to meet the infrastructure program of the Victorian government—$621 million. That would buy a lot of schools, roads and hospitals but, I guess, for $11 million, you look away.
The Leader of the Opposition was asked about this on 7.30. Leigh Sales said to him: 'Labor continues to accept donations from the CFMEU', and he said:
You're right: I do have no tolerance for union corruption. Some of the reports which came out of the Royal Commission, where you see officials taking members' money, just makes me sick to the guts.
Sounds like Captain Renault in Casablanca: 'I'm shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on in here!'
Prime Minister
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time yesterday, in answer to a question from the member for Gorton, the Prime Minister said he had no choice over his investments in 7-Eleven, because he invests through managed funds. But when the Prime Minister's investments in big tobacco came to light last year he promised to divest himself of those holdings, despite the fact that they were invested through managed funds. Will the Prime Minister now undertake to divest himself of the investment in 7-Eleven, given its connection to worker exploitation?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:06): The approach that my investment adviser takes is that, where managed funds have a material interest in a tobacco company, she does not invest our funds in them. However, because tobacco companies are part of the index of many stock exchanges—including Japan and, of course, the London and New York stock exchanges—any fund that has an investment in the index will inevitably have an investment, generally a small one, in a tobacco company.
A very large number of members opposite have investments in superannuation in Australian super. Australian super has a broad range of foreign shares including tobacco stocks and, I might say, including the holding company of 7-Eleven.
Sunshine Coast Airport
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (15:07): My constituency question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport update the House on recent developments at the Sunshine Coast Airport. How will the Turnbull government's support for aviation, tourism and businesses benefit the Sunshine Coast community?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:08): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. I thank him also for hosting my visit last week, where we focused on infrastructure and local job opportunities. I announced last week, in the company of the member for Fairfax and the member for Fisher, that the federal government will provide $181 million in a concessional loan to upgrade the Sunshine Coast Airport. This upgrade is forecast to produce in the order of $4.1 billion worth of economic benefits between 2020 and 2040. There will be over 1,500 direct jobs associated with the project, and 650 indirect full-time jobs are also expected to be created during the project's construction and beyond.
The member for Fairfax rightly indicated on that occasion that a world-class tourism destination like the Sunshine Coast, a highly liveable and desirable location and a regional community, deserves an international airport. I would like to congratulate the local members for the advocacy work they have done and to congratulate them on working with their local council to deliver for their community the airport that the Sunshine Coast community demands, just as they are working to secure additional funding for better and safer roads in their community and to improve rail links in their community. The airport project is an exciting project—one that will deliver jobs and deliver growth to the region, and it is another example of the Turnbull-Joyce government's $50 billion investment in infrastructure.
I must say that the contrast between this government and those opposite in relation to infrastructure has never been clearer. Just before question time today we had the Prime Minister outlining our commitments to infrastructure investment, and, remarkably, the opposition leader came to the dispatch box and had an 18-minute whinge session in response. The opposition leader had time to tell Australians how he would build a better nation, but he came to the dispatch box and he built a complaints box instead. He whinged; he moaned; he complained; he offered nothing in relation to solutions for Australia's infrastructure investment needs. For those of us with kids, it was like leaving on holidays with a two-year-old in the back seat, and, before you have backed down the driveway, he is saying, 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'
The opposition leader is the whingeing two-year-old of the Australian federal parliament. He is the whingeing two-year-old of Australian politics. We are getting on with the job of delivering our infrastructure and investment program right across the nation and the Prime Minister is out there delivering in our regional communities, cities and rural and remote areas. While we are delivering, the opposition leader is simply whingeing about it. He should get on board with the government and back us and our $50 billion Infrastructure Investment Program.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, being unable to assure me that he has a question with a quote from Casablanca in it, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 27 of 2016-17
The SPEAKER (15:11): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 27 of 2016-17 entitled Performance audit:Reef Trust: design and implementation: Department of the Environment and Energy.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:11): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Christmas) Bill 2016
Explanatory Memorandum
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:12): by leave—I present a replacement explanatory memorandum for the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Christmas) Bill 2016.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Inequality
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (15:12): Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Fenner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to address rising inequality.
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—
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (15:12): Suppose for just a moment that the 10 minutes allocated to this speech was distributed as unequally as Australian wealth. If that was true, I would spend the first six minutes and 13 seconds talking about the richest fifth, then two minutes and three seconds speaking about the next fifth, just a minute and eight seconds speaking about Middle Australia, 31 seconds speaking about the second-bottom fifth and the last five seconds speaking about the poorest. In short, it would sound an awful lot like the typical Liberal speech.
This is a government that says it fights for freedoms. But the problem is that the sorts of freedoms they fight for are not the freedoms ordinary Australians care about. They fight for the freedom to stash your cash in a tax haven, the freedom for big banks to avoid a royal commission, the freedom to buy a negatively-geared home for your one-year-old baby, the freedom to deduct a $6,000 toaster, the freedom to be named in the Panama papers.
Plutocratic politics is on the rise. We on this side of the House thought it was pretty bad when John Howard said he would not move into the Lodge. Now we have a Prime Minister who is too good to move into Kirribilli House. Yet he lectures us about elites. Let's face it: being lectured about elites by this Prime Minister is like being lectured about sportsmanship by John McEnroe, about abstinence by Ozzy Osbourne, about driver safety by Troy Buswell, or about loyalty by the Treasurer.
This is a government that never takes responsibility. When Adam and Eve were caught in the Garden of Eden, the Liberals sent around talking points saying it was all Labor's fault and that if only we had supported a company tax cut the serpent would not have got there at all. That side of politics cut the wages of the people who clean their offices, while fighting tooth and nail against closing multinational tax loopholes. They are the group who do not want cabinet to sit on a Sunday and do not open their electorate offices on a Sunday but who want to cut the penalty rates for workers who work on a Sunday. They just do not realise how the other half live.
I was in the suburb of Ravenswood with the member for Bass last week. It is a suburb where the average income is $32,000—not individual income but household income—where the unemployment rate is 16 per cent and where those opposite do not visit. They do not care. It is not just in Ravenswood where people are hurting. Low-income Australians live six fewer years than affluent Australians, and they have an average of seven fewer teeth. We are coming up to Christmas and, according to surveys, one in 20 Australian families say that they cannot afford to buy Christmas presents for their friends and family. In Australia most categories of crime have fallen over recent decades, yet the share of Australians behind bars today is the highest it has been since 1901.
Some of the other speakers in this MPI debate are going to focus on the rise in inequality, but I want to note that that is showing up in unexpected places in the United States, a country where the top 0.1 per cent now have a larger share of income than the bottom 90 per cent and where the life expectancy for white working-class women has actually been falling over recent years—a phenomenon that Angus Deaton and Anne Case call 'deaths of despair'. I commend the shadow minister for finance for his detailed analysis of how Australia could walk down that road.
Australia has a great egalitarian tradition. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, it is Labor that is defending not just our tradition but that of the nation. We are a country that does not much like tipping—we prefer to pay a good wage—and where many of us will sit in the front seat of taxis and you cannot buy a private area on the beach: that is the Australian way. When in 2009, with leadership from the member for Lilley and the member for Jagajaga, Labor raised the pension and brought one million Australians out of poverty we were not just fighting for working Australians and low-income Australians; we were fighting for the Australian way of life.
Part of the great egalitarian tradition of Eureka, Curtin, Lawson and Lingiari is our great trade union movement. Unions are not just the organisations that brought you sick leave, the eight-hour day and the weekend; they are also the strongest bulwark we have against rising inequality. Indeed, about one-third of the rise of inequality we have seen over recent decades has been caused by the declining union membership share.
I need to be clear: Labor has no tolerance for corruption, whether we are seeing it from mining companies, construction companies or former Liberal Party directors. We on this side of the House understand that unions have played a critical role in egalitarianism. It is unions that fight for dollar pay increases and for pay equity across the workforce, for pay equity for women in the workforce and for Indigenous Australians. The SACS equal pay case recognised that women had been systematically underpaid in feminised occupations. It is unions that are arguing for gender pay equality. If you are against unions as a whole then you are on the side of the billionaires, not the side of the battlers.
Inequality is fundamental to so much of what we do in this place. If we do not tackle inequality, we are not going to close the gender pay gap, which has stubbornly failed to close for a generation. If you believe in closing the gaps, which all of us in this place do, then you have to recognise that one of the reasons why the Indigenous and non-Indigenous gaps have stayed stubbornly wide is rising earnings inequality in Australia. If you want to increase the home ownership rate, which is now at a 60-year low, then you have to care about inequality. No, the solution is not that wealthy parents shell out to help their kids get a home. If you believe in closing the opportunity gap and that the postcode into which you are born should not determine your life chances, then you need to care about inequality—because an Australia where the gaps between the rungs are widening is an Australia where it becomes harder and harder to climb up and down the ladder of opportunity over the course of a lifetime.
As the shadow Treasurer pointed out in his address this week on 'the case for opportunity', new estimates on social mobility show the problem is worse than we thought and that intergenerational mobility in Australia is lower than had previously been thought, and part of the reason for that is rising inequality. In the United States, it is unequal, immobile places, where people do not have a chance to move up the ladder, as a result of inequality. I hear those opposite saying, 'Oh, it's just the United States,' as though there is nothing wrong with Australia going down the United States road. But, if you look across the world, you see systematically that countries with more inequality are countries with less mobility. If you believe in the maxim that any kid, regardless of his or her background, should be able to make it, then you have to believe in egalitarianism. We believe in that Australian value on this side of the House. That is why we are standing up for the Australian values of home ownership and the right to be rewarded for working on weekends. It is why we on this side of the House believe in egalitarian funding of schools and providing equality of opportunity through our school funding. It is why we stood against the government's GP tax, and it is why we have consistently stood for a fair taxation system.
In July of next year, this government is going to bring down a tax cut for those earning over $180,000 a year. Everyone in this House will be a beneficiary of that tax cut, but that is because many of us in this House sit in just the top couple of per cent of the Australian income distribution. Indeed, 94 per cent of the benefits of that tax cut will go to the top one per cent, a group that has doubled its share of national income over the course of the last generation. The top one per cent of Australia does not need yet another tax cut from the Turnbull government.
But there is one area in which the Turnbull government has given us more equality. Since the member for Wentworth became Prime Minister, we have seen more equality in this House. When the member for Wentworth became Prime Minister, there was a lot of inequality—a lot of people on that side and fewer people on this side. But, since the member for Wentworth has become Prime Minister, the numbers in this House are a lot more equal. And it is not just the numbers in this House; it is the votes as well. For the first time in 50 years, we are seeing a bit of equality. A few votes in this House are coming out in favour of this side. Equality: it is a great Australian value and you cannot keep it down.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Before I call the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, I remind people that the MPI is not a team sport—one speaker at a time.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:22): It is very hard at the end of the year to get the energy to rise against these MPIs when no thought goes into them from members opposite and, really, they get more pathetic. You think you have seen the worst MPI ever? No, wait; there is a worse one coming along. 'The government's failure to address rising inequality' could perhaps be the single worst MPI that we have ever had in Commonwealth history. All that the member for Fraser really did was rail against inequality in the United States. He ignored the great Australian compact that sees more people share more wealth in this country than almost any society on earth. That is the truth of Australia. That is why we uniquely reject notions of class. We have always rejected notions of class, we have always rejected notions of privilege and we have always rewarded hard work, merit, enterprise and people doing things for themselves, not the government doing things for them. The member for Fraser is another emblematic example of what is wrong with Bill Shorten and the Labor Party. It is all fraud.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The assistant minister will refer to members by their titles.
Mr HAWKE: The member for Maribyrnong; the Leader of the Opposition—it is all fraud. Why is it fraud? It is fraud because the member for Fenner has written extensively on his right-wing views on economics.
There is no greater starting point for understanding the member for Fenner and what is wrong with modern Labor than the fact that they have deliberately pushed out everybody from the right of centre on the economic spectrum from the party. This is not the party of Keating anymore. This is not the party of Hawke. The member for Fenner now has to go through these embarrassing contortions in this House pretending to be left wing—and we know you are pretending, member for Fenner. You are faking it, and we know you are faking it.
Really, it is an embarrassing spectacle to come in here and pretend to be a left-winger. You should let your inner right-winger come out, because you have written so extensively on it. And we agree with so much of what you have written. I have got some of your books, member for Fenner, because they are a good read on economics in this country. You make some sense. And if your colleagues bothered to get some copies of your books and have a read, they would learn something too. They would learn something about company tax in this country because the member for Fenner was one of the people that understood.
Even the shadow Treasurer understood when he spoke and said that it was a uniquely Australian Labor value to lower company tax in this country. That was his view a few years ago because he was marketing the idea that it was the Labor Party that lowers the company tax to make it internationally competitive. That compact that has existed in Australian politics is understanding of the fact that, when you lower the company tax rate, it is not rich multinationals that sit on a pile of gold or money; it is more investment in our country, which means more Australians get employed.
Being competitive in international tax rates is an equaliser for all strata of Australian society, especially the workers. That is why this government has an enterprise tax plan to lower the corporate tax rate for Australian small businesses. And it is to the eternal shame of this Labor Party, the modern Labor Party, that they oppose a tax cut for small Aussie family businesses from $2 million to $10 million. They oppose a reduction in the tax rate for small Australian family businesses to allow them to compete with their international competitors.
We know that our company tax rate is now one of the highest in the world. We know in our region we are not competitive. We know that the average tax rate in our region is now at 23c and that in many of our competitor countries it is at 17c and 16c. We know that by lowering the burden of tax on small Australian family businesses from $2 million to $10 million, we will encourage job growth, we will encourage enterprise growth and we will encourage wage growth, member for Fenner, something that is so hard to achieve at the moment. It will unlock economic prosperity for this country.
Paul Keating cut the company tax rate. Paul Keating understood that you had to cut the company tax rate. You see this Labor Party and this member for Fenner pretending to be a leftie opposing the reduction of company tax for small and medium Australian family businesses. It is to the great shame of this Labor Party that they have done that, that they refuse to allow Australian small businesses to get a tax cut to compete.
We know what is going on over there; it is the Leader of the Opposition's Labor Party that has been brought into this parliament—nothing is true, everything has to be opposed and the economy can go to hell. And there could be nothing more unequal, if I was to address the member for Fenner directly, than passing on the biggest debt legacy in Australian history onto our children and grandchildren. For you to pretend that you had no role, that the opposition had no role in the creation of that debt legacy is false. Everybody knows it is false. Every Australian listening to this understands that it is false.
We have to do whatever we can as a parliament to reduce government expenditure, to rein in excessive expenditure, to get debt under control, to pay down debt, to get the deficit in and not pass on that intergenerational inequity to our children and grandchildren. It is the most pressing mission of this parliament. It is what Standard & Poor's is saying to us every day: you must get your budget settings under control. They are begging this parliament and they are begging the opposition to listen to the government in a serious message that we must restrain expenditure growth, that we must cut government spending and that we must deliver savings into this budget this year. They are lecturing you, they lecturing us, and no warning could be taken more seriously by this government.
We have already put through $6.3 billion in savings, but we need to do much more. We are sitting on $22 billion of savings that are currently before the Australian Labor Party. They refuse to agree to them, even though many of these things are in their own policies. It is just like the $6.3 billion omnibus bill. They railed against many of those measures for three years for their political advantage, then agreed to them in the election campaign and then agreed to them after the election, putting through the budget. And here we are in this cycle again. You are railing against many of the measures that we want to sensibly restrain expenditure growth, when you know they must be passed if Australia is to retain its AAA rating.
The Labor Party understand, but what will they do under this Leader of the Opposition and this member for Fenner? They will rail against these measures, for political advantage, for as long as they can. They will be budget wreckers and budget vandals. They know these measures have to be passed. They will end up passing them. They will either end up agreeing to them in the next parliament or they will ask us to agree with them if they happen to win the election. They know that now and yet they are willing to risk Australia's future prosperity, willing to risk our economy by threatening our AAA credit rating, by being budget wreckers. Nothing could be more unequal than risking Australians' future.
The member for Fenner wants to lecture us about inequality. They want to stand there as a Labor opposition and rail against our PaTH program to get people back into employment. Yet the member for Fenner will remember that in 2014 he advertised for unpaid interns to work in his own office. I have a copy of the ad right here. This is the question the member for Fenner poses to those unpaid interns:
Is it unfair not to pay people?
This what the member for Fenner postulates in his advertisement for unpaid interns. The ad goes on:
This is something we've worried about a lot. If we had an external source of funding, I'd love to run a paid internship program.
It's not like they don't have the CFMEU and $11 million of external funding, is it! The ad goes on:
But we don't. So our philosophy has been to work hard to ensure that interns/fellows have an experience that's stimulating and rewarding …
In the member for Fenner's office. So here we go. And not only did the member for Fenner make use of unpaid interns, free labour, for his office but he actually uses them as researchers for all of the books that he writes. He credits them, thankfully, in his books, but he does not pay them. Why would this opposition oppose this government's sensible measures to get young people back into employment through Prepare-Trial-Hire? Why would you oppose a program like that, where we are actually arranging to make sure they get a wage subsidised by the government, when you have members here advertising for unpaid interns and not paying them to write their own books? It is rank hypocrisy at its worst.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! I remind the member for Hume, the member for Parramatta and the member for Fenner that we will have one person speaking at a time.
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (15:33): I congratulate the member for Fenner on a brilliant speech. There are stark differences between this side of the House and that side of the House. We live in a community. They think we live in a corporation. We on this side of the House honour the hard work that creates wealth. They just honour the wealth itself. Those on that side of the House are so out of touch with average Australians. They do not walk in the same shopping aisles as average Australians—and this applies particularly to the Prime Minister. If they did, they would not attack all the building blocks of strong economic growth and a fairer society like they have since 2014.
What they have done since 2014 is to attempt to smash the industrial relations system of our country. It is our industrial relations system that has given us a prosperous middle class and working class in this country, and their mission is to destroy it. Those people on that side of the House want to destroy the great enablers of universal health and education, which not only drive a better society but drive fundamental growth in an economy. They want to smash them. Worst of all, they are seeking to make our taxation system more regressive and trying to poke gigantic holes in our social safety net. All of those building blocks are what, around the world, drive economic growth. If you have a prosperous middle class, that will drive your economy. It is a driver of prosperity, not a consequence of it. Those on that side of the House do not understand the economics of that proposition at all. It is now well understood by the IMF, who have absolutely condemned, in all of their analysis, the economic approach taken by those on the other side of the House since 2014. In addition to saying that we should be enabling the prosperity of middle- and low-income earners in our community, we should also be investing in infrastructure. They are doing none of those things. As a consequence, we have got weaker growth, growing inequality and lower wages.
This government pretends that it is concerned about income inequality. In fact, the Prime Minister gave a speech at the Business Council last week and he said that we must 'seem to be fair'. Well, I have got a message for him: we must be fair, not seem to be fair. That is the approach of all those on that side of the House—all the cosmetic attempts to claim that they are being fair. Day in, day out, they rubbish and demean the basic drivers of a stronger economy: strong economic growth and a healthy society.
This Prime Minister was so concerned about income inequality that, from the time he became Leader of the Opposition in this House in 2008 right through until six months ago, he never once uttered the words 'income inequality'. But in the last six months he has mentioned it five times. It is a problem out there, but he has a policy agenda to make it worse, not better. Protecting and putting in place policies which protect the hard work of low- and middle-income-earning Australians is the key to growth and the key to a prosperous society. But this group over there want to discredit those great enablers of growth. Really, their strategy is this: discredit the facts about what is going on in the economy. They do this day in, day out. They try to discredit our trade unions and run down our social security system—all of those things. And then they say that what we need to solve all of our problems is a massive tax cut for the top end of town. And then, based on all of those facts, they argue that the tax cuts will generate enough money to pay for themselves. And, when that does not happen, what do they argue? They argue that we have to get rid of all the entitlements.
That is the strategy that plays out through question time every day, as it has done through both terms of this government. They do not understand that inequality is important. They actually think inequality is good for the country. That is what they really think. They have a 'survival of the fittest' mentality. We on this side of the House believe that what we need to do is run a progressive taxation system so that we have the revenue to drive investment in health and education. We need those things in order to be a prosperous economy and society. And, all the time that we are having these arguments, we have a Prime Minister standing at the dispatch box who is a fully paid-up member of the Cayman Islands club, watching his capital grow under the palm trees. We all know that rampant tax evasion is one of those policies that is ripping apart the social contract in this country. (Time expired)
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (15:38): It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Lilley. He reminds us once again that, when we came into government in 2013, we inherited a record debt. He demonstrates that they will not let the facts get in the way of a good story. He talks about us not investing in infrastructure. Well, I would remind him of our announcement earlier today about what we are doing in infrastructure. Let's look at what we were left with after six years of Labor in government, the chaos they left behind—the cherry on top was the carbon tax—and the damage that did to our economy. One of the first things the coalition government did when it got into power was seek to repeal the carbon tax. But what we did when we repealed the carbon tax was leave the compensation in place for families in Australia. There are many other things that we have done since to help across the country.
In six years of Labor, let us not look at what Labor talked about; let us look at what they actually achieved or succeeded in doing. In their term in office, household health costs increased by 35 per cent, education costs increased by 39 per cent, gas prices increased by 71 per cent, water and sewerage prices increased by 79 per cent and electricity prices increased by 101 per cent. Well, congratulations! The very people you say you support—the ones who are most in need and who struggle to make ends meet day-to-day—all you succeeded in doing in your term in office was making their life harder by increasing their costs of living by enormous amounts.
In contrast, the coalition government is seeking to create an economy that has high-skilled jobs and high-paying jobs that will assist in reducing inequality. If we can ensure people are trained and educated to get these full-time, high-paying jobs, we reduce that inequality. That is what the government's policy framework is designed to do. That is what the enterprise tax plan is designed to do. It is designed to encourage business to invest and grow and leave profits in businesses.
To remind the member for Fenner of some of his comments about lower taxes. In The Australian Financial Review in March 2010 he says that:
Promising to raise company taxes has a visceral appeal to any ambitious opposition—
Well, we see that—
Perhaps some voters will think they will be borne by the companies themselves, leaving all living persons miraculously unharmed.
He recognises there is harm in raising taxes. He also goes on to say, in an interview on 18 November 2015, that there is value in reducing the company tax rate to 25 per cent. So he readily acknowledges that there is value in lowering company tax rates and lowering taxes more generally.
We are not only looking to help businesses but also, importantly, looking to help those who are struggling to find a job and get into the workforce, through our Youth Employment Package. We are looking to help 120,000 young Australians take advantage of the job opportunities as our economy diversifies and transitions away from the mining construction boom. In addition, we are spending some $1.1 billion on our National Innovation and Science Agenda. I see, in my electorate, many young, innovative businesses who are looking to grow. They are looking to employ local people to allow them to grow.
It is this government on this side of the House that is actually doing the utmost it can to tackle these issues of inequality by creating a framework for the Australian economy to grow and prosper. On the matter of infrastructure—for the benefit of the member for Lilley and those opposite—the government is spending some $50 billion on infrastructure and is also investing in Defence, jobs and projects.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (15:43): 'The land of the fair go is disappearing,' is what the former Liberal leader John Hewson had to say in the wake of the 2014 budget. That was the budget, remember, that shone a dirty, big spotlight on this government's twisted priorities for this nation—the most unfair budget this nation had ever seen. But the Australian people were a wake up to you. Even John Hewson was a wake up to you. You would have done well to heed some advice, but, no, you guys know what is best. Well, there are social consequences of growing inequality in Australia. We know what those are: it compounds disadvantage already existing in this nation, it leads to poorer physical and mental health in this nation and it leads to poorer living conditions for people. But it is also bad news for our economy. It makes no sense whatsoever to further entrench inequality in this nation.
Resources are becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and that is resulting in reduced economic participation for the majority of people in this nation. Practically, that means fewer new businesses, fewer house purchases, less purchasing of goods and services—all the things that members opposite purport to actually care about, I might add—all of which face massive downturns as a result of this growing inequality. There is a widening gap between the highest and the lowest income earners, and this is something that we are seeing emerge across the globe.
Growing inequality is a problem for any society. We know that across the developed world it is ordinary citizens everywhere who are seeing wages stagnate and growth stall—the middle classes are shrinking. Living standards are dropping and daily living costs are mounting. In fact, since 1980 nearly half a trillion dollars has been shifted from the bottom 99 per cent to the top one per cent. Inequality is not just bad for those on the poor side of the equation; it is bad for social cohesion and bad for our economy. Even the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have recognised that growing inequality is a drag on economic growth. A recent study by the Chifley Research Centre found that economic inequality in Australia would cost each and every Australian $500 a year within three years if we continued on this current trajectory. The same study found that the loss to the wider economy is greater than the expected gains from the Japan, China and Korea free trade agreements combined. We are at a crossroads and the decisions we make on the way are incredibly important to the future of this country. Sadly, we know that under this government the country is going in the wrong direction.
I just want to spend the remaining couple of minutes shining light on the fact that all of the policies that members opposite are progressing in this parliament that purport to have gender neutrality do, in fact, have a disproportionate impact for Australian women and their families. In particular, I want to go to the cuts around family payments that are still to come. We are going to see a single-parent family with an income of around $40,000 and two kids in high school left $3,000 worse off. Proposed cuts to paid parental leave will see 80,000 new mums left stranded and worse off. The will be a one-month wait for those people on income support—those cuts will be aimed at young job seekers who will be left with nothing to live on for an entire month.
But it is actually women who are particularly impacted by the inequality that is growing under the watch of this government. There was an interesting study by the IMF on how that inequality looks around the world. The system that this government is putting in place wants to entrench further inequality that will set up gross disparities here. We know women have less savings. We know women have less superannuation. This leads to increased economic insecurity and vulnerability And that leaves women, particularly older women, in atrocious situations in Australia. We are a country that prides itself on egalitarian traditions, but the reality is there is income inequality— (Time expired)
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (15:48): There is no-one in this House that does not believe that inequality is an important issue that needs to be resolved.
Mr Swan interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: The member for Lilley can carry on as much as he likes, but under his tenure as Treasurer more was done to create inequality than under any other Treasurer in the history of this federation. The fact of the matter is—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Yes, I can read IMF reports—some of you should try it every once in a while. What we disagree with are the sources of that inequality. We believe that what really matters is whether a community creates or provides the opportunity for any person, no matter what circumstances they are born into, to go wherever they want to. Mobility is more critical than inequality because no person's potential should be limited by what circumstances they are born into. There is no disagreement that inequality is undesirable.
What we argue about are the sources of that inequality. Therefore, is it any surprise that we disagree as to what those solutions should be? But, honestly, I have to say that the evidence is so overwhelming that the solutions advocated by those opposite do not work that they must actually have been proposed by people who believe the moon landing was faked or that the Berlin Wall came crashing down because people were trying to get in, not out. Let us take some examples of their reasons for inequality—for example, the Panama Papers. Apparently it is part of some worldwide conspiracy to hide tax income in Panama! The way the member for Lilley speaks, there is actually a giant volcano in Panama and, if you just open the top, there is a lair of people sitting inside advocating the downfall of Western society. Then you get the dark and evil forces gathered around the boardrooms of Australia's corporations, where they are just plotting to make things worse. Or, apparently, it is because we on this side have been undermining the union movement—like they were not doing a good enough job on their own! But, of course, we also have: 'We just need more money going into the welfare system,' 'We just need to distribute more money to people,' and 'We need a tax system that is more distributive.'
Why don't we take each of these issues one by one? According to the ATO and the ABS, multinational tax evasion is in the shadows of the cash economy and represents about two per cent of GDP. The Heydon royal commission, beyond anything else that this parliament has ever seen, showed that the union movement and its leaders are more interested in self-enrichment than they are in helping the workers they pretend to represent. We had hardworking Australians paying union dues so that that money could be spent on holidays, holiday homes, private school fees, tattoos and prostitutes.
We spend $154 billion a year on welfare, and the sad fact of the matter is that we have not shifted the needle one iota—and, according to those opposite, it has got worse. If you are in Australia's welfare system or you are predominantly reliant on Australia's welfare system, you will have lower health outcomes, you will have lower education outcomes, you will not live as long, you will have a higher incidence of crime—
Mr Swan interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: The member for Lilley thinks that is okay. And you will have a higher probability of passing those outcomes on to your children. When we look at the tax system in Australia, we see that it is 19 times more distributive than the OECD average, and transfer payments are 12 times higher than in France. For every dollar those in the top quintile of income earners in Australia pay, they get 30c back in government services. If you are unlucky enough to be in the lowest quintile, for every dollar you pay, you receive $324 in government services. In other words, you are 1,000 times more distributive.
It is long past time that Labor stopped posturing about caring, because they do not. If you care about mobility and reducing inequality then support microeconomic reform; if you care about decimating inequality then support tax reform; and, if you care about saving lives, support welfare reform.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (15:53): Socioeconomic disadvantage is a growing problem in this country—and we all know that. Under this Turnbull government, it has grown even more. Australia is a country that was built on egalitarianism and that foundation of equality. We heard the member for Fenner say earlier that you are more likely to travel in the front seat of a taxi here in Australia than most places around the world. Compared to any other country in the world, you are more likely to have friends from different socioeconomic backgrounds than yourself. We are a country that respects everyone, regardless of what your job is, what your income is and what your background is.
That has always been the case in this nation, and it has always been one of the reasons we have prospered so well over the years. But this current government is changing one of the most fundamental things that we have had in this nation: the foundations of our equality. The foundations were set and protected through policies that were implemented by successive Labor governments, by great people such as Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. They all did the best they could to create equality in this country. Think back to all the major policies that led to real change in this country and made it the way it is and you will see a Labor government at the forefront. Under Whitlam, we had free education for all—a system that allowed people to attend university for the very first time, when no-one from their families had attended for generations.
Look at the way the pension was set-up under the Chifley government to give people the chance to live with dignity in their old age. This is what we are talking about—real equality, making sure that where there is inequality those gaps are reduced. These are all Labor policies that reduced inequality. As a result, they have helped to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and ensure that a person's success was not based on their postcode, where they born, their background, their race, their colour or their religion, et cetera. These are fundamental policies that reflect basic human rights—human rights that we should all enjoy—that have been implemented by Labor governments.
What has happened in the last few years? In this nation today, we are facing a 75-year high of inequity. If we go back 75 years, it would be 1941—the beginning of World War I. This is the area we are in at the moment. Wage growth is at a 30-year low. We would have to go back to 1986 to see wage growth at the rate that it is at the moment. Wage growth in September 2016 was half of what it was four years ago—3.7 per cent in September 2012. Since this government was elected in 2013, living standards have declined by about two per cent. Today, 20 per cent of Australians cannot afford a week's holiday per year away from home, let alone sending their money on a holiday to the Cayman Islands as a tax evasion scheme, as we see happen.
Thirteen per cent of Australians cannot afford dental treatment if they need it. Every week, I see people coming to my office—pensioners, who have worked all their lives who have paid their taxes, some who have fought in wars, who cannot afford dental care. They do not have private health insurance. They do not have lots of money. They are reliant on waiting lists and can go without dentures, for example, for 12 months. Where is the equality in that? Six per cent cannot afford Christmas presents for their families—we heard that earlier from the member for Fenner.
Despite all this, the government continue to demand greater employment flexibility. What do they mean by greater employment flexibility? It means that an employer can pay people less for working on weekends, not deal with unions in the workplace, not provide a decent minimum wage, maybe sack people without notice, and have the flexibility to employ 457 visas because they do not want to pay the rates to employ local people. I will tell you want it definitely does not mean. It does not mean that a mum can ask to work from home for a couple of hours because she has a sick child or that a dad can start work an hour later to drop off the kids at school and then work an hour longer. Flexibility is skewed one way, yet this government are asking for more flexibility.
These are not just numbers; these are people's lives—their health and their livelihoods. This is all about people's futures. On top of all that, we see a government that want to give a $50 billion tax cut to the richest people— (Time expired)
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:58): As a South Australian, I find it deeply ironic that those opposite have raised the issue of inequality. The member for Hindmarsh, a South Australian as am I, must know that thanks to the South Australian Labor government, South Australians are suffering from some of the greatest inequalities in the nation when it comes to secure, reliable and affordable power. As I am sure everyone in this place is aware, South Australia had, unfortunately, a nationally and internationally unprecedented blackout recently thanks to the state Labor government. We deserve equal access, as the rest of the nation has, to secure, reliable and affordable power. We need the lights on. We need businesses to be able to operate.
Thanks to the disaster-ridden state Labor government, we have the highest electricity charges in the nation. Residents and businesses cannot be sure if they are going to have electricity from one day to the next. I am appalled at this situation. TheAdvertiser this week ran an article talking about how very much families are struggling to keep up with paying the bills. The average amount owed by a record number of South Australians who are classified as in hardship now stands at $1,706. This is the highest average debt in the nation. Adding to this, of course, we had the blackout, and, with the imminent closure of Hazelwood power station by yet another Labor government, things are set to get worse.
The reality is that, in South Australia, families cannot afford to pay skyrocketing power prices. The pensioners and elderly, some of our most vulnerable citizens, cannot afford heating and cooling, and I shudder to think what is going to happen to our power supply during another long, hot, South Australian summer. Businesses are lurching from expensive short-term contract to contract, pushing up their costs, which undoubtedly will have to be passed on to consumers. The sad reality for my residents in my electorate of Boothby and across the state is that they are dealing with this every single day.
There is more evidence of the inequality that Labor have forced upon the people of Australia, I think, through the carbon tax as well. It was devised by Labor and the Greens during the failed Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, the six years that we had to put up with them in government. This tax placed an unnecessarily heavy burden on Australian families to the tune of about $500 per household per annum. This one piece of public policy immediately drove up the cost of living for each and every Australian, causing everything from grocery bills to power bills to go through the roof. It made life harder for hardworking Australians—and that is who we are actually representing on this side of the House: hardworking Australians.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Moreton is disorderly.
Ms FLINT: The idea that the opposition now want to come into this place, after they have done so much to fuel inequality, and accuse us of causing inequality is, quite frankly, absurd.
Unlike those opposite, who believe that inequality should be addressed through yet more, higher, taxes and wealth redistribution, we understand that the best way to address inequality is through employment, through the dignity of work. I am reminded of a quote from Warren Mundine, from The Australian, from November 2014, which has really stayed with me. He said:
Poverty comes in different forms and degrees. But the solutions to poverty are the same—education and employment.
We understand that, here on this side of the House. We understand that through jobs, through the dignity of work, people can afford to provide for themselves, for their families and for their communities.
I just want to quickly touch on one of the projects I am particularly proud of in my electorate of Boothby, given that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure have made some significant statements on infrastructure today, and that is the extension of the Tonsley line to Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University. It is a $43 million investment that is going to do so much for people in my electorate in terms of short-term and long-term jobs. It is also going to provide public transport, which is absolutely fabulous, for patients and the families that have to use Flinders Medical Centre, as well as for students going to university. I commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure for all they have done on this project and for infrastructure for our nation.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (16:03): Today I rise to speak on the Turnbull government's failure to address inequality in Australia. I am not going to delve into generalisations, platitudes and fantasy like those opposite; I am going to tell you about a real person, about Giselle, a 53-year-old woman who came into my electorate office last week in an incredibly distressed state. Giselle was upset that her Austudy payments had been cancelled, while at the same time she had been asked to provide more information to Centrelink about what she was studying and where she was up to. Giselle, at 53, had been trying to re-educate herself to get back into the workforce, despite a number of serious health issues, including thyroid cancer, which led her to have her thyroid removed last year, and Bell's palsy, which requires ongoing treatment.
But Giselle wants to work. She wants to re-educate herself. She was enrolled in a Diploma of Community Services through the Hunter TAFE, which she changed to a certificate IV last year because of her health. She advised Centrelink at the time that she was changing to a certificate IV but was told she did not need to do anything more as long as her study workload had not changed. That information, regrettably, was incorrect and has led to considerable heartache.
Feeling better and more able to cope, Giselle re-enrolled in her diploma in July this year, and she is still studying—and good on her. But, incredibly, Giselle's payments were cut off in October, and she was given no opportunity, no time, to sort the matter out before her payment was cancelled. Listen to this: she received a letter asking her to supply further information about her study on the very same day the decision was made to cut her payments. 'We need more information,' and, 'We're also going to cut your payments,' on the same day—figure that. This was an unnecessary, harsh treatment, but unfortunately it seems typical of this government and oh so common. The phone calls we get on this side you would not believe.
A member of my staff sought to help Giselle by contacting Raymond Terrace Centrelink, a branch as understaffed as all the others since the Abbott-Turnbull government's savage cuts began in 2014. You should hang your heads still about that budget. It truly was deplorable. We all know it, and the Prime Minister admitted it today. Sadly, they were unable to help her and referred us to the study payments branch. However, my staff member was unable to call the study payments branch directly, so she went straight to Minister Tudge's office, such was the urgency of the matter. Giselle's payment was eventually restored when we were able to sort out exactly what information was required and send it through.
The fact that Giselle was not given any time to respond to the request from Centrelink before her payment was cancelled was callous, but unfortunately it is common. In Giselle's own words:
Things did work a lot quicker and better when there was a lot more staff present in the office and not behind walls or over the telephone.
It is very difficult to stay on a phone for three and a half hours, and still no one takes your call or solves anything.
The very few personnel in the office are not very willing to help.
The staff attitude is as if to say: there are only a few of us here and we—
can only do what we can. She continued:
What is the point of renovating and making offices look modern and up to date?
What the people want is prompt service and resolutions to their problems.
I need a job and I am looking for one.
That is why I am studying a diploma in community services.
Giselle was without payment for four weeks, and in that time she had no money for phone credit, for transport or for her much-needed doctors' appointments, not even enough money for food. She was forced to go to a neighbourhood centre for vouchers just to feed herself. And she is not alone. She is among an increasing number of people who cannot make ends meet, because of the callous actions of this government.
Cuts and more cuts mean there are far fewer Centrelink staff to look after more and more Centrelink customers. It is a system that is failing these people and a government that is failing to address this terrible inequality. And I say again to those members opposite: do not lecture our side on what is fair and just and what inequality is. We know it too well because we deal with it every day. It comes in tranches every day into our office. It comes over the phone. I kid you not; I feel as though as I am running a Centrelink office in my own office because they are not well enough staffed—and that is so true. We are all running it on this side. We are helping this government by trying to help the people who so desperately need it, and yet it continues to turn its back on them. That is the rise in inequality under this Turnbull government.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (16:08): I am absolutely floored by the disingenuous antics of those opposite this afternoon. Not once did they mention anything about regional or rural Australia, the 6.6 million Australians who live outside metropolitan areas. Not once did they talk about those people in regional or rural Australia, who actually contribute. They are not interested; they do not understand; and they do not care. That is why. They are not interested in what happens west of the great divide. It is all about them, and it is all about their city people.
The reality is this: it is proven beyond doubt that, when Labor is in government, we see an underinvestment in regional and rural Australia. It is only this government, the coalition government, that continues to invest in regional and rural Australia. That is because we know that regional Australia does not actually need a handout; it needs the assistance of a government that puts the framework around it. It puts an environment and it puts infrastructure around it—an environment that actually creates jobs. We pull the economic levers that create jobs. That lets people have a future through their own volition, not by big government handing out money. That is how an economy should work. That is how a nation should work. And we do that.
We have done that through the free trade agreements—trade agreements that are putting dollars, real dollars, into rural community towns and into farmers and into small business owners right across this country. That is something we are very proud of because it has a real impact.
But we are also trying to do that with the tax cuts to small business. You do not understand what a small business is. Ten million dollars in turnover in this day and age is not a lot. But it needs to be more, because if we put money back into small businesses then they will actually go out and they will employ people. They will create the wealth for individuals in each of those towns. But that is the sort of understanding that we get from this mob. They've got no idea at all! The reality is: they are out of touch with the reality of Australia and particularly of regional and rural Australia.
Let us talk about infrastructure. Let us talk about the infrastructure that creates the connectivity to actually let us leverage the trade agreements that this government has put in place—the connectivity around the NBN. In my electorate alone, 68,000 households and premises will have the NBN over the next 18 months. It will let us connect to the global markets, to give us the tools of the 21st century that we need. We have coupled that with the mobile phone black spot program. You guys would never even have thought about the Mobile Black Spot Program. Mobile phones are only to be used in the city, because that is all you understand! The reality is: regional and rural Australians are creating jobs and running multimillion-dollar businesses that need the tools of the 21st century, and we are creating them.
But let us not just talk about the economy, because there was a real inequality in my electorate and right across regional Australia when we came into government. I had kids in my electorate who could not do distance education because they did not have the data plans. Well, this government, under Fiona Nash, has created designated data plans for distance-education children. That is absolutely abhorrent—to think there are children in this country who could not get a proper education because they did not have the connectivity and they did not have the internet to undertake that. It is only this government that has come in and created the opportunity and created equality for those kids. It should not matter where you live; your postcode should not determine your education. And this government has proudly done it—something I am proud to be part of.
But we can go further than that. We can talk further about connectivity and the important strides that we are making in getting our product out across the world. We will build the inland rail. We will move the product from Melbourne to Brisbane and out to the world. Couple that with the $1.6 billion that we are investing in the second range crossing. Think about the $450 million just on the Warrego Highway alone—but you would not even know where it is!
The reality is: we are connecting our producers. We are creating the wealth because we are connecting us to the world. And we are embracing the world like never before, because we, on this side, understand that we are part of a bigger global economy and that we have what the world wants. And it is our job to connect to that and to create equality for all those right across Australia, particularly in regional and rural Australia, who you would not know because you do not understand and you do not care. Give them the opportunity to create the wealth—to do it themselves. Those are the strides that we are making around that: giving them the connectivity and the infrastructure that actually connects us and creates the wealth and creates the jobs.
But then we have also got dog fencing in my electorate. Let me just tell you about the hypocrisy and the disingenuous nature of the Labor Party. It does not just stay here; it goes all the way back to the Queensland state government. They came out in Barcaldine and promised another $5 million to put more dog fencing in. Five months later they had done nothing because they did not understand what it would do for the producers and to build the resilience of the drought-stricken farmers right across western Queensland. They did not care. They did not understand. And it was not until my actions and those of the state member to call out Annastacia Palaszczuk—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The member's time has expired. This discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with requests for amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's requested amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 15) omit "19%", substitute "10.5%".
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (table item 1), omit "19%", substitute "10.5%".
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:14): I move:
That the requested amendments be not made.
I simply note in the interests of time that there were other matters discussed in the other place today regarding subsequent changes that would be made and put forward by the government to deal with freezing any increases in the passenger movement charge for another five years. That will be done by a separate bill, which I will seek to introduce on Monday. So the matter we are dealing with here right now is simply the message from the Senate in relation to the requested amendments that the Senate has asked this House to address. I have put to the House that the requested amendments not be made. That is the position of the government.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (16:16): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the requested amendments be made".
Today the government has a chance to end this rolling mess. Today the parliament have a chance to put this government's rolling imbroglio, which has gone on since the 2015 budget, to an end. Today we can fix this government's incompetence by telling this government it has got it wrong, and the House of Representatives can agree with the Senate. Today the government lost a vote in the Senate. It has lost its position that the backpacker tax should be at 19 per cent. The Senate has resolved that it should be at 10½ per cent. Today the House of Representatives should agree with the Senate and put this issue to bed and give Australia's farmers, horticulturalists, growers and tourism industry the certainty that the parliament has finally put this government's incompetence on this issue to an end. Today the House of Representatives can say to the government that it has got it wrong consistently and the government can finally admit it.
This is a measure not from this Treasurer's budget; this is a measure from the budget in 2015. This has rolled on continually since then. It is already causing backpacker numbers in Australia to decline. You would think that the Liberal Party, the party that pretends to understand business, and the National Party, the party that pretends to understand regional Australia, would finally take this chance to listen. On this side of the House we know that not only are backpackers necessary in certain industries in Australia but they spend what they earn in regional Australia. They spend it on tourism operations. They spend it on hospitality. They spend it in the towns they live in where they are working and earning money. Those towns are suffering and will continue to suffer under this Treasurer unless he recognises the error of his ways.
The Deputy Prime Minister was out this morning fulminating in his normal calm, rational and sensible style that this was some sort of breach of a settlement. I am not sure who the settlement was between—the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer perhaps, but nobody else was invited. Certainly the agriculture sector were not invited and certainly the tourism sector were not invited, because they know that 19 per cent is too high. Here we have Treasurer Morrison arguing for higher taxes today in this House and this side of the House saying: 'You've got it wrong, Treasurer. We should have a competitive tax rate with New Zealand. We should have a tax rate that says that backpackers can come and work here and can be competitive.'
I want to deal with one particular problem that the government has put up in this debate—one particularly egregious error—that somehow the Labor Party's compromise proposal sees Australian workers paying more tax than backpackers. That is just not true, and not only does the government know it but, I tell you what, the Minister for Finance knows it because he was just asked a few minutes ago on Sky News to agree with the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister and he did not. He would not. I say this of the finance minister: the finance minister knows that there is a problem when you tell an untruth on Sky News. It can come up and you can be reminded of it. The finance minister was not that stupid. The finance minister was smart enough not to back his Treasurer. The finance minister was smart enough and honourable enough to tell the truth.
I have talked about the government and the opposition. I say this to the House this afternoon—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the week, National Party members were prepared to cross the floor to allow more shotguns into Australia, they felt so strongly about that issue. I say to the National Party: cross the floor today and stand up for regional Australia. Cross the floor today, right now, and say to your sectors, your industries and your regions: 'We've delivered for you.' Otherwise, the member for Dawson, the member for Mallee and all of them have to go home this afternoon and say to their communities: 'We voted for 19 per cent. We voted against 10½. We voted against a more competitive tax rate.' That is what the National Party members will have to explain to their communities on the weekend. They will have to explain why they refused to see this rolling sore come to an end—because I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: if my motion does not pass the House today, the government are going to have some serious thinking to do next week. They are going to have some serious explaining to do next week to those sectors and to those industries. The government next week just might want to reconsider their position because, otherwise, there is going to be a 32½ per cent tax applied in this country—and, despite the Treasurer's denials, it will be his responsibility.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (16:22): I second the amendment. Mathias Cormann, the Minister for Finance, in an interview with David Speers this afternoon, threw the Treasurer under a bus not once, not twice and not three times but on no fewer than 10 occasions. He threw the Treasurer under a bus. This government is dysfunctional, it is incompetent and it is in chaos. There is no better example than the matter we have before us this afternoon, a matter that has been dragging on now for 18 months. Eighteen months ago, the then Treasurer of this government announced a $540 million backpacker tax. They thought that was a wonderful idea, at a time when backpackers were already deserting Australia. Can you imagine? Farmers, growers and tourism operators in this country were already struggling back in early 2015 to secure the backpacker labour they needed, and what did this genius of a government do? They put a 32.5 per cent tax on them. It takes a special sort of genius to come up with that plan.
When asked about this in an interview at the time, the now Deputy Prime Minister said, 'This is all about putting Australian workers back on a level playing field.' They thought they could get away with a $540 million tax revenue grab and make it about protecting Australian jobs. They were wrong and, by midway through the most recent election campaign, they worked out they were wrong—and what did they do? They walked both sides of the street. They announced a review, which, by the way, allowed the taxation commissioner to defer the introduction of the 32.5 per cent tax until 1 January of next year. So what did they do throughout the balance of the election campaign? They kept the $500 million in revenue and continued to spend it throughout the election campaign—
Mr Morrison: So did you! So did you!
Mr FITZGIBBON: while implying or suggesting that they would abolish the tax after the election campaign. The Treasurer is absolutely wrong because on no fewer than 10 occasions, the same number of times Mathias Cormann threw him under a bus today, I said publicly that he was—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will refer to ministers and members by their correct titles or he will not be speaking.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I will, Mr Speaker. I said publicly that, if he was prepared to announce pre-election, which would have given growers immediate relief, that he would give up on his backpacker tax, we would back him. But we were not going to fall for the pea-and-thimble trick of allowing him to lie to the Australian people and suggest to them that he would get rid of the tax post-election but spend the $500 million all the way up to the election.
In the Senate today, after consulting through a Senate inquiry and after talking to their constituents, particularly in Tasmania, senators did the right thing. They heard the growers of Australia. They understood that, at 19 per cent, the growers cannot compete. That fruit is going to be rotting on trees. They heard what the growers had to say. Labor, the opposition, has heard what the growers have had to say. We understand that this 19 per cent backpacker tax is going to destroy many of those growers and other farmers, and, of course, those who work in the tourism industry.
It is time for one other group of people to get on board, and they sit opposite. People like the member for Hinkler and the member for Hume purport to represent people in rural Australia. Yet, what are they doing? The member for Hume is one of the biggest supporters of the $50 billion tax cut for big corporate multinationals in this country. What he is doing is putting the big corporate multinationals ahead of his local farmers. He is putting the big corporates ahead of national farming. It is a disgrace. Jack McEwen would be rolling in his grave that he would be putting the big banks, for example, ahead of his farmers and growers. The member for Dawson and others sitting up there—the member for Hinkler and Mr Broad from Mallee—need to come in here and stick up for their farmers: cross the floor and back the 10½ per cent backpacker tax.
I want to say one last thing. Fiona Simson was elected president of the National Farmers' Federation today. I have the highest regard for Fiona Simson. She is a good woman; she is a good leader. Now, she has an opportunity. The National Farmers' Federation has stuck like glue to the government on its 19 per cent backpacker tax, despite that fact it is hurting growers everywhere. I say to Fiona: congratulations; here is a wonderful opportunity for you; show some leadership, get with the rest of us and back a backpacker tax rate of 10½ per cent.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that the requested amendments be not made. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment:
That all words after ''that'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ''the requested amendments be made''.
So the question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:27): I rise to move an amendment to the bill.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The member for Kennedy is entitled to move amendments, as he well knows. But he cannot move it until we have disposed of this amendment.
Mr Katter: I will speak to the bill.
The SPEAKER: Okay. The member for Kennedy can speak to the bill.
Mr KATTER: I fail to understand how anyone could be so stupid as to put forward the proposal that is coming forward here. In fairness to the Treasurer, he inherited this stupidity. If you were going to act on some issue that is going to be extremely detrimental to a large number of your members of parliament, then surely you would check it out beforehand. As I say, the Treasurer inherited this. I think he has just had to go forward with it, whatever he might say. But let me be very specific. I probably represent more backpackers that any other member of parliament, so I would be the one that would know most about it. If you take the backpackers out of my area, people would go out of bananas, for example, and move into sugarcane because they cannot get enough labour to do the job. We have thousands of jobs for locals, but there are not enough workers to do the job that needs to be done. That is why we need the backpackers.
There are two targets for tourism in Australia—some really great targets. There is Far North Queensland—the Cairns region—and the Gold Coast. People from overseas go to other places, but these are actual tourist destinations. Twenty-five per cent of that tourism industry comes from backpackers. If you take that 25 per cent out, there is a huge hole torn in our tourism package. Also, they are all the young people. They are down there on the Esplanade in Cairns. There is a big, giant swimming pool there. They are all having a terrific time. There are buskers and people playing guitars and having a really good time.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:30): I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:30): Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put immediately without debate.
Question negatived.
BILLS
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Consideration resumed.
Senate's amendments —
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 15) omit "19%", substitute "10.5%".
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (table item 1), omit "19%", substitute "10.5%".
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:30): I speak as a person that, as I say, represents probably more backpackers than anyone else. You also have to understand that I represent workers who sometimes feel threatened by backpackers. You find your way through this. This is the amendment I would like to move: that the moneys currently paid to superannuation be redirected to the government as revenue for the government and that all discriminatory backpacker tax be removed.
It is an enormous onus on farmers and tourism operators. A lot of these backpackers work for tourist operators. Most the backpackers can speak two or three languages so they are excellent people to employ in this area. It is an onerous burden upon them to have to do all of the paperwork for superannuation. A lot of these backpackers do not take their superannuation with them. You can say, 'Oh well, that is revenue to the government.' But I think most of them do take their superannuation with them. We would then relieve the farmers and the tourist operators from the loathsome burden of having to pay superannuation to a person that has no relevance to Australia. Then the backpackers' employers—the farmers and the tourist operators—would be thanking the government, not cursing them, and the government would get the revenue. But as it is now, there is a very good chance the government will get no revenue—aided by both the tourist operators and the farmers that employ the backpackers.
The logic was there but no-one ever discussed it with any of the people that were concerned. The government stupidly went on in complete ignorance, even when they were told what was a logical way to go that would lead them as heroes to everybody; they completely ignored that. And as for the NFF, I would not take too much notice of the NFF. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:33): I rise to support the Bowen amendment supporting the Senate amendments, which have finally come. After a decision that was announced in the May 2015 budget, we are here now at the end of November, more than 18 months later, actually debating the legislation that has finally been determined by the Senate over there. What the Senate determined was consistent with the consultation that we have had on this side between the member for Hunter, looking after the agricultural sector, and myself, looking after the interests of tourism. Both of those sectors are vitally important to the future of our national economy. They are vitally important for jobs, particularly in regional Australia.
Since the election, I have travelled around and had roundtables in Hobart, in Darwin, in Alice Springs and in Cairns. All of those communities rely upon a seasonal workforce, particularly in places like northern Australia, where the tourism season is not 12 months long. Tourism activity in places like Broome and Cairns relies upon seasonal workers, just like the agricultural sector does due to the nature of agricultural production.
What we had here was an announcement in a budget without any economic modelling, without any consultation with the sector and without thinking through the economic implications of this. So, instead of actually getting taxation paid by backpackers, they were getting backpackers not coming and therefore not just losing taxation revenue in terms of income tax but losing corporate tax, losing that economic dividend that comes from economic activity. But those opposite dug in for more than a year—the rest of 2015 passed by; the 2016 budget came and went. The election campaign came and went. The member for Hunter and I were out there day after day, along with members in Tasmania and other regional members, talking about the impact that this was having in their communities, and they ignored it.
But, finally, during the election campaign, they announced a review. Then they announced a deferral. Still, we did not see a substantial proposal from the government until they sat down with the NFF, and the NFF—my goodness me, you would not want to be in a trench with them—got thrown a couple of carrots, said, 'Thank you very much,' rolled over and failed to continue to represent their constituency.
I am pleased that the Tourism and Transport Forum and the other sectors—Qantas, Virgin and AFTA—continued to put forward the argument not just about this but about its being compounded by the farcical situation of repeating the process that occurred on the backpacker tax for the increase in the passenger movement charge. Just two weeks after, the tourism minister stood up here and said that increases to the PMC were choking the golden goose that was the tourism industry. He showed himself to be a goose by having this proposal introduced.
Again, we sat down with the Department of the Treasury and the Treasurer's office. We asked them for the economic modelling—there wasn't any; they had no consultation with the sector whatsoever. Then last night, of course, they brought on a vote in the Senate and lost it. Today they brought on another vote in the Senate, a recommittal, and they stuffed it up as well, because they were still doing deals in the corner of the Senate over no tax increase for five years into the future, just after the same people promised at the election campaign in July that there would not be an increase. This is what the deal they did with One Nation was, but of course that has been knocked over procedurally as well, and they have got to recommit it and fix all that up as well. This is a bad— (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:38): Very briefly, because there has been extensive debate about this in the Senate: I rise to support the opposition's motion and the Senate amendments. We have spent quite some time talking to producers, growers and farmers around the country after the announcement that came from the government out of the blue that was going to fundamentally change the political economy of many growers in this country. The message that came through loud and clear was that in many places they rely on backpackers because they advertise locally and are unable to get local labour. But, more than that, many of the backpackers at the moment are not actually paying any effective tax, because they tick the box on the form to say that they want to be treated as a local resident for tax purposes. What that means is that, if you are a backpacker from elsewhere in the world looking around wondering which country to go to, you say, 'I know I've got the option to go to Australia and pay no effective tax, provided I earn a certain amount of money, and, if I do pay any, I can get some of it back at the airport on the way out.' That made Australia a destination of choice for many backpackers, and it was not just good for the farmers and the growers; it actually meant the money they earned they spent here in Australia. Then along comes the government and puts all of that at risk—not only local farmers and growers but all of the businesses that rely on backpackers spending their money.
In the Senate, the Greens put a pretty reasonable proposition, which was: let’s go back to the situation that more or less applies for those who tick the box as local residents, and you would have the equivalent of the tax-free threshold applying. Then there would be no question of parity or disparity and you would have a win-win for everyone. We did not get that up, but what we were pleased to support and work with the other parties on was something that would be better than what the government proposes, and that is 10½ per cent—and that is what the government should accept now. The government has been unable to get a deal of its own through both houses of parliament, so it has fallen to all of the non-government parties to work out a way through. The non-government parties have worked out a way through, and that should be supported right here, right now.
Lastly, one thing I cannot get my head around is that we have people getting up and saying that, if we do not do something, the default position applies and 32 per cent is the rate, and then we have this bill saying that we have to cut it to 19 per cent. If that is the case—if that is true—how is it that a tax cut like that is going to raise revenue for the budget? It is phoney economics. This was all done simply as a revenue grab without any thought as to the consequences. The government has been called out, rightly so, and now it has a chance to fix it. It should take this opportunity that has been presented by the parliament. It has been left to everyone else to fix the problem—and fix it we have. It is not perfect, but it is much, much better than what will happen if the government gets its way.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for McMahon be agreed to.
The House divided. [16:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:50): The question now is that the requested amendments be not made.
The House divided. [16:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
House adjourned at 16:58
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms Claydon to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15; and
(b) two thirds of women who experience violence are in paid employment;
(2) recognises that:
(a) family violence isolates and excludes its victims and disconnects people from community, work, education, friends and family;
(b) the trauma experienced by an employee facing family violence will be lessened if they have the support of an understanding and accommodating employer that offers domestic and family violence leave; and
(c) access to a leave specifically allocated for situations of domestic and family violence protects employees from discrimination and allows them to maintain stable employment which increases their likelihood of leaving violent relationships;
(3) commends the many private companies that already provide domestic and family violence leave, including Telstra, Virgin, Qantas, National Australia Bank, to more than one million Australian workers;
(4) condemns the Government for its public service bargaining policy which has resulted in the removal of domestic and family violence leave provisions in some public service enterprise agreements; and
(5) calls on the Government to amend the National Employment Standards to include domestic and family violence leave as a universal workplace right.
Ms Butler to move:
That this House:
(1) from 2009 to 2013, Australia was one of the world leaders in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), with the OECD praising Australia in 2013 as a ‘lead donor and potential role model in Disaster Risk Reduction’;
(2) DRR protects lives and livelihoods and development gains, and is cost effective in that the World Bank estimates that every $1 invested in DRR saves $7 in disaster response and recovery costs;
(3) despite the foregoing, our nation’s investment in DRR has decreased, with DRR spending between 2014 and 2016 being reduced from around 3 per cent of the total aid program, to less than 1.4 per cent of a dramatically reduced aid program; and
(4) acknowledges that with the severity of natural disasters increasing in the Asia-Pacific region, it has never been more important to help our neighbours build resilience to disasters.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:00): As a representative of one of Australia's most multicultural electorates, I rise to condemn the government's latest plans to weaken Australia's laws that prevent racist hate speech. The resurrection of this harmful debate by the right wing of the government will not create one new job and, in my view, is a sign of the weakness of the Prime Minister, who lacks any substantive agenda. Modern Australia has one of the most diverse populations in the world, and the protections afforded by these laws are important for people living in my community to be able to go around their daily lives free from racial vilification.
It is important to remember where these laws came from, because we forget these lessons at our peril. Despite the IPA-fuelled fantasies of those opposite, these laws were not the result of a bunch of leftie politicians trotting off to a clambake, to borrow a phrase from the member for Sturt. Section 18C was introduced in 1994 as a result of serious and thoughtful reports and public inquiries into racial violence, including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Law Reform Commission's report Multiculturalism and the law. These inquiries revealed what many in our community already knew: race-based hatred and vilification has real-world consequences, psychologically and physically, for individuals in our society. This is not an intellectual masturbatory exercise divorced from real life. It might be a great topic for a 3,000-word undergraduate essay, but too many members in my community know firsthand the pain and harm caused by hate speech. Still, despite repeated calls, those opposite have not fronted up and made it clear what they think people should be able to say in public that they cannot say now.
The debate is being couched in terms of free speech as if those who support retention of these laws are somehow opposed to free speech, as if nirvana is a world with no limitations on what you can say—what nonsense! I am strong supporter of the right to free speech. However, it is not and never could be absolute. It is a value, like many democratic values, that must be counterbalanced against other values. We have many restrictions in defamation law, in consumer protection laws, in criminal laws against incitement to violence and in counter-terrorism laws—indeed, in many state laws that outlaw rude words—and there are no IPA campaigns about those. It is telling that the only campaign about free speech is to allow people to say more racist things. This parliament itself maintains numerous restrictions on what can and cannot be said during debates.
I am concerned at these worrying signs that the inquiry is a sham. It is being called under duress, it is a government controlled committee, and there have been no ads in papers and no publicity to alert people to the inquiry and of the opportunity to make a submission. There are now only a couple of weeks left for people to make a submission. There are no public hearings, and none are planned. I encourage people concerned about these laws to speak up and make a submission to the inquiry by 9 December and make their voices heard.
Robertson Electorate: Arts
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:03): I rise to update the House on how the coalition government will continue to deliver for families and businesses in my electorate of Robertson and how we are fighting to ensure that key projects critical to Gosford's future are progressed and delivered by the Central Coast Council. Last week, I met with the council leadership team and local business leaders to discuss a number of these projects, including some that, despite federal budgeted funding, are yet to commence. Sadly, our 90-minute meeting delivered more questions than answers.
The primary concern that local business leaders have raised with me is based around the decades-long promise of a regional performing arts centre in Gosford. This is something I fought for and something we have secured $10 million towards—a world-class venue which was part of the National Stronger Regions Fund round last year. The project was pitched by the former Gosford City Council as an important part of the region's revitalisation, designed to light up our waterfront with culture and boost economic growth. But, almost 12 months since funding was secured by the council from the coalition government for a regional performing arts centre in Gosford, there are fears that a new feasibility study may be launched by the Central Coast Council into this project—an unnecessary step that may cause even more delays.
Some of the questions that have not been answered by the Central Coast Council include: who in council will be making the final decision on the performing arts centre; what will the time frame be for this $30 million project to be delivered; where will the regional performing arts centre be located—if not on the Gosford waterfront, why not; when will the final decision be made in relation to location so we can see a beautiful world-class venue; why have there been almost 12 months of delays since full funding was secured; and how will the Central Coast community be advised of this important project's progress? The key point is that there has still been no decision on the location, which has left many residents and advocacy groups in the dark.
The time line speaks for itself. The council advised our department earlier this year of three possible locations being considered in the Gosford CBD and indicated it was likely a decision would be made by the end of June this year. Yet, by the time we reached August, council advised the department that a location for the performing arts centre was still not confirmed, despite a full design competition being completed for a site some years ago. I then wrote to the council ahead of our recent meeting, asking for a time line and clarity on this and a number of other projects, but I am yet to receive comprehensive answers. The Central Coast Council has, for example, not provided the required paperwork for the Kibbleplex Learning and Development Centre upgrade—a multi-million dollar project to help revitalise Gosford that has been in the budget since 2014. We are also keeping pressure on them about the latest designs and plans for the intersection of Langford Drive and Woy Woy Road in Kariong—something that has been budgeted since 2014. We will fight every single day to represent families and— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (10:06): I take the opportunity to draw the chamber's attention to the fact that we have a full female complement of MPs and clerks in the chamber at the moment, so let's enjoy that!
Medicare
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:06): A worthy note! I rise today to talk about how the Turnbull government's reckless mismanagement of our healthcare system is hurting real Australians. The issue I want to focus on today regards the unacceptable delays in the processing of Medicare rebate claims.
I am receiving, like many members on this side, lots of correspondence from constituents about the impact these delays are having. Until recently, customers could walk into any Centrelink or Medicare office with a receipt from their doctor and have their rebate processed on site. Now it is sent to a central location, maybe hundreds or thousands of kilometres from where you are, to be processed along with tens of thousands of other clients. Many people in my electorate have told me this processing time can take weeks, even months. Sadly, the people who are lodging claims in person rather than electronically are predominantly older Australians and, indeed, those who are on low or fixed incomes who can least afford to bear the sorts of wait times that they are now faced with.
This week I received an email from a constituent living in Shortland who has been waiting almost seven weeks to have her rebate claim paid. Sadly, she is not the only person in this situation. In fact, I understand the rebate queue is now in excess of 60,000 claims and it can take up to 10 weeks for these claims to be processed. That is tens of thousands of people who now face potentially very difficult decisions about what they are going to buy or do in the period before their rebates are paid, as they will not be able to pay bills on time. For some, this has meant forgoing prescriptions. For others it is a decision about whether to get their car serviced or pay a bill on time.
What some on the other side might not understand is that this is not just a matter of minor annoyance or irritation. While some of us may not notice $50 or $100 that takes a bit of time to be put back into our bank account, there are of course millions of Australians who are not so lucky. Alarmingly, another constituent told me that, after incurring significant specialist costs for much-needed ongoing treatment he is receiving and suffering long delays in the rebate payment, he is now forced to consider whether there will be continuation of that treatment in light of the financial strain the constant delays are causing him. The botched centralisation is indicative of the value that the Turnbull government places on our public health system. The philosophy of universal health is constantly under attack. It is par for the course for this government that it has spent most of its tenure attacking and destabilising universal health, whether it is talk about privatisation, co-payments or attacks on bulk-billing with the Medicare freeze. It just goes on and on. If Malcolm Turnbull had learnt any lessons from the last election, he would put a stop to these delays today. (Time expired)
South Australia: Proclamation Day
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (10:09): This year my home state of South Australia celebrates its 180th birthday. I hope that my fellow South Australians will join me in marking this occasion on 28 December, which is our Proclamation Day. Proclamation Day commemorates the day Governor John Hindmarsh disembarked from the HMS Buffalo at Holdfast Bay, in what is now Glenelg, on 28 December 1836 and, in doing so, established South Australia's first government. The founding ceremony saw the largest European gathering thus far in South Australia at the distinctive Old Gum Tree, which is still there today. At the ceremony, the Governor's secretary, George Stevenson, read aloud the proclamation, which was a particularly rare one in British colonial history as it included the first recognition of rights for Aboriginal Australians, who, it was said, were to be afforded the same rights as other citizens.
As a free settled state, and the only one in the nation, South Australia was a place that was to be the embodiment of the best qualities British society had to offer: economic freedom and prosperity, freedom of association and the right to be free from religious persecution. This is important, because freedom, I believe, is the most thorough and capable instrument that we can use to achieve equality. South Australia was founded as somewhat of a utopia for free settlers and became home to many people fleeing religious persecution, such as those of Lutheran faith, who settled in and around the Adelaide Hills and have made a wonderful contribution to our society.
It must also be highlighted, as I mentioned, that South Australia became one of the only colonies in the nation to include safeguards for Aboriginal Australians. Later on we were also the first jurisdiction to afford women suffrage and the only state to grant women, at the same time, the right to vote and the right to stand for parliament. Economic freedom was also an important part of our history.
I attended Proclamation Day last year on 28 December, along with our Governor, Hieu Van Le. It is a wonderful occasion. I encourage all of my fellow South Australians to attend this year and to celebrate what is a very significant date, our 180th birthday. The ceremony, I believe, starts at 9.15 at the Old Gum Tree in Glenelg. I sincerely hope that with so much to be proud of in our state's history my fellow citizens—and everyone visiting for the Christmas period—will join us in marking what is a significant day and a significant year: our 180th birthday.
Lindsay Electorate: Nepean Hospital
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (10:12): I rise today to speak once again about Nepean Hospital and the urgent need for this government and the New South Wales Liberal government to commit to the desperately needed stage 4 hospital upgrade. This is an upgrade that is beyond overdue and will address the staggeringly-high wait times that people in my community are forced to endure for emergency care and elective surgery.
I have spoken many times before about the incredibly qualified and dedicated doctors, nurses and allied health staff who are being let down by Liberal governments who refuse to act. This is on top of shocking stories I hear every day about patients waiting up to 18 hours in the emergency department to be seen, with chronic understaffing and the lack of beds and rooms leading to excruciating wait times for sick and injured patients.
I recently heard from a local elderly couple about their recent experience with the hospital. The husband was advised by his surgeon to attend the emergency department following complications in the recovery stage of a surgery just two days earlier. When he arrived at the Nepean emergency department in the late afternoon he was in excruciating pain, but there were simply no beds for him. I have seen the pictures of this 68-year-old Vietnam veteran lying on the floor in the emergency department, writhing in pain, because there were no beds available after he arrived. The pictures were devastating. This is a man who proudly served and defended our country. I would have thought that he deserved more respect than the indignity of lying on the floor of a hospital waiting room in pain because the government refuses to acknowledge what everybody already knows—the Nepean Hospital upgrade is way overdue and desperately needed. The photos were published in my local paper, the Penrith City Gazette, this morning. Undoubtedly my community will be shocked but, sadly, not surprised, because they are used to this kind of thing happening. Our hospital is the most under-pressure hospital in the state. It has the longest emergency department and elective surgery waiting times in New South Wales.
We can do better than this and we must. Western Sydney will continue to grow at a pace outstripping most of the nation, and an even heavier burden on the struggling hospital will be relied on. In Lindsay, we have a business community and an academic and research community who are all keen to be involved in the opportunities flowing from better investment in our hospital. Government support is the only element missing. For years the evidence for this upgrade has been overwhelmingly clear. Putting these numbers and statistics aside, when an elderly war veteran is being forced to lie on the floor of the emergency department in excruciating pain, I would say it is about time to upgrade the hospital.
I will use my time here to call on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, health minister Sussan Ley, Premier Mike Baird and the local member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, to commit to the hospital upgrade in my community that is so desperately needed and so desperately overdue rather than Mickey pamphlets and scandals about how to upgrade a hospital with a fake petition.
Domestic and Family Violence
Geelong Star
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:15): Before I make my contribution on an important environmental and recreational fishing issue I want to refer to the speech by the member for Lindsay yesterday. I want to commend her on her bravery in speaking out about her own experience with family violence. It was very courageous and brave, and I think the more people in this place and around the nation who speak out the more prospects we have of taking the comprehensive action that we need to take as a nation. So, Emma, I salute you. For many families, family violence is a national emergency, and I am really pleased with the very comprehensive measures our government has taken to date. Again, to the member for Lindsay, we salute you, and congratulations on an outstanding contribution.
After the news broke late yesterday, today I am very proud to rise and celebrate the fact that the Dirk Dirk as it is now called, the fishing trawler previously known as the Geelong Star, has left Australian waters for good. This is a fantastic outcome, and I am incredibly proud to have stood up for the people of Corangamite, the environmentalists, the people who love our oceans and the recreational fishers—men, women and their kids—in campaigning to have this trawler banned. I want to particularly commend the Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Senator Anne Ruston, with whom I have worked very closely on this issue. The Dutch owners, Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV, made a statement late yesterday saying that they could no longer reach commercial agreement with the Australian operators of the Geelong Star. What an absolute embarrassment it was for our city for that trawler to be named after our great city. It is wonderful that it has been renamed. It is wonderful that it is on its way to Holland. I am incredibly proud—despite the fact the fishing quota was set by the previous Labor government—that, through a lot of grassroots advocacy, we will hopefully see the end of what was known as the Geelong Star.
In my electorate of Corangamite, which includes 188 kilometres of magnificent coastline, there was vehement opposition to this trawler. I have long campaigned for a ban. I have always questioned the science and it has been pretty disgraceful when you saw the carnage and the number of protected marine mammals that were killed as a result. So it is a great day for the environment and for our oceans. (Time expired)
Lalor Electorate: Softball
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:18): I rise today to inform the House of a great sporting event that happened in Lalor across the last fortnight. On Friday, 4 November, I had the privilege of sitting down with three local young boys—Noah Cooney, Jye Robinson and Wiremu Tutu—who were selected to represent their state, Victoria, in the under-12 schools championships in softball. They came to see me in my office with a representative from School Sport, their parents and someone who is critically involved in softball locally and is a key umpire and umpires coordinator to let me know that the national championships were going to be occurring in the electorate at the Werribee Softball Association diamonds. It was with much excitement that they had been selected and were preparing and training for this great competition.
I would like to report to the House that participating states—Queensland, ACT, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia—all had a fabulous time in the electorate of Lalor. There was a tie for gold in the boys competition, with Queensland and New South Wales unable to be separated; and Queensland won the girls event outright, so congratulations to Queensland. The boys I met with played for Victoria, and they won the bronze at the tournament. It was a terrific session, spending some time with some young people committed to their sport and excited about the future of their sport.
It also gave me pause for thought about sports provision across the city of Wyndham and the federal electorate of Lalor. I would like to congratulate Wyndham City Council today on their planning of provision for sport in what is an enormously challenging environment: a growth corridor that has gone from, when I was a girl, a population of 20,000 people to over 200,000 people, with a lot of that growth coming in the last decade. The softball is played in Wyndham at Presidents Park, which is also home to baseball, hockey, dog-walking, a skate park and a children's playground.
On that note, I also report to the House that Eagle Stadium—the former, Labor government made a $9 million contribution to the build of our wonderful basketball/netball/table tennis stadium—hosted the Victorian netball state championships in the past month.
Wyndham is fast becoming not just a place where we love sport, where we use sport in really innovative ways to grow our community from the grassroots every day and where our volunteers share their passion but also a place where everybody across the state and the country comes to visit to play sport. We are very proud of our community.
Page Electorate: Leukaemia Foundation UGLY Bartender of the Year
Mr HOGAN (Page) (10:21): Every year, bartenders across Australia help the Leukaemia Foundation by showing us their UGLY, which stands for 'understanding, generous, likeable you'. These people are all helping people who are dealing with the challenges of blood cancer. The Leukaemia Foundation's UGLY bartenders create fundraisers, games and experiences that people visiting the pubs and clubs can get involved in. The aim is to come up with unique and fun ways to raise funds.
There are many bartenders and venues that got involved across my electorate of Page, and I would like to congratulate them and their workplaces on getting involved: Blake Astley from the Rous Hotel in Ballina, Kim Barnes in the Station Hotel in South Lismore, Stephen Beckman from the South Grafton Ex-Servicemen's Club, Kim Bradbury from the Tatts Hotel in Lismore, Christine Cannon from the Maclean Bowling Club, Michael Daly from the Australian Hotel in South Grafton, Oliver Ferguson from the Greenhouse Tavern in Coffs Harbour, Jane Fitzpatrick from the Rappville Pub, David Foster at the Ballina RSL, Renee Fox from the Great Northern in South Grafton, Neale Genge from the Casino RSM Club, Jordan Hagney from the Coffs Hotel, Courtney Hoy from the Lawrence Tavern—congratulations, Courtney!—Marissa Kaandorp from the Plantation Hotel in Coffs Harbour, Warrick Lecudennec from the Moonee Beach Tavern, Leonie McMahon from the Tyalgum Hotel, Anthony Sinclair from the Seaview Tavern in Woolgoolga, Brodie Stevens from the East Lismore Bowling Club, and Jess West from the Cecil Hotel in Casino.
Together they have raised over $30,000, and I congratulate all of them and their employers on their support for this worthy cause, because, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the Leukaemia Foundation offers many services to those suffering from blood cancers. They offer free apartments and other accommodation for people who need to have a home away from home when they are undergoing treatment. They also have patient transport services, where volunteer drivers help people get around. They have other support services like counselling, education sessions and literature on blood cancers, and much more. They also do research and clinical trials, and have put millions of dollars into that over the last number of years. I congratulate everyone involved in the Leukaemia Foundation—and I must declare an interest: my wife works for the Leukaemia Foundation. I know the great work they do, and I thank everyone for their fundraising efforts.
Essential Energy
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (10:24): I endorse and adopt the comments by the member for Corangamite in relation to the Geelong Star fishing vessel. Everybody is glad to see the back of it. My region had exactly the same issues on the Sapphire Coast; it also had an impact on our marine environment. So good riddance, we all say.
I particularly rise today in outrage over the news that Essential Energy in New South Wales has been granted permission to shed another 600 regional jobs in New South Wales. I know you will be well aware of this issue, Deputy Speaker Bird. All around the country and in rural New South Wales, we are seeing devastating job losses that are being put into effect by Essential Energy. In my region in Queanbeyan, we had a 40 per cent reduction of staff earlier this year, with job losses in depots in Jindabyne, Bombala, Moruya, Braidwood, Tumut, Tumbarumba, Yass, Cooma and Bega. Already 900 jobs statewide are gone. This has a massive impact on local and regional communities, as you would also be aware, Deputy Speaker. Essential Energy have been granted permission to force 600 redundancies by 30 June 2018. An unlimited number of staff can be forcibly made redundant from 1 July 2018 onwards, and they will be replacing regional employees with outsourced contractors.
The Fair Work Commission commented on the impact of this decision when it said:
Employees located in country towns will find it difficult to obtain alternative work, either of a comparable standard or at all, in their current locations.
Job opportunities are generally limited, and jobs involving the specialist skills of electrical tradespersons formerly employed by Essential Energy are virtually non-existent.
It is likely that many redundant employees will have to relocate themselves and their families in order to obtain alternative employment.
This will necessarily have direct personal effects on employees and their family members in having to change their house, community and school.
It may also have effects on smaller towns in terms of the loss of income able to be spent locally and a possible diminution in community involvement.
We know only too well the devastating effects these job losses are having on our rural and regional towns, and it simply amazes me that this New South Wales government-controlled entity is another example of this state government simply not listening to or working for the benefit of rural and regional New South Wales.
I do not know how many times they have to be told this. I do not know how many Orange by-elections or state elections there will have to be before they get the message that we are not going to stand for this devastation of our rural communities anymore. Worse than that, we are also seeing the impact of these job losses in the effect on the maintenance of the grid, the effect on maintenance of services, to rural and regional communities. They broke a system that was not broken, and I want to thank the ETU and the USU for standing up and fighting for these regional workers.
Bell, Ms Kaitlin
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (10:27): Earlier today, this chamber was fortuitously full of women. I was outside checking my phone, where I was reading the speech I am about to make about an inspirational young woman from my electorate.
I stand here today to applaud a young lady in my electorate by the name of Kaitlin Bell. I met with Ms Bell this week to personally congratulate her for being a winner in the Country to Canberra power trip competition. Ms Bell was one of 12 young women in Australia to win the leadership competition, and this week got the opportunity to meet some of the nation's most powerful leaders, like our foreign minister, Julie Bishop. I have no doubt this was an empowering experience and that Ms Bell will hold dear those memories as she forges into her adult life.
The competition was one where they wrote a poem or a piece of literature, and the topic was 'Why is gender equality important to you and your community?' Young Kaitlin was the winner for Queensland. She is 17 years old and hails from the tight-knit community of Beaudesert. She is a student of Beaudesert State High School. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Alan Smith, the principal of the school, and his deputy Damian O’Brien. There are also another couple of deputies there. They all do an incredible job at the school, and young Kaitlin is testament to that. She is part of a leadership program, and she is also one of the deputy captains of the school.
Kaitlin loves to dance. She is passionate about the arts and equality, particularly for those youth with disabilities. She is bright and bubbly and intelligent, but she has had to battle through some immense challenges of her own. Kaitlin was born with a rare bone and kidney disease, called vitamin D resistant rickets. This means she cannot absorb vitamin D from the sun, and her bones are particularly brittle. She had to undergo a series of surgeries at the age of 13 to straighten her legs, which had started to curve backwards. She used to get around in a wheelchair before her surgery, which allowed her to connect with disabled students at her school.
What is truly inspiring and impressive about Kaitlin is that she was determined to push through. She had 16 metal rods inserted in each leg. Those rods stayed in Kaitlin's legs for more than 12 months and each night they had to be tightened to straighten her legs. It was an enormous and arduous commitment. For 12 months she remained bedridden and on painkillers. In order to keep up with her schooling she did distance ed. She worked incredibly hard to build the muscles back up in her legs so that she could walk. Before too long, it was full steam ahead for Kaitlin. She got involved with student council, school dance teams and helped out with fundraisers. She now practices dance as well. This year, for the second year running, she has been involved with the Queensland youth parliament. She uses it as a platform to champion her push for equality in the arts. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I understand it is the wish of honourable members that constituency statements be able to continue for a further 30 minutes. There being no objection, the chair will allow that course to be followed.
Workplace Relations
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:31): It has been almost 170 days since I last knocked back a VB. Why am I sharing my drinking habits with the Federation Chamber? You might ask that question. The reason I have boycotted my favourite beer is simple: it is because I am in solidarity with CUB workers. CUB workers had their contracts ended and they were then offered a take it or leave it deal, which involved a 65 per cent reduction in monetary entitlements and cuts to most of their hard-won conditions. CUB knew that this would not go down well with their existing workers, so they reportedly lined up new contractors to come in and work for the rock bottom pay offer. They knew that their loyal workers simply would not stomach being rorted in this way. This CUB dispute reminds us all of the ugly actions of the Patrick Corporation during the infamous 1998 waterfront dispute. In that case, the company, trying to rid itself of its committed union workers, attempted to replace them with a non-union labour force, and that inspired public outrage at the time.
Some of these shafted employees have worked at the CUB brewery for decades. They are hardworking and experienced people. Some are apprentices who have been left high and dry with no job and no qualification to show for their efforts. As CUB's international parent company reportedly booked a $4.4 billion profit last financial year, this assault upon the livelihoods of their workers cannot be justified by the old excuse of difficult commercial conditions. It can only be explained by greed in the extreme, or by control just for the sake of it, because it has actually cost them more over these 170 days. It strikes at the heart of Australia's values of fairness and compassion. This is not what good corporate citizens should be doing.
I visited the workers at the picket line outside the Abbotsford brewery last week. Since July, these guys have been standing strong and fighting for a fair go. It has been a tough time. It is tough on them. It is tough on their families. They just want to go to work. But they get up every morning and they arrive at 6 am on the site to continue their fight for fairness. The picket line, despite the egregious situation, is a dignified and peaceful act of protest. I commend everyone involved in the dispute for the way they have conducted themselves in the midst of such outrageous treatment. Despite going through such an ordeal, their spirits are high and they are still continuing to fight the good fight. People can donate to the cause, the workers and their families by going to the AMWU website. Until this whole thing is done, and these workers are properly respected by CUB management, I know I will be drinking Brunswick Bitter instead.
Australian Awards for University Teaching
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:33): I rise today to acknowledge the work that people do in our community of Capricornia, specifically those who teach at university and the young people who carry out projects under the Green Army banner. Several lecturers and a special program on technology run by CQU university's Rockhampton campus are being recognised with prestigious Australian government teaching awards.
I congratulate local academics and professional university staff who received citations for outstanding contributions to student learning through the Turnbull-Joyce government's 2016 Australian Awards for University Teaching. Academic Julie Fleming won an individual citation while Rockhampton's CQU educational technology team, featuring Colin Beer, Damien Clark and Rolley Tickner, received a team citation. These awards recognise the significant commitment and achievement of university teachers and professional staff in my electorate of Capricornia. Recently these teachers were among many community groups, such as Meals on Wheels, Red Cross and Surf Life Saving Australia, who were invited to lunch with the Prime Minister in Rockhampton to mark their contribution to our community.
Meanwhile, the Turnbull-Joyce government's Green Army Program continues to be successful in my electorate of Capricornia. Several Green Army teams of young people have completed work on important community projects in the Rockhampton and Livingstone shires. I was delighted to meet up with both groups. One group worked on projects at Yeppoon. This Green Army team included Ben Mathews, Callum Gorsch, Hayden Perkes, Dale Parkin, Mary Brown, Michael Tille, Patrick Kehoe and Jacob McLucas. The group was being supervised by Max Bundesen from Conservation Volunteers Australia, who is a wonderful contributor to the program. Max has supervised multiple Green Army projects and has done a wonderful job in mentoring young participants. His group undertook work with National Parks and Wildlife in the Livingstone shire to re-establish walking tracks near the Bluff Point.
I congratulate a second Green Army group who have completed important restoration work in Byfield National Park, which was badly damaged by Cyclone Marcia. The participants, led by supervisor John McGrath, recently graduated, and included Patrick Kehoe, Michael Tille, Callum Gorsch, Jacob McLucas, Hayden Perkes, Dale Parkin and Ben Mathews. Mary Brown and James Edwards left the program early to take up employment opportunities. Among other things, the team planted over 1,100 trees along Nine Mile Beach to help re-establish the dunes weakened by the cyclone and four wheel drives.
Wakefield Electorate: 1st Armoured Regiment
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:36): It was my great pleasure last Friday, the 18th, to go out to RAAF Base Edinburgh to join with A Squadron 1st Armoured Regiment to celebrate the 99th anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai. The Rampaging Rhinos, as they are known, put on a perfect parade, might I say, involving armoured personnel carriers. The use of those vehicles was perfection, I have to say. It was a very well conducted parade and the squadron, its officers, NCOs and personnel all have much to be proud of. It was one of those events that as a politician you have to go to, but you are always amazed at the professionalism and the excellence that is shown by our ADF personnel.
The Battle of Cambrai was the first time that tanks were used on battlefields—on the Western Front—and that occurred on 20 November 1917 with the Royal Tank Regiment. So, it is about A Squadron tracing a link back to that first battle and the use of the tank, an armoured vehicle, in combination with artillery and with infantry. Of course, it was a unique event in the history of warfare and foresaw all of what was to happen in the Second World War and in battles afterwards.
Of course, we always pray for peace, but we know we live in a troubled world. In a troubled world you do need a defence force, you need it to be modern, you need it to be well trained and you need it to be professional. We saw all of that plus great spirit, great tradition and great honour from the Rampaging Rhinos. I look forward to having more parts of the Armoured Regiment in my electorate. I look forward to seeing more parades and I look forward to joining with them for the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Cambrai where, no doubt, they will put on another great parade.
Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:39): I rise today to speak about the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I recently returned from the Middle East, where I had the privilege to witness firsthand the work of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and others who form out contribution to the coalition. My visit included the ADAB and AMAB bases in the United Arab Emirates, as well as Afghanistan and an opportunity to observe the Air Force operations in refuelling flights over Iraq and Syria, refuelling fighter jets, particularly over Mosul with the current conflict.
The parliamentary program has been providing an opportunity for parliamentarians to experience the unique conditions in which the Australian Defence Force operates. From witnessing our next generation of leaders developing over the lake at Duntroon to our men and women deployed in the Middle East, the parliamentary program provides a vital insight into the diversity of tasks that are required to implement the will of the nation.
This week I am participating in the other side of the program, where around 16 members of our Defence Force have a chance to see the work of the parliament from the inside. I am hosting this week Major Rob Marlow from Army headquarters, who is here with me today, who is using this experience to gain an understanding of the decision-making processes within parliament, and who I worked with in preparing this speech. While I had the opportunity to train in combat first aid over in the UAE, Major Marlow had the opportunity to see the work of our parliament, as well as of the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee and other committee work.
I commend the ADF Parliamentary Program staff for their continued efforts to foster understanding between the parliament and the Defence Force, and I recommend that all members and senators consider participating in future programs. The Defence Force developed into its present form through a combination of deliberate change driven from the top, innovation from within and adaptation to the strategic and tactical environment of the day. Managing change driven by these volatile and often conflicting forces is not easy, but what makes it work is trust. The Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program helps to build this trust and is an important component of building a mutual relationship and friendship between parliamentarians and the Defence Force. So I commend the work of Major Marlow as well as the Australian Defence Force and the benefits of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I thank the member and extend the chamber's welcome to Major Marlow as well.
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:42): The Prime Minister often speaks of Australia as being the world's most successful multicultural society, and he is right to do so. I agree with the Prime Minister, but unlike him I am committed to standing up for our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. I am committed to standing up for multiculturalism with my Labor colleagues. What weight can be attached to the Prime Minister's words in support of multiculturalism, I ask? The answer, sadly, is very little. Why do I say this? Because of his shameful failure to repudiate the inflammatory and divisive comments of Minister Dutton in recent days. He has shown no leadership on behalf of many Australians. He has allowed them to be labelled as less than Australian and characterised in a shameful and unfair manner. He stands condemned by me, and he should be condemned by the wider Australian community.
Minister Dutton today has not only failed to apologise for his hurtful, divisive and untrue remarks but continued down the path. He has looked to blame others for the hurt he is causing, and he has caused hurt. We know this through reports such as that released by the Scanlon Foundation only this week, which contains some helpful findings in terms of the persistence of support across the Australian community for our multiculturalism. But really disturbing trends are emerging, and these trends are emerging in part because of a failure of leadership by the Prime Minister and his continued reliance on reactionary voices within his government who have been demonising Australians. We find in particular that the proportion of respondents to the survey indicating experience of discrimination on the basis of skin colour, ethnicity and religion increased in the past year and, in fact, over the life of this government, and we now have the highest ever recorded incidence of this behaviour. This is a deeply concerning finding, and it requires action on the part of all of us in this place to stand up for all Australians, including for our multicultural communities. It is so disappointing. Instead, we see a clamouring of voices to water down protections on race hate speech.
I am so proud to represent a diverse community in the Scullin electorate. I am so proud to represent them and to stand up for all of the members of the communities that make up Scullin. On behalf of those communities, I call on the Prime Minister to show real leadership on behalf of all Australians, to make a stand for our multiculturalism, to make true his words in support of multiculturalism and to make an unambiguous statement on behalf of all Australians for unity in place of division. (Time expired)
Deakin Electorate: School Fetes
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (10:45): It is a great opportunity for me today to highlight one of the most satisfying parts of our job and that is, obviously, not always being here in Canberra but back home in our electorates and having the opportunity to visit with community groups, schools and individuals. In the Deakin electorate it is the fete season, where our schools take advantage of the better weather that we have in Melbourne and seek to raise money for their schools and foster community spirit, not only within their schools but within the broader area that their schools belong in. This year I have really enjoyed, as I have in many other years, getting to as many of those fetes as possible. In undertaking the work, preparation and organisation that is necessary to pull together a big fete, so many parents, teachers, principals, grandparents and friends of the schools are involved. I want to acknowledge the work of each and every one of those people—many hundreds who have been involved in some of the fetes that I will now mention.
In the Deakin electorate, the St Johns fete is always a very big fete. I had the honour of attending last weekend. Most years I end up on the barbecue, but this year I got a leave pass and was able to get around and enjoy the fete. I want to congratulate Andrew Russell, who has coordinated the fete for many years, and his very large team for putting on another wonderful fete this year and, in the process, raising huge amounts of money.
The Sacred Heart Parish fete was another fete that I was able to attend. In that case I did do a bit of a stint on the barbecue, and it was great to meet so many wonderful parents, children and community members at that big community event. I acknowledge the hard work of those at the Old Orchard Primary School. I had the opportunity to drop in and, again, it was a wonderful event for locals in Blackburn North. I want to acknowledge those of the Great Ryrie Primary School, with Doug Elliott as principal, and the entire team for the wonderful work they did and for being so welcoming of me. I acknowledge Larch Street Kindergarten for their fun day. It was an excellent day. I acknowledge Our Lady's Parish for their fete a few weeks ago in torrential rain. They went through with it, notwithstanding the weather, and made a success of it. I also acknowledge St Thomas the Apostle Primary School for their fete and Holy Spirit for theirs. They were great community events that raised important funds for the schools, but most importantly it brought the community together. I thank all of the people on the committees for their work. (Time expired)
Hindmarsh Electorate: West Beach Road
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:48): I rise today to speak on behalf of some long-suffering residents who live in my electorate, in West Beach and mainly on West Beach Road, which is a thoroughfare from Tapleys Hill Road through to the beach. The residents, the people most severely impacted by the state of this road, have been calling for something to be done for a very long time. In the last parliament, the councils applied for Roads to Recovery funding for the upgrade of that particular road, but unfortunately they were knocked back.
The road intersects two council areas: the City of West Torrens and the City of Charles Sturt. Both councils have recognised the upgrade of West Beach Road as a priority over a number of years and have applied, as I said, for federal funding and have been repeatedly overlooked. This is despite the fact that the infrastructure and traffic in the area has increased substantially over the last 10 years, making an upgrade absolutely necessary.
If we look at the last 10 years in that area, we have seen the development of the West Beach boat harbour. It is the only launching place for a number of kilometres on the coast of Adelaide. Therefore, everyone who goes out for recreational fishing will go through West Beach Road. You will see traffic banked up with cars towing boats and caravans, bumper to bumper. The Harbour Town shopping centre has opened at the end of West Beach Road, on Tapleys Hill Road. The influx of traffic that goes to Harbour Town shopping centre uses West Beach Road. West Beach Road is right next to Adelaide Airport, which is being upgraded. To top it off, upgrades to Adelaide Shores sporting complex are being carried out. So you can imagine the mayhem when there are big sporting events in combination with the boat harbour, the shopping centre and the airport. I have seen photos and have actually been down there many times on a Sunday when the traffic is bumper to bumper. Residents literally cannot get their cars out of their driveways or go into their driveways on some days, so you can understand the frustration that this is causing the residents.
All of these are of course important facilities, but it is important that we take into account the residents' needs and interests, as well. These people live there. They are there every day. And every day they have to battle the traffic and the parking conditions to get in and out of their houses. It is so important that we do something to upgrade this road. I have written to the federal government and also to the state authorities and the South Australian transport minister and urged them to take into consideration an upgrade of West Beach Road that would alleviate some of the problems for the West Beach Road residents. Mr Leon Williams, who has been writing to me for a long time, has sent many photographs. I urge the government to support the residents. (Time expired)
Allen, Inspector Corey
Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (10:51): I rise to congratulate Inspector Corey Allen of the Queensland Police Service on the instrumental role he has played in the Smart Start project which yesterday received the silver award in the community category at the 2016 Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards. The Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards recognise good practice in the prevention and reduction of violence and other types of crime in Australia. I know that all members would agree that reducing crime in Australia is paramount.
The Smart Start project, a joint initiative of the Queensland Police Service and Griffith University, began in June 2014. It is one of the first research projects of its kind to include research engagement with frontline police and a focus on operational outcomes. The project has enabled frontline police to better engage with and educate the community on a serious topic, alcohol related violence. I understand that many of the frontline police involved in the project have appreciated the opportunity to engage with the community in such positive terms. Congratulations must also be extended to the Griffith University team, who are also heavily invested in reducing alcohol related violence and antisocial behaviour.
Let me turn my focus to Corey. As a truly remarkable local, Corey has enriched through his hard work not just the community of Ryan but also that of the city of Brisbane. I first met Corey when he served with Queensland police as officer in charge at the Indooroopilly station in Ryan. As a police officer Corey has attended his share of incidents, some that I am sure leave a severe mark. However, continuing to serve his community, Corey still believes that the most effective policing occurs by being out and about and working in the community, not sitting behind a desk. It is the efforts of people like Corey, who has personally worked tirelessly to improve the lives of thousands of Brisbane residents, that embody what it means to be an Australian. Corey's own unique style of policing is underpinned by a vision to create connections in the community and build tolerance and trust where none previously existed. Corey has worked relentlessly, with no expectation of community gratitude, and is focused on the issues of youth, homelessness and public safety, introducing several innovative programs to tackle these issues.
With old-fashioned policing values, where the officer in charge knows the people in their area and works with them on a first-name basis, it is no wonder that Corey continues to achieve at high levels. I would like again to congratulate Corey for his dedication to our community and sincerely thank all those members of the Queensland Police Service and all serving police across Australia who provide a safe environment for our community.
Family Matters Report
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (10:54): My electorate, Herbert, has a very high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, and achieving the recommendations of The family matters report is critical to my community. The Herbert electorate includes Palm Island, where 43.7 per cent of the population were under 24 years in 2014, according to the ABS.
The findings of this report are very disturbing, but the report does identify measures to turn the tide on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child safety and removal. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children deserve the right to grow up in nurturing environments in order to reach their full potential. In 1997 the Bringing them home report found that 20 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were living in out-of-home care. Now, in 2016, that rate has increased to 35 per cent. Despite the numerous legal and policy frameworks, in 2015 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are living in out-of-home care at a rate 10 times that of non-Indigenous children, and if no action is taken by 2035 this number will triple. Lack of support is a major cause, with only $700 million spent on family support compared with $3.3 billion spent on child protection systems. Poverty is another major cause. Forty per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families live in low socio-economic areas. One in four children under 10 are homeless. Children five years of age are 2.5 times more likely to experience developmental delay. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are 3.5 times more likely to be unemployed.
The report makes the following nine recommendations: a comprehensive national strategy to redress the causes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child removal and improve child safety and well-being; a target and strategy to increase proportional investment in prevention and early intervention services; a focused strategy to redress Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander poverty and homelessness; comprehensive investment in effective, culturally-safe reunification programs across the country; broad-based legislative and policy reform to strengthen representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, communities, families and children; investment in service delivery by community-controlled organisations—which will definitely deliver much-needed jobs; a framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child wellbeing; development and publication of data to better measure the situation of, causes and responses to over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children; and state based commissioners and peak bodies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
The statistics and details in The family matters report are a sad indictment of our community. This report clearly shows that we are failing our first nations people and their children. That is simply not good enough. We can and must do better.
Australian Football League Country Game
Mr DRUM (Murray) (10:57): Yesterday I had the opportunity to host Kevin Sheedy here at Parliament House. The former coach and all-time AFL great was in parliament to meet with Barnaby Joyce and help promote his next big—or should I say 'gigantic'—idea. Having masterminded the AFL's Anzac Day blockbuster and then his tribute to our Indigenous players through his Dreamtime at the 'G game, the master coach is now building momentum for his AFL Country Game, highlighting the amazing contribution those from country Australia have made to this great nation.
As we know, the crowds at the annual Anzac Day game have grown by over 30 per cent since 1995, when Kevin Sheedy started putting emphasis on this game. It does not matter what position Essendon or Collingwood are at on the ladder; their Anzac Day clashes have always been tense and fierce encounters. Similarly, his Dreamtime at the 'G game has always created huge interest and huge crowds as thousands of Indigenous Australians walk to the MCG in an amazing tribute to our Indigenous players, especially those champions who are currently weaving their magic across the AFL.
What these two blockbuster events have done is much more than just pack out the MCG. These two iconic events have highlighted growing national pride in our Anzacs and all of our returned servicemen, and increasing the esteem in which our current serving members are held. They have also improved the status of our Indigenous champions and the esteem in which they are held.
Now the former plumber from Prahran has set his mind to building the status of country Australia. This game will pay due respect to the contribution of regional Australians, highlighting their talents in the field of agriculture, the benefits and availability of tourism, the importance of our trade from country Australia to other countries and the health and wellbeing of country living, and getting Australian regions to highlight those benefits. It will also look at some of the battles that many people in country Australia are facing.
I am looking forward to supporting Kevin Sheedy in his endeavours to bring country Australia into the spotlight when he continues to drive the AFL Country Game, which will be held next year on 13 May at the MCG. He expects to have a continual walk from Birrarung Marr right through to the MCG, with every region of Australia there, highlighting their benefits and telling all the people who are interested in country Australia why they should actually come and visit their particular area—a real opportunity for country Australia to highlight to the world what benefits they have in their areas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (11:00): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for member's constituency statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
National Security
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:00): Most of us will recall where we were on 9-11. That event was so far from Australia but it hit hard at home as we felt the world turn. Overnight, international conversation shifted. When I travelled overseas in the weeks after 9-11, I saw security at airports change. In Australia, I observed a change in the national lexicon. Muslim Australians were treated with suspicion, and for a time we fell into the trap of an us-and-them mentality.
We are a nation built on migration, a country that has welcomed 7.5 million migrants since World War II—and we certainly do our bit when it comes to the 65 million displaced persons in this world. The challenge continues to grow and I would argue that we should do even better. We should be more generous when it comes to helping to resettle genuine refugees in larger numbers to this country—that was certainly Labor's position at the last election, and we continue to support this approach.
Conflicts abroad impact us here at home. We have seen an increased need to focus on and resource measures used to reinforce and guarantee our national security. We must use all tools in our toolboxes to combat Daesh and other extremist groups that seek to harm our national security and our way of life.
Australia's largest RAAF base, Amberley, is located in my electorate of Blair. Thousands of men and women are based there, and from there they deploy into warlike situations and into peacekeeping. Our servicemen and women risk their lives to protect ours and our strategic interests, often leaving their families behind in worry and anxiety. Many men and women from Ipswich and the Somerset region in my electorate have made that sacrifice. The saddest times that I have experienced as a federal member have been the repatriation ceremonies at RAAF Base Amberley—to see the bodies of brave men come home, and their families greet them in sadness and grief.
The base at Amberley plays a critical role in ensuring our national security at home and abroad. But the first and frontline security on our borders is the Australian Border Force, who operate at our international airports, our ports and at sea.
In my role as shadow minister for immigration, I visited many of our major international airports and met Border Force staff. They are able officers, who speak with passion and pride about the work they do. They thrive on well-established information-sharing relationships with security agencies at home and abroad, ensuring they get access to information that assesses risks within our national security framework. Intelligence gathering begins from the moment a traveller books a ticket to the moment they present to ABF officers at our border. The Australian Border Force has access to remarkable databases and technology—real-time assets to respond to real-time threats—and we need those because the threats have grown in the past 20 years. Between 1990 and 2010 there were approximately 30 Australians who travelled to conflict zones, with 20 returning to Australia. Those figures have risen to over 120 Australians travelling to conflict zones, and over 30 returning, from 2011 to mid-2015, often with nefarious motives.
We can take measures like relying on intelligence to cancel visas, preventing entry into Australia and using antiterrorism laws to prosecute suspected terrorists. I have long been a believer, however, that prevention is even better than cure. The Australian Border Force can protect from overseas influencers entering our country, but in partnership with that we must ensure that young, vulnerable and impressionable Australians do not have the opportunity to become radicalised. Australia's counterterrorism strategy: strengthening our resilience 2015, published by the Council of Australian Governments, is clear about the measures that governments must adopt to ensure our national security. Governments must communicate messages so that people:
… find a sense of meaning and belonging in Australia, without resorting to violence.
The strategy goes further and says:
Peaceful expression of diverse political, religious and ideological views is an important and highly valued feature of Australian life. An objective of terrorism is to undermine our values and social cohesion. We must not let this happen.
We undermine our social cohesion when our leaders point the finger at fellow Australians based on race, on our ethnic heritage and on our preconditioned biases. It does us no good in our efforts to counter terrorism when some of our leaders use baseless arguments and cheap political scoring tricks to pick on other Australians. These irresponsible statements do nothing to further our national security.
Countering terrorism is a responsibility we all share as leaders in parliament with business and other community sectors. As members of parliament we must take care to set the right tone in this debate. Rather than demonising and labelling sections of the Australian community we should focus on the positive work being done to ease the transition of migrants into our community. I am pleased to sit on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, where we are looking at the integration of young Australians in this space. The committee is going to consider the mix and coordination of settlement services, national and international best practice in migrant settlement outcomes and prospects, the importance of the English language to migrants' and prospective migrants' settlement outcomes, and other related matters. We need to do all this to ensure people who choose to call Australia home are given the best chance in life.
The divisive nature of public comments made, however, by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in the last week or so pulls at the fabric of our multicultural society. The claim of the immigration minister—that the Fraser government made what he described as 'a mistake' in welcoming Lebanese families to Australia 40 years ago—was a grave political mistake. The immigration minister did not just say Australia had a problem but pointed to a whole section of the Australian community and to members of that community. Words have power and meaning; the immigration minister would do well to remember that. The Prime Minister should take immediate action to bring the immigration minister into line. He should repudiate these comments unequivocally. He knows that comments like the ones that were made last week are just the type of comments our national security agencies tell us are counterproductive to preventing radicalisation and defeating extremism. The immigration minister should be made to apologise. He should know better; he must do better.
I want to send a clear message: if Labor are in power and people post material online, those people will be found out by the agencies. If you seek to harm Australians, you will not come into this country if there is a Labor government. We welcome the finalisation of a report by the Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator on recent overseas attacks and on the lessons we can learn. We will support a review of the way Defence and our domestic counterterrorism operations work together. We live in an age where technology has greatly benefited our society, but it also comes with tremendous risks. Cybersecurity is an important element of our national security. We are committed to making sure we use up-to-date technology so we can better protect our people, institutions, businesses and communities. It is why, when Labor were last in government, we opened the Cyber Security Operations Centre and adopted Australia's first comprehensive Cyber Security Strategy. Strategies like these are absolutely necessary when, on a daily basis, we are asked to share online so much personal information, from banking information and medical history to our intellectual property.
It is important that we have responsibility as leaders and we exercise discretion and prudence. We must place our society and our community first, we must meet the cybersecurity challenge in Australia as we move forward and we must respond to it immediately. We must not compromise our national security; we must say and do everything we can to enhance it. We are a nation built on migration with a culture shaped by those people who choose to make Australia their home. We must embrace diversity, unite our communities and celebrate what it means to live in Australia—that everyone has a fair go and everyone is treated with respect, humanity and compassion. We will always be stronger when we stand together and respect one another.
I stand on this side of parliament proudly with the Labor team. We stand with our First Australians and those who have come since to make this country our home. We are all Australians, every one of us from where we come. We must treat each other with respect, humanity and decency, and we must always be vigilant when it comes to national security.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:11): The minister assisting the Prime Minister said in an address yesterday that we need to accelerate the implementation of our Cyber Security Strategy. Truer words have never been spoken, because the pace of implementation has been a crawl. We were supposed to have mandatory data breach notification laws, which Labor supports, in place by the end of 2015—by the end of last year—and we still do not have them. Here we are at the end of 2016. It took nearly seven months from when the Prime Minister announced he would pick a cyber ambassador for him to actually pick one. The recent Australian Cyber Security Centrethreat report2016 made it clear that malicious non-state actors could develop the means for a serious cyber attack on Australia within the life of this parliament. Australia cannot wait for the government to get its act together. Australia deserves better than a government that spends 18 months developing a strategy and seven months ignoring it. Australia's cybersecurity needs protecting today—right now.
On average across the developed world, online commerce accounts for six per cent of GDP per year, and it is growing. We live our lives online, and the migration of global trade and communication from the physical to the digital is irreversible. We cannot just pull the plug out of the wall. We must focus on managing the risks of the online world.
Some of the sounds the government has made on cybersecurity are promising. Some of the sounds we would like to hear, however, are not being made. It is this silence that is concerning. Emergency planners in and out of government use the term 'critical infrastructure' to refer to infrastructure that is essential to the ongoing functioning of the state. These are sectors such as communications, energy, water, transportation and information technology—or at least these are what we suppose them to be, because the government has not outlined what it does and does not consider to be critical at a level of detail and specificity even approaching what is necessary. This is a serious concern, because policymakers and security agencies need to be aware of what is and is not considered critical infrastructure, because the term comes with expectations: for security to prevent a disruption, and for resilience when a disruption occurs.
The government has apparently been working on a definition for two years now. These are the reports around town, and yet we seem no closer to a level of granularity and detail that other nations have managed. The latest we have heard on this matter is that states and territories might have more of a role than the federal government on the issue. It is true that there is a role for the states and territories. It is also true that there is a role for the private sector. And, most importantly, it is true that there is a role for uniformity across the nation, because electricity is not just important in Queensland and water is not just important in South Australia. The federal government needs to accept that it has a role in this process and stop shifting the responsibility to anybody and everybody else. That means working with the states and territories and the private sector to develop a definition and a standard to expect from those assets that fall under the definition of critical infrastructure.
Australia is experiencing a significant cyberskills shortage. With employment of ICT security specialists growing by 40 per cent in the last five years, we have set a pace that has put enormous strain on Australia's stock of qualified professionals. Businesses are frustrated by the lack of graduates coming through with requisite skills for cybersecurity. Graduates are needing years of on-the-job training following their undergraduate studies to simply bring them up to speed. The government talks about investing in education as a priority, and this is an important long-term step, but these investments will start bearing fruit in five to 10 years from now. The urgency is now. Until then, we need a strategy to bridge our skills shortage in cybersecurity, and on this issue the government is entirely silent.
More than 90 per cent of all data created in human history has been created since 2014—two years ago. We produce data with everything we do online: when we trade, when we communicate, when we upload or download anything, when we do our jobs. This data is collected and analysed to produce an impression of the person or the organisation that left it. On its own it is often insignificant, but the more we do online the more data about us is left to be collected and considered. Each single piece of data is like a pinprick in a blindfold: the more pinpricks in the fabric, the clearer the vision of what is behind it. So, as we add ever more data to the digital impression of ourselves, the approximation of who is creating it gets closer and closer to the truth, and the nearer the approximation the more valuable the data to advertisers, to governments and to cybercriminals.
By some estimates, more personal private data records were stolen in a single data breach in 2016, this year, than were stolen in every data breach everywhere in the world in 2015, last year. Just as the amount of data we produce is growing at an exponential rate, so too is the threat to its security. Australian government services and agencies collect an enormous amount of data. Australians trust that when they enter their personal information online and submit it to the ATO or Centrelink or the census the data will be kept secure.
The minister assisting the Prime Minister seems to be of the belief that the job of keeping that data secure is somebody's responsibility, but just not his. Earlier this month he is quoted to have said of his government's attitude towards public sector cybersecurity standards:
... we want each individual department and agency to take responsibility themselves, and the best way we can do that is just remind them of the need for them to take this issue incredibly seriously.
The Turnbull government does not support mandating standards for cybersecurity, despite a 2013 audit report that found that of the seven agencies it examined, none were fully secure to cyberthreats; despite 15 percent of agencies having no person responsible for cybersecurity; and despite the department of industry and the AFP declaring themselves fully compliant with the standards of central government agencies—only for a subsequent audit to find that they actually were not. It is startling that the Turnbull government would not see a need to mandate baseline levels of safety. We see wild variation in the level of security from within government and it will take more than a sternly-worded letter to bring everybody up to the same level.
On 25 October this year, hundreds of Centrelink customers had their emails disclosed, not by a hacker but by someone using the CC instead of the BCC field on their email. Centrelink then compounded the error by attempting to recall the email. That meant that every email address that was sent out by mistake the first time was sent out for a second time. So Centrelink, which the Turnbull government does not think should face mandated data security standards, has a password-reset process that relies on emails being sent manually.
As has been mentioned, the country is currently without data breach notification laws. This is despite the fact that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended in February 2015 that Australia have breach notification laws in place before the end of last year. Data breach notifications have bipartisan support, so the excuse cannot be the one we often hear from the government—that it is facing too much opposition to be able to implement its own priorities. It is not law today because it is not a priority of the Turnbull government.
The digital economy hinges on trust, and trust cannot develop without disclosure. The Turnbull government speaks valiantly of its commitment to transparency and then fails to actually transparently reveal anything. The internet offers enormous productivity benefits to the economy and we have much to gain from embracing its potential, yet there are risks. It was recently reported that the Reserve Bank of Australia experiences an attempted cyber incident every two seconds. We cannot expect to never be attacked, but we must be confident that when we are attacked we will withstand it.
There are a range of issues that I would like to address from the speech that the minister made yesterday. Labor has a range of concerns. The most important is the urgency of action on climate change. There has been significant inaction by this government since the launch of the strategy in April. A successful cyber attack could scale similar levels of destruction to a conventional attack and we should treat the threat accordingly. Cybersecurity cannot be a priority on paper and an afterthought in practice.
Debate adjourned.
Annual Investment Statement
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the document
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:21): Can I say that the third annual statement on international investment in Australia, which was presented to the House yesterday by my colleague the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steve Ciobo, gives a snapshot of the latest trends in Australia's international investment position. The total value of foreign investment in Australia stood at $3 trillion at the end of 2015, an increase of 7.9 per cent from 2014. The five largest sources for stock of foreign investment in 2015 were the United States, with a value of $860 billion; the United Kingdom, with a value of $500 billion; Belgium, valued at $238 billion; Japan, valued at $199 billion; and Singapore, valued at $98.6 billion. Investment from China was valued at $74.9 billion, while investment from India was valued at $11.6 billion. The mining industry accounted for the largest share of the stock of direct foreign investment in Australia, valued at $295 billion or 40.1 per cent. It was followed by the manufacturing industry, valued at $86 billion, and the real estate industry, valued at $64 billion or 8.7 per cent.
Australia is a very large country, as I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are the sixth largest landmass in the world and our economy is the 13th largest, but we have a small population, which means that we need to tap into other countries' savings. Australia has relied on foreign investment for over two centuries to meet the shortfall of domestic savings against domestic investment needs. Foreign investment helps Australia reach its economic potential by providing capital to finance new industries, enhance existing industries and boost infrastructure, productivity and employment opportunities in the process.
There is no more important issue in my region—and I am sure yours, Mr Deputy Speaker—than employment. The high growth supported by foreign investment pays dividends for all Australians by increasing tax revenues to federal and state governments and increasing the funds available to spend on hospitals, schools, roads and other essential services. Foreign investment has other benefits beyond injecting new capital. By bringing in new business with new connections in different markets, it opens up additional export opportunities, boosting our overall export performance. It also encourages competition and increased innovation by bringing in new technologies and services to the Australian market.
But why do they want to come here? Why do they want to invest in Australia? There are a number of reasons. Firstly, Australia has experienced 25 years of uninterrupted annual growth since 1990-91. That did not happen by accident. We have a highly skilled workforce and our location has strong geographic, trade and cultural links with the growing Indo-Pacific region. We have strategically located ports with well planned rail and road transport networks and efficient logistics chains. It is these qualities that have attracted foreign countries to invest in Australia for many years.
In my own electorate of Hinkler, the German company Knauf is building a plasterboard manufacturing factory at the Bundaberg Port. Civil works began on 1 February on a plant worth more than $70 million that is expected to create around 200 jobs during construction and around 70 permanent positions once completed. The Bundaberg facility, which is expected to be operational by the beginning of 2017, will be the company's third in Australia, with manufacturing plants in Sydney and Melbourne, but it certainly is the first in regional Australia. Knauf is a major supplier of plasterboard and associated products to the lightweight construction industry. The company began in 1932 and has grown, with more than 220 facilities, 70 quarrying operations and 23,000 employees in over 60 countries. The project at the Bundaberg Port will also include gypsum handling and processing facilities to support plasterboard production and for the sale of gypsum into the agricultural sector. For those who know the Bundaberg region or the Hinkler electorate, it is one of the largest horticultural producing areas in this country. We are the largest producers of heavy vegetables, and to have a company that can import lime directly and make it into a pelletised product at a much-reduced cost will be a large benefit for local farmers and our agricultural producers. It is this type of investment that we need to encourage, particularly into regional Australia.
Whilst we recognise the benefits of foreign investments in Australia, I also acknowledge community concerns about foreign ownership of Australian assets. I want to reassure people that there are appropriate checks and measures in place to ensure foreign investment proposals are consistent with Australia's national interest. The government reviews major foreign investment proposals on a case-by-case basis through the Foreign Investment Review Board. The board examines significant foreign investment applications that fall within the scope of Australia's foreign investment policy and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, and makes recommendations to government on those proposals. The review system allows the government to consider these community concerns around foreign ownership of certain assets when assessing Australia's national interest. The national interest test also recognises the importance of Australia's market-based system, where companies are responsive to shareholders and where investment and sales decisions are driven by market forces rather than external, strategic or noncommercial considerations. It is also important to remember that any foreign companies that invest in Australia have to follow our rules regarding employment, employment law and taxation, just as a few examples. Around 51 per cent of foreign direct investment over the past five years has been reinvested in Australia.
Australia needs to ensure that we remain competitive with other countries now vying for their share of that investment. There are talks of the United States and the United Kingdom cutting their company tax rate to lure foreign investments to their shores. We need to continue to be seen as an attractive investment opportunity for foreign investment, but we must also keep true to our values. That means ensuring that we always act in the national interest, which we will.
Can I just add, in terms of investment into our nation, there are people who have invested here for many years. In fact, they have held those holdings in terms of farms and agricultural producers for some generations. It is important that we as a government continue to focus on what is important to them and ensure that their investment continues to provide a return and to employ Australians. In that case, there is nothing more urgent in the Australian Senate than the backpacker tax right now. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you know, as I know from my agricultural producers, those producers who are out there earning a dollar and employing Australians simply do not care about the political process in this country. They want a result, they need stability, they need certainty and it needs to be provided as soon as humanly possible. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity.
Debate adjourned.
National Security
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (11:28): The Australian Labor Party understands the important of cybersecurity to a nation. The security and protection of our nations, our institutions and our shared beliefs is a goal shared by all members of this parliament. Of course, so is the lasting defeat of ISIS. The defeat of ISIS requires, as we all know, a multi-pronged attack upon them, and this includes the disruption of cyber operations. The importance of protecting our government agencies from digital attacks is on par with the more traditional methods of warfare.
We know that we must never downplay how devastating digital attacks can be to a nation. I noted in the Fin Review an opinion piece published on 22 November that says:
According to industry sources, the average cost of a cyber attack for Australian businesses is about $622,000 and about three-quarters of all Australian businesses have been attacked in the past year …
The article also reports that the government's Computer Emergency Response Team has responded to over 14,000 incidents affecting Australian businesses, with just over 400 of those incidents involving 'systems of national interest as well as critical infrastructure'.
Labor recognise that preventing digital attacks is important to our national security. As we heard yesterday in the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, that is why in 2010 Labor opened the Cyber Security Operations Centre and adopted our first comprehensive National Cyber Security Strategy, providing our armed services personnel with the tools they need to combat all types of attacks on our nation's security. Enhancing a nation's security involves pulling together many elements within our society—different cultures, shared beliefs, common traits—and requires the leadership skills to successfully do this. It also requires respect for and an understanding of the fabric of society, and a commitment to inclusiveness and egalitarian ideals. At the moment, leadership is sadly lacking within the government ranks.
We have a Prime Minister telling members of the Muslim community that ISIL wants them to believe they are not wanted in Australia, they are not accepted here and they never will be. This Prime Minister has also been quoted as singing the praises of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—that he was 'ahead of his time' and 'remarkable'.
I want to contrast that today with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection telling members of our multicultural community last week that they were 'a mistake' and are not welcome here. The minister for immigration even turned on former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser while delivering his shocking and, in my opinion, ill-informed tirade against members of the Australian multicultural community. Last week, the minister for immigration stated:
The reality is Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in the 1970s …
During the week, I made a statement to the House about these remarks. In particular, I reflected on the contribution of the Vietnamese community in our nation. I am privileged to represent one of the largest concentrations of Vietnamese Australians in the country, in the electorate of Oxley. During the seventies we saw some remarkable Australians arrive on our shores who were fleeing a brutal Communist regime. They risked their lives in pursuit of freedom and a better way of life for not only their children but their grandchildren as well.
Over the years that I have represented that community—first at the Brisbane City Council level and now in the national parliament—I have made literally hundreds and hundreds of friends from the Vietnamese community. The two things they value more than anything else are freedom of speech and democracy. They have contributed so much to our community in the south-west of Brisbane, just as all our migrant communities have done right across Australia in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They have contributed through great economic achievements. Every time I visit a school in my electorate, I see academic excellence from young Vietnamese students. I see and visit language schools on the weekend, where we are protecting and enhancing the Vietnamese culture, language and way of life. They love being Australians.
That we could have a minister for immigration in this country trashing their reputation, saying that the children and grandchildren of immigrants to Australia, who have contributed so much, are somehow second-class citizens does not sit well with me and it does not sit well with the constituents that I represent.
According to the ABS, in the period between July 1970 and June 1980, Australia received 32,207 settler arrivals from Lebanon, which represented 3.4 per cent of the total settler arrivals for that year.
This sort of dog whistling—these sorts of offensive comments, which have not been repudiated by the Prime Minister and which he is refusing to condemn—does nothing to keep Australia safe or deal with national security issues. It simply reinforces division in our community. I note that during the week we have also seen the Fraser government immigration minister Ian Macphee singling out the comments by the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, as 'ignorant, alarmist'. Ian Macphee was the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from 1979 to 1982, and he labelled the comments by the current immigration minister as 'outrageous'. Mr Macphee said the 'attack'—that is the word he used—had 'prompted justifiable anger from the community'.
I can report to the House that there is disappointment and dismay from members of my community, proud Australians who do not see themselves as second- or third-generation immigrants; they see themselves as Australian. The minister stands condemned from those comments. They are alarmist, they are unnecessary and they do nothing to deal with the national security issues. This is precisely what our opponents want to see: division and Australians against each other.
I also note that a former leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, has slammed the immigration minister. Dr Hewson led the Liberal Party from 1990 until 1994, and he also has joined a chorus of Australians—mainstream, moderate Liberals, who sadly are lacking in this parliament—and has called on the Prime Minister to show some leadership. He is quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald as saying:
"But, why make this point now? Is this a cheap attempt to appeal to the anti-immigration, anti-refugee movement?
"Time for forward-looking leadership—time to rise above the mire."
During the term of the Fraser government, we saw as many as 200,000 migrants arrive in Australia from Asia, and these were deliberate policies focused on multiculturalism and resettlement. This is not just an issue of multiculturalism; it is an issue of economic benefit to our nation. We have seen time and time again the economic and cultural benefit of the migration policies of both sides of politics. To think we are now trashing that bipartisan nature of immigration and multiculturalism is a shame for this time in our history. But I certainly hope that in the future we will see a higher standard not only from this minister and this Prime Minister but ultimately from this government.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (11:38): The rise of terrorism has tested the strength of our character as a nation in the face of an ongoing threat of a probable domestic terrorist attack. As a nation, we are faced with two options: either we come together as a united, harmonious and inclusive nation, or we let ourselves be torn apart by fear. The aim of terrorism is to spread fear, and that is what it can do if we do not fight to protect the Australian values that we all hold dear. It is fear that leads people to turn against each other and to create scapegoats to be blamed for an external threat. But in these difficult times we must be careful that we do not become blinded by fear. When we are scared, it is easier for us to find someone to blame than to confront and deal with our fears with strength and clarity.
It is particularly important for Australian politicians not to succumb to fear and to the urge to blame and divide, which is exactly what our enemies want. Instead of turning against each other we need to join together as a nation to celebrate our diversity, not to seek to denigrate or belittle our great history of inclusiveness as nation. It gives power to the forces of hate if we allow ourselves to be divided as a nation. We know from the reports of our security agencies that that is what ISIL and their like want. They want to create division and resentment. They feed off hatred, anger and fear. We must call out those who try to threaten our way of life, the life that Australians are accustomed to in a nation made great by migration and multiculturalism. We are a nation that prides itself on its diversity, and we must not forget that. We have been asked once again, as we have been asked many times throughout history, to reject extremist ideologies that seeks to divide people. We must draw on our ability to look beyond cultural, religious and racial differences to demonstrate respect for and recognition of those members of our community who practice a modern and tolerant form of Islam. As a nation we are presented with the challenge of whether or not we can turn away from hatred and embrace the challenge humanity that binds all us who value freedom and democracy. This was noted by ASIO Director-General Duncan Lewis in mid-2015:
We understand we can't arrest our way to success.
If there is indeed a silver bullet to solving the issue of radicalisation, it is in the area of social cohesion.
That is why a very important approach to responding to the threat of terrorism is ensuring that we promote tolerance and acceptance to ensure that the fabric of social cohesion in this country cannot be unwound. We must also invest in programs that promote people's sense of inclusiveness and prevent young people from being radicalised. Such programs can provide options to young Australians who feel isolated and abandoned and then turn to terrorist recruiters. Unfortunately, programs like this have not been handled well by the government, and we are nowhere near where we should be.
If we do not call out divisive language we are playing into the hands of those who seek to divide us. It is shocking and astounding that some people in this place cannot see the impact of their own words and behaviour. We in this place have a responsibility to demonstrate to the Australian community the kinds of standards that we will accept the kind of language that we will tolerate. The recent comments by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection have the potential to undermine Australia's tradition of multiculturalism, to undermine our national cohesion and to undermine our national security, for all the reasons I have outlined today. His suggestion that it was a mistake for a generation of migrants to come to Australia more than three decades ago, because of the crimes that are small number of their grandchildren may have committed, is unnecessary and inflammatory. These types of comments contribute to people's sense of isolation and resentment. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing to defeat extremism.
It is because of anger hatred and fear that people are drawn to extremist ideology. It is fear and isolation that is turning our young people towards terrorism and towards embracing terrorist recruiters and joining the conflict overseas in Iraq and Syria. If ministers engage in inflammatory rhetoric that invokes fear, how then can we be asking those communities to take on the responsibility of teaching community and respect? In the Prime Minister's own words yesterday:
… governments cannot win this battle alone. Community leaders and groups have great responsibility both in denouncing violent extremism and teaching unity in diversity and mutual respect instead of hatred.
It is incredible that the Prime Minister could say those words yesterday after he has failed to reject the comments of the minister for immigration. He surely should be able to see the effects that the comments of the minister for immigration will have on the Lebanese Muslim community in Australia and on other communities in Australia who have contributed so much to our nation. How can he ask community leaders and groups to teach 'unity in diversity' when his own ministers do the opposite? Is he so weak that he is unable to even address this kind of, really, rank hypocrisy?
National security agencies have made it very clear that we need to work with, not against, local Muslim communities to change attitudes and behaviours that can foster extremism. The member for Cowan, an internationally renowned expert on countering violent extremism who has just joined the parliament, has spoken out against the minister for immigration's comments, just as we all should, and has received death threats towards her and her family. We must take our leadership responsibility seriously and be much more careful about what we do and say.
The rise of ISIL, and of al-Qaeda before it, has changed much about our world. The age of digital transformation has brought with it many benefits, but it has also led to new tools being developed and used to spread violent extremist ideas and to encourage more and more people to turn towards extremism. ISIL's extensive use of social media has had the unfortunate consequence of drawing into conflicts many people who would not otherwise have been attracted. We have seen propaganda that is used throughout history to turn people away from rational, progressive mindsets and instead go to a dark place of anger and resentment, and this most recent outbreak from ISIL is another example of that. If we are going to win the fight against violent extremism, we must limit the spread of violent extremist ideas. It is through relationships of trust and solidarity between governments and communities that we can all make sure that the right messages get through to communities: that Australia is a country of inclusiveness and that we welcome all people to share our values.
Labor is committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies and security agencies have the powers and resources that they need to keep Australians safe. That is why Labor continues to take a bipartisan approach on national security. But the fight against terrorism goes far beyond just giving appropriate powers and resources to our security agencies. Our words and our actions matter just as much as our policy decisions. Practising isolationism and division is not going to help our security agencies; it will, in fact—and I know this as a former Attorney-General—make their job harder. I hear constantly in briefings from the security agencies of the importance of working with communities. What working with communities means is, in part, using the right language in public statements about national security matters and about our immigrant communities, and certainly not using the kind of demonising and ignorant language that we have heard from the minister for immigration in recent days. The minister for immigration must know this as well, yet he continues to make these kinds of comments, he refuses to apologise for them, he refuses to retract them, and, worse, the Prime Minister backs this minister for immigration. I find it astounding.
Labor is very proud of the diversity and multicultural heritage of Australia. We will continue to defend that diversity, multicultural heritage and multiculturalism against the divisive comments by cabinet ministers, and we will continue to defend that multicultural heritage and diversity against attempts to water down racial hate speech laws. We stand for unity in this country, not division.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr DRUM (Murray) (11:48): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Vietnam: Human Rights
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:48): I rise to bring to the House's attention a string of human rights violations in Vietnam involving the detention of three prominent activists and bloggers: Ms Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, Mr Nguyen Van Dai and Ms Can Thi Theu.
I was informed that Ms Quynh was arrested on 10 October for speaking up for victims of the environmental issues which led to a mass killing of fish earlier this year. Signs supporting the victims were used as evidence by local authorities to charge her with conducting propaganda against the state under article 88 of the Vietnamese criminal code. A co-founder of the independent Vietnamese Bloggers' Network, Ms Quynh is a prominent blogger under the pen name Mother Mushroom and has regularly posted articles regarding human rights violations in Vietnam. Throughout this year, she has written extensively about the chemical spill caused by the Formosa Ha Tinh steel plant which led to the annihilation of fish stocks across four provinces in Vietnam. Ms Quynh is currently in custody and has not been granted access to her lawyer, her family or medical care. State-run media report that she is being prosecuted for using Facebook to post and share articles which are critical of the state.
With respect to prominent human rights lawyer Nguyen Van Dai, I understand he has still not received a trial date despite being arrested in December last year. Mr Dai has been similarly charged under article 88. I spoke to his wife, Ms Vu Minh Khanh, when she visited Australia earlier this year. She has been denied access to her husband ever since his arrest and Mr Dai has not had access to a lawyer. Ms Vu was also detained for several hours by police at Noi Bai airport in Hanoi when she returned from her visit to Australia. Mr Dai was arrested while on his way to meet with the European Union delegation who were involved in the bilateral human rights dialogue the previous day. He previously served four years in prison for his work in human rights law and has conducted several training sessions in Vietnam regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutional law. A cofounder of the Brotherhood for Democracy and the Vietnamese Human Right Centre, he was attacked the week before his arrest for conducting human rights seminars in the Nghe An Province. His colleague Le Thu Ha was also arrested and interrogated along with him.
More recently, I have been told that the well-known land rights activist Ms Can Thi Theu was sentenced to 20 months in prison after being charged with causing public disorder under article 245 of the penal code. Ms Theu has been actively motivating women in rural farming communities and has spoken up regarding both the Formosa environmental issue and arrest of Nguyen Van Dai. This is the second time that she has been arrested for drawing attention to government initiated land evictions having previously been sentenced to 15 months prison in 2014. At her trial her son, Trinh Ba Phuong, and other supporters were removed by local police. Ms Theu's health is of great concern, particularly given the fact that she undertook a series of hunger strikes since her arrest. Mr Phuong, her son, has been denied permission by prison authorities to send his mother necessary medications. She has been unable to see her family since her arrest in June this year. I have been informed that her appeal has been set down for 30 November. I would strongly urge authorities to consider the immediate and unconditional release of this human rights activist.
This series of arbitrary arrests, along with many other cases of people being detained for exercising their basic human rights, is indicative of a government that is tightening the civil liberties of its people. On the eve of International Human Rights Day and given Australia's obligations under a number of international human rights treaties, I believe we have a moral responsibility to speak out against human rights abuses wherever they occur.
Corangamite Electorate: Schools
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:53): It is my great pleasure to rise and celebrate the many wonderful schools in the Corangamite electorate and the incredible work that they are doing in the community. I visit, of course, like all members of parliament, many schools during the year. It is one of the great joys of my job. Just a few weeks ago I was very proud to officially open a new building at the Sacred Heart Primary School in Colac. The Turnbull government has provided $1.06 million under its capital grants program towards a $1.2 million project. I congratulate the principal, Jack Lenaghan, his staff and of course the wonderful students at the school. We had a great day—it was a great opening—and a great credit to Sacred Heart. They are now working on a master plan because they are growing at a rapid rate of knots, as so many schools are, and it is wonderful to see their aspirations for their school students, right now and into the future.
I was also absolutely delighted that the Anglesea Primary School has received a 2016 Resilient Australia National School Award. They received this award for their Anglesea fire education partnership Survive and Thrive program, helping the local community prepare for natural disasters. We all know how much this issue resonates along the Great Ocean Road, including in Anglesea, which was devastated by the Ash Wednesday bushfires well back—a long time ago now—in 1983. But, of course, it still sits very deeply in the hearts of many people who live in Anglesea and right along the Great Ocean Road—none more so than for the people of Wye River and Separation Creek in the wake of the Christmas Day bushfires last year. This project was a partnership between Anglesea's CFA and Anglesea Primary School. It involved students in years 4, 5 and 6, so it was celebrations galore when they won that very significant national award.
I also want to reference the Winchelsea Primary School and its wonderful principal, Karen Turner. They have been battling the issue of the speed of vehicles through the middle of Winchelsea. It has been my great pleasure to have made some representations on behalf of the school, along with another local business. There is a lot of concern that with the upgrade of the highway—which is absolutely magnificent; we are so proud to have co-funded the duplication of the Princes Highway and the transformation of the Winchelsea township—that there is now the issue of speed. I am very hopeful that the Victorian roads minister will take on those concerns and address them very seriously.
Once again, it has been my great pride to start to hand out our Corangamite Medals. The Corangamite Medal is a medal which recognises leadership in primary and secondary schools throughout the Corangamite electorate. We have around 40 schools participating in the Corangamite Medal program this year. It is a great opportunity to recognise one outstanding student who has given so much to their local school community and who has been a great leader, a great mentor and someone who is very caring and compassionate. I want to thank all the schools which are participating this year. I have already made a number of presentations to Trinity and also to areas in that primary school.
We also run a Christmas card competition. Last year, the winner of our Christmas card competition was Chloe Nevitt, who is in grade 3/4 at Grovedale Primary School. This year, we have Torquay College competing for the Christmas card competition. I am looking forward to announcing very shortly the winner of the 2016 Christmas in Corangamite card competition.
The other way in which schools have played a very important role is in the wonderful Cotton On-sponsored Run Geelong event, which occurred last weekend. It was my great pleasure to stumble around that six-kilometre track—I did not run the whole way, I have to confess! But so many schoolchildren from so many different schools participated—more than 13,000 people. It is a wonderful credit to Cotton On, who are raising money this year for the Barwon Health university hospital for an upgraded maternity ward, which is so important for our community. Some $300,000 was raised. Congratulations to Barwon Health, to Cotton On and to a wonderful event, Run Geelong.
Homelessness
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:59): Homelessness in Australia is increasing rapidly. In 2011, the census found that over 105,000 Australians were homeless—an increase of a massive 17 per cent since the previous census. As we await the results of the most recent census, all signals are pointing to yet another increase in the figures. And yet there are real faces and personal stories of heartbreak behind the statistics; it is almost impossible to contemplate how there can be over 100,000 homeless Australian men, women and children—many of them families. How can so many Australians be on the streets, surfing couches and sleeping in cars? How can this happen in a prosperous society such as Australia's? How can we be failing so many people?
We all know about the growing crisis of housing affordability in Australia. Fewer and fewer Australians are able to start down the path to home ownership. As home ownership rates decline, we are also seeing the rise of a property-owning class. Let me be clear: there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Australians striving to own investment properties. However, this needs to be balanced with the need to ensure that there is adequate housing available to all Australians. For us to continue to be the land of opportunity, Australians need to be able to have a fair go at buying their own home.
The current structure of the housing market is concentrating Australia's housing wealth in the hands of a few people, accelerating wealth and income inequality in Australia. And yet, although it is a large piece of the puzzle, housing affordability is by no means the only story behind the tragedy of rising homelessness in Australia. Alongside the rise of a propertied class there is also the rise of the precariat: workers who find themselves in insecure employment—assuming they can find employment at all. The great decline of manufacturing in Australia is only exacerbating this trend. Decreasing stable employment opportunities for semi-skilled, unskilled and entry-level workers are combining with underemployment to create a swelling underclass.
Domestic violence is another piece of the homelessness puzzle. The St Vincent de Paul Society indicated that domestic violence is a factor in 36 per cent of homelessness cases. To echo their recent report The ache for home:
If Australia wants seriously to deal with domestic violence effectively then it is necessary to address the crisis in supply of social and affordable housing.
The leading cause of homelessness in my electorate is family violence. There are 48 people per 10,000 head of population without homes in Mayo compared with 38 per 10,000 across South Australia. More Australians than ever before are becoming homeless, or are at imminent risk of homelessness. Every dollar spent now helps prevent more Australians from falling out of secure housing.
According to Swinburne University of Technology, youth homelessness alone costs the community more than $600 million per year in additional health and criminal justice services. Not just is preventative spending on homelessness an investment in the future of vulnerable Australians; it is an investment in the sustainability of federal and state budgets. That is why certainty and continuity of funding to address homelessness is so critical. The current National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which runs out next July, is yet to be renewed by the federal government, which is causing great concern. I am increasingly concerned that the federal government intends to walk away from its funding commitments to address homelessness. I urge the government to allay my concerns and renew the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness as soon as possible.
I also urge the federal government to provide longer-term funding in any partnership agreement that it negotiates. The short-term funding agreements we are increasingly seeing create regular valleys of death for the sectors they affect, with good quality staff moving on because their jobs cannot be guaranteed until continued funding is announced. This stop-start funding reduces the efficacy of the money that the government does spend. Given the critical importance of early intervention with services that support homelessness, we cannot afford to give piecemeal funding. Australia cannot afford to resort to last-minute, short-term deals if it wants to address this problem as effectively as possible.
To the government I say: the thousands of Australians who are either homeless or facing homelessness are relying on you to act, and act with urgency. Please do not dismiss this issue as a matter for individual states to carry alone.
Gulmarrad Public School
Cooper, Mr George
Grafton Historical Society
New South Wales Rural Fire Service
Mr HOGAN (Page) (12:04): The Gulmarrad Public School near Maclean turned 125 recently, and hundreds turned out to celebrate. Today the school has 201 enrolled students across eight classes. The celebration included many activities that were planned by a small group of dedicated people. One of the main activities was a colouring-in competition for the younger students, which was inspired by the school buildings and history. I would like to thank Ms Connolly for her work in the artwork competition; Mrs Niemiec, who created a bookmark for all the students; and Mrs Wallace, who did great work with the coordination of all of the activities and events for the celebration. Their commitment and dedication was appreciated by all of the students and their families.
There were many other people involved in the school that I would also like to thank: principal, Robyn Urquhart; assistant principals, Dorothy Munro and Rachel Armer; teachers, Jenny Wallace, Gaye Clifford, Glenn Munro, Kim McGrath-Moran, Anna Menzies, Dave Stanger, Paul Oehlmann Coleman, Danielle Connolly, Sandy Sonter and Cheryl Miani; administrative staff, Patricia Woodhouse, Colleen Cooper and Marianna Jorgensen; learning support officers, Irene Carrasco, Melody McIntosh, Debbie Gannon, Karen Niemiec, Allison Kelly and Darrell Skinner; and volunteers Patricia Powell, Sue Todd and Kathryn McMullen. I thank them for all of their great work in acknowledging this important day in the school.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the fantastic achievements of George Cooper. He is a year 6 student from Eltham Public School in my electorate. George has represented the North Coast in boys' softball for the last two years. This year he was selected to represent New South Wales in the primary school sports softball team, and travelled to Melbourne last week to take part in the nationals. He has great ability in a number of positions, which earnt him his selection. In the New South Wales team, George played in the important position of catcher. The team did extremely well in the competition, coming equal first with the Queensland team, and were crowned national champions. I know George's family and the students at Eltham Public School are very proud of him, and I also would like to extend my congratulations to George on this wonderful result.
Recently the Grafton Historical Society celebrated its 50th birthday at its current location. The Museum and Research Room is located in a heritage listed residential dwelling known as Schaeffer House in Fitzroy Street, Grafton. This was the home of Grafton's first architect, Mr Frederick William Conrad Schaeffer, and it was built around 1900.
In 1931, Sir Earle Page suggested the establishment of a historical records museum, which was named the Clarence River Historical Society. Between 1931 and 1966, there were many historians who had a huge array of research and information, but none of the information was stored in a central location. After changing hands several times, the building was purchased by the then Grafton City Council in 1966. It was fully restored and became the home of the Grafton Historical Society. Two men who were very instrumental in the acquisition were Joe Fahey and Bill Dougherty, who both attended the celebrations last week. At the time of the purchase, these local businessmen were both aldermen on the council. The deputy mayor at the time was Mr Neville Weiley, and he is credited by Joe and Bill as being the driving force behind the society.
The Museum and Research Room is open three days a week between 9 am and 4 pm and is manned solely by volunteers. These men and women do a fantastic job in cataloguing and maintaining the history of Grafton and the wider Clarence Valley. I would like to thank them all for their fantastic community spirit and the work they do. These include: president, Patricia James; vice presidents, Mavis Robertson and Ruth Heawood; secretary, Sandra Davidson; treasurer, Anne Ellem; public officer, Bill Dougherty; roster clerk, Suzanne Gibson; committee members, Cheryl Barnes, Nita Childs, Suzanne Gibson, Judy Johnson and Bruce Wicks; the honourable solicitor, Joe Fahey; recorder/librarian, Roz Palmer; research officer, Hazel Lawson; and newsletter production officer, Ruth Heawood.
As summer approaches many of our community will volunteer their time and energy to help keep our communities safe. I would like to acknowledge the great work that our rural fire services do over the summer months. Northern Rivers has already seen a number of bushfires, and, as we move into summer, our rural fire services will respond to more. At the moment I know there is an A crew of 15 to 20 firefighters who are working to contain a fire near Woodburn. Many of these individuals would have previously volunteered their time fighting fires near Pimlico and South Ballina. I would like to thank these hard-working people for donating their time, as well as thanking their families and their employers, who allow them to miss work for the good of the community.
Blair Electorate: Disability and Seniors Services
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:09): Australian disability activist and comedian, Stella Young, who tragically died too soon, said:
I want to live in a world where we don't have such low expectations of disabled people that we are congratulated for getting out of bed and remembering our own names in the morning. I want to live in a world where we value genuine achievement for disabled people,
The electorate of Blair features a wide variety of incredible organisations, community groups and individuals dedicated to providing opportunity, services and support for seniors, those living with disability, and carers, and who are preparing for the NDIS, which will be in Ipswich in mid-2017.
Since 2010 I have held Blair Disability Links, an expo featuring disability service and support groups in Ipswich. It is where I have launched the annual Disability Links directory, featuring a comprehensive list of services, activities, products and support for those living with disability and their carers in the electorate of Blair. The event and directory are in their sixth year. In that time I have given away about 45,000 copies of the directory. Last year it was over 70 pages in length; this year it will be even bigger. The expo will be held this year on Friday, 2 December between 10 am and 2 pm at the Brassall Shopping Centre in Ipswich. I will be bringing together a host of these organisations. It is an opportunity for those with disability and their loved ones and carers to gather a lot of information and to chat with a variety of people in one place.
Over the past six years I have discovered that one of the most valuable things is bringing those services and support providers together in one place. They swap ideas, information and contact details, and learn what is on offer in their communities and organisations. It is a chance for those with disability to showcase their talents and achievements, as well as the services they provide. One such organisation is ArtISability, under the leadership of Debbie Chilton. As an artist living with a disability Debbie knows how hard it is extend professional skills when the places of study require travel to Brisbane. Driven by her artistic passion and desire to assist those with disabilities and mental illnesses to participate in community life and to encourage them into leadership positions, she runs workshops that provide education and training in Ipswich. Through ArtISability she has encouraged and supported local artists to further their skills, artists who live in the city of Ipswich and its surrounds who may have no access or limited access to the heritage buildings in Ipswich. As she says, you don't need legs to create beautiful art. I look forward to having Debbie at this year's event and seeing some of the work she and her students have created. I should note that this year is the first year the Ipswich Stroke Support Group will not have the smiling face of Peggy Frankish at the helm. Sadly, Peggy passed away recently, and I know this group is feeling her loss most keenly.
Blair Disability Links has been so successful I have created the Blair Seniors Links directory. As with disability services, we found that Blair boasts a wide range of services and programs for older people, but many residents were unaware of them and had no idea how to find them or where to ask for help. The Blair Seniors Links directory brings those together in a convenient format for older Australians and their families and carers. Blair Seniors Links happened because Ipswich City Council asked me to provide it. Already I have given away over 5,000 copies in the last 12 months.
I will be launching the two 2017 directories at Blair Disability Links, to be held in conjunction with the International Day of People with Disability. The event is held outside my office, at the Brassall Shopping Centre, and I expect a large crowd. Service organisations which will be there include ALARA, Focal and Carers Queensland.
As Stella Young said, we should aim for a world where genuine achievement of people with disability is celebrated. It is my aim to provide an opportunity to showcase some of our local achievers. The event will afford people the chance to see what services are on offer and the opportunity for people to connect with one another, to provide information that demonstrates how much our region truly values and supports people with disability, to lead by example in acknowledging the achievement of older people who have made our region what it is today. Margaret Meade, the iconic cultural anthropologist, once said:
If we are to achieve a richer culture … we must weave one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place.
It is my hope that the Blair disability and seniors links directories contribute to achieving a richer culture in Ipswich and the Somerset Regions.
Trade
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (12:14): I rise to update the chamber on the activities within the trade portfolio, particularly in areas of regional Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I am sure that you, as a proud Western Australian, are very well aware how important trade is to this nation. Australia is a trading nation, and the message is very, very simple: trade in this country equals jobs. More trade equals more jobs. That is the wholehearted focus of this government, to ensure we can provide jobs and jobs growth—not only in the cities but in the regional areas. Trade is an incredibly important part of that growth.
Across the domestic area we have hosted a number of free trade agreement seminars. The intention of these seminars is to provide information to small- and medium-sized businesses as to how they can be involved, particularly in the Asian country free trade agreements. We have signed free trade agreements with South Korea, with Japan and with China. They have been extraordinarily successful, but we need to ensure that Australian exporters are aware of the activities that they need to undertake to absolutely maximise the potential for their businesses under these arrangements.
The FTA seminars are a way to actually ensure they have that information available and, most importantly, that they issue what is called a certificate of origin at the time that they provide their goods and exports into these nations. Without the certificate of origin they do not get the tariff benefits that they should. Certainly, it has been quite a surprise to me that there are some areas where the uptake has been low. But there have been enormous improvements.
On the Sunshine Coast I was welcomed by the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace, and the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien, and, of course, Kylie Watson, who is the CEO of the successful Sunshine Coast exporter Nutworks, at a recent FTA seminar. She spoke about her company's experience following the reduction in Chinese tariffs for Australian macadamias. I am someone who comes from what is now the largest region for growing macadamias in this country. It is an incredibly important export and it has been an absolute success under the ChAFTA. Kylie spoke very highly of the success they have had. This is about real people who provide the sources of their exports and their business expertise at FTA seminars across the country.
At a seminar in Melbourne I was joined by Simon Vogrinec who, with his wife Michelle, is a successful Melbourne skin-care manufacturer and exporter—Gaia Skin Naturals. He spoke for some time about how his family business had benefited from tariff reductions secured as part of the FTAs. Simon's quotes included:
Where the FTAs have come through, what we've seen is about a 36 percent increase. It's quite significant growth for us - just in those market places.
I am sure that every business you are aware of, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, would like a 36 per cent increase—a 36 per cent increase! Simon continued:
To still be experiencing double-digit and triple-digit growth this far into our journey I think is exceptional, because it's enabled us to grow and enabled our supply chain to grow.
So I would encourage all of my colleagues, regardless of which side of the chamber they are on, to get people involved in the FTA seminars. They provide good practical advice about how to ensure that exporting businesses are receiving the absolute maximum benefit of what has been negotiated in their interests.
I was recently in China, at Guangzhou airport. Just as a practical example, as we walked through the airport at Guangzhou there was a small fruit stall, a fruit seller. I thought, 'I'll just have a quick look at this.' And, lo and behold, there were mandarins from 2PH, a Central Queensland company that grows citrus, provided into Guangzhou airport. Fortunately, through a translator, we were able to determine that Australian fruit and Australian products at this stall sell out not in three hours, not in two hours and not in one hour but in 30 minutes. It is such a highly-regarded product in China that it lasts just 30 minutes on the shelves of these small domestic facilities.
Another success story from your area, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-Operative. It is just a magnificent cooperative. Its greatest line, I believe, is the fact that they support 350 families. That is who they employ—350 families. They have a live lobster facility within the grounds of China's second-largest airport. It makes it the first and only Australian business to own holding tanks for live seafood in China. It is an incredible success story: almost half a billion dollars' worth of exports every single year.
So they now have live tanks in Western Australia and live tanks in Guangzhou, which gives them the capacity to deliver an absolutely premium product to Chinese consumers. Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, being able to knock on a door in Guangzhou, in Shanghai or in other cities throughout China and receive, alive and fresh, Australian rock lobster for a premium price? It is a high-quality product—it is safe, it is lean, it is green and it is certainly what the consumer in Asian markets is after.
We need to continue to negotiate good agreements for our country. It is in our best interests and it will create more jobs.
Tasmania: Fish Farming
Geelong Star
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:19): Well, from rock lobsters to salmon! As the holiday season looms before us, can I just say this to all in the chamber and to the many millions of viewers who are no doubt watching this broadcast: buy Tasmanian salmon for Christmas!
Buy Tasmanian salmon as a gift—appropriately packed and chilled of course. Buy it for breakfast, buy it for lunch, buy it for dinner and then buy it again for Boxing Day, because—smoked or pan fried, barbecued or raw—you will not buy better than Tasmanian salmon.
It is important that Australians show their support for Tasmanian salmon farming, because this fantastic industry was done a great disservice three weeks ago by Four Corners on the ABC. I am a fan of Four Corners; it is a bedrock of journalism in this country. But it is not infallible. The program that went to air has been described as a hatchet job on Tasmania's $700 million aquaculture industry, and I cannot help but agree. In the weeks since the program aired I have spoken with people in my electorate who were interviewed but whose comments were either not put to air or put to air in such a truncated fashion that these people felt they had been taken out of context. The mayor of the Tasman Peninsula, Roseanne Heyward, was interviewed for some time about a salmon farming operation off Nubeena in her municipality, an operation that enjoys broad community support and meets environmental guidelines, but her comments were left on the cutting room floor.
I have no issue with Four Corners exploring issues of community concern related to salmon farming, such as claims of deoxygenation in Macquarie Harbour, or of cases of overstocking. It is the role of a good current affairs program to explore such issues, to get to the bottom of them and to air solutions. But when facts are presented that provide a counterview, when issues are hyped and dramatised to suggest there is a crisis and when there are simply concerns that require considered management then those things need to be called out.
Has there been deoxygenation in Macquarie Harbour? Yes. But it is being managed, and one of the outcomes is the industry's desire to seek alternative sites for the sector's growth, such as in Okehampton Bay, in my electorate. The site being considered at Okehampton Bay has a fishing lease in place. This is not a case of a fish farm moving into a so-called pristine environment. More data is now being collected to ensure what is being proposed can be appropriately managed. Other growers are looking at operations in deeper waters; others still suggest land based fish farming. All are worthy of consideration, subject to environmental and financial constraints and capacities. I should add that I have received an assurance there will be no salmon farming leases sought in Mercury Passage.
The Tasmanian salmonid industry is regulated by more than 70 Commonwealth and state acts and more than 670 separate regulatory or subordinate obligations. It is an incredibly well regulated industry. The keys are to ensure environmental impacts are managed and to deal swiftly with concerns as they arise, and I have every confidence that that is what is occurring. I should note that all salmon farming occurs in state waters. There is no farming in Commonwealth waters. Nevertheless, I am proud to stand here and support a value-adding industry that provides secure, permanent employment in regional communities.
We are said to live in a post-truth world, where facts and figures play second fiddle to decisions based on feelings and prejudices. It is important that today we confront what appears to be a campaign to demonise salmon farming in Tasmania. Tasmanian forestry communities know only too well what happens when good, decent industries that employ thousands of people are allowed to be demonised. We saw what happened to towns like Triabunna and New Norfolk when overseas customers stopped buying our wood products. So I would say: buy as much salmon as you can and support the Tasmanian salmon industry.
On another related topic, I would like briefly to discuss the departure of the Geelong Star freezer factory trawler from Australian waters. Good riddance to bad rubbish! Its departure presciently preceded by just hours the release of a Senate inquiry report into freezer factory trawler operations, the recommendations of which were clear: these vessels should be banned from Australia. I would like to applaud the efforts of the Tasmanian Labor senators Anne Urquhart and Carol Brown for their part in delivering some pretty robust recommendations, but I am deeply disappointed in the efforts of two other Tasmanians, the Liberal senators Jonathon Duniam and David Bushby, who issued a dissenting report.
Petrie Electorate: Moreton Bay Boat Club
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (12:24): It is wonderful to be here to speak today, and I want to talk a little bit about a local not-for-profit club in my electorate: the Moreton Bay Boat Club at Scarborough. The Moreton Bay Boat Club at Scarborough is a sailing club. It has hundreds of members; it is also a social club. I have been down to meet many of the members, and they provide a lot of good support for the community. They open up their venue at no cost at all to other local clubs, like the Probus Club and neighbourhood watches, and support them with cheap meals when they have functions there and so forth. They also help out Southern Cross Catholic College with school based traineeships in hospitality, enabling students to get their certificate III, which gives them the points that they require to get their QCE graduation. They also help people with a disability involved with sailing—they call it challenge sailing. Many of the special schools in my area go down there to learn to sail. So the club is a wonderful club providing good community services.
Unfortunately, just a week or so ago, the Moreton Bay Boat Club contacted me about a matter which was distressing them—I guess that is the way to say it. They were shocked to receive a letter from United Voice, the hospitality workers union, and the letter demanded the club provide 'explicit confirmation they will ignore any move by the Fair Work Commission' to reduce workers' penalty rates. United Voice went on to threaten that, should employers fail to make the pledge, their club would be a 'venue for further actions' by the union.
My club is one of many clubs affected, and this story is on the front page of today's Australian newspaper. This is a form of bullying by United Voice. It is a form of bullying, and they seem to think that they are above the law. It is just not right. The letter, which I received a copy of, is from the secretariat of United Voice to the club manager, Rochelle, and it says:
We recently contacted you—
on 17 October—
seeking clarification from your Club about whether or not you … support the submission made by Clubs Queensland.
It goes on to say:
As of … 2 November we are yet to receive a response which as noted indicates you are supportive of this recommendation. Once again, this is incompatible with being a valued part of your local community.
Give me a break—is this bullying! It then says:
If your full support and commitment is not given to protect weekend penalty rates irrespective of the decision from the FWC—
irrespective of the decision by the Fair Work Commission!—
it is clear that your club will opportunistically cut weekend rates if you become able to and we will be doing everything possible to inform the community of your regrettable decision.
Gary Bullock
Branch Secretary
This is bullying to the club manager. It also shows that the union are not looking after the best interests of the employee; in fact, they are actually being political. They are a political organisation. It says, 'We will inform the community of your regrettable decision and work hard against you.'
Rochelle, the manager, who is providing jobs for local students and local employees, said to me that she is really distressed. She said:
I am not at all impressed with the bullying stance they are adopting on the issue and the threat of informing the community about us not following their stance. The Moreton Bay Boat Club is a very community focus organisation and to have a union use these tactics is appalling to say the least … This is not my first encounter with United Voice. I had a very heated phone conversation some time back … Surely this form of bullying is unacceptable practice, what if anything can be done about this …
I agree with Rochelle: it is a form of bullying. United Voice need to represent their workers in a way that does not bully not-for-profit community clubs. It says in the letter from the secretary 'irrespective of the Fair Work Commission', which the Labor Party set up. Well, hang on—you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Those people from the Labor Party often talk about underemployment. I will not go into the issue of penalty rates, because it is an issue for the Fair Work Commission—other than to say I actually support Sunday penalty rates—but underemployment is created if people do not get the hours they need, and this form of bullying can reduce hours by clubs closing early. Thank you.
Macquarie Electorate: Homelessness
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:29): As we mark White Ribbon Day this week we have been reminded of the precariousness and vulnerability of those who have to leave the home they know to flee to safety or who simply have no permanent roof over their head. The two issues—one bravely raised by the member for Lindsay and the other under scrutiny in both her electorate and my own in Macquarie—are inextricably linked. I want to congratulate the member for Lindsay. She knows her fellow parliamentarians from both sides are here to support here.
I also want to congratulate those involved in the Ending Homelessness Here project being done in both of our neighbouring electorates, in the local government areas of the Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Penrith. Led by Wentworth Community Housing, who recently marked their 20th anniversary, in partnership with Platform Youth Services and Mission Australia and supported by the Mercy Foundation, the team of staff and volunteers surveyed local homeless individuals and families. Registry week involves speaking to people in the early hours of the morning, during the day, on streets, in bushland, in parks and in temporary accommodation. It also involved meeting the last train arriving at Mount Victoria at the top of the Blue Mountains, as the trains sometimes provide the only shelter late into the night. Seventy-eight individuals and families were surveyed. They were either homeless or vulnerably accommodated.
One of the concerning findings was that over one-third of people experiencing homelessness in our community have serious medical conditions, combined with mental health and drug and alcohol conditions. More than half had spoken to a mental health professional in the last six months. More than half had experienced trauma of some sort. The survey shows the cost to the health system in the previous six months of emergency department admissions, ambulance transport and hospitalisations was a quarter of a million dollars. This is for 78 individuals. As the Heading Home team says, to be able to provide regular health-care rather than expensive emergency health-care would be a much better spend and leave significant funds to address the individuals' housing needs.
Another of the findings was that when it came to people 55 years and over, the Hawkesbury had the highest percentage who were homeless, at nearly 20 per cent. This research comes at a time when the Equality Rights Alliance warns that there is a tsunami of older women facing homelessness. Single women over the age of 45 on low-to-medium incomes living in private rental accommodation are at risk of future homelessness. In the electorate of Macquarie the latest data has more than 1,400 women in that category. Already, 40 per cent of older women are not able to be assisted when seeking short-term or emergency accommodation, and only 11 per cent are able to be helped to find long-term accommodation. That is now. It is only going to get worse if we fail to act. Women are particularly affected because of, among other things, gender-based financial inequality throughout their life and, of course, family violence.
Safe, secure and affordable housing is fundamental. The Ending Homelessness Here project has a principle of housing first, unconditionally, no matter the issues. Housing provides stabilisation. It gives you a roof over your head, a shower, a place to eat and an address. They are looking at innovative solutions—local ones that fit our community. I wish them well for the second phase of their project.
We also need national engagement. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness ends in seven months. A decision on the future is due to be made after this parliament rises in December. The national partnership provides up to 30 per cent of the budget of homelessness services across the country. At risk are crisis accommodation for women and children seeking safety, assistance with finding long-term housing, early intervention programs for families at risk of becoming homeless, programs to reconnect homeless youth with their families and referrals to employment and other support services. All of these are vital as part of a package of things that we need to make sure we end homelessness.
There is only one choice for this government to make if they are serious about tackling family violence, tackling poverty and tackling homelessness. The government need to recommit. They need to recommit to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness and provide long-term, predictable, stable funding. Right now there are workers who do not know if they will have a program to work on from the middle of next year. Seven months is such a tight time frame. What we tend to see from this government is gap funding. That will not cut it. This needs a long-term commitment and we need it now.
Renewable Energy
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (12:34): The cost of living and job security is very important to the Australian people, but too often in the last decade we have seen those opposite and their state counterparts introduce energy policy that needlessly increases living costs and also threatens people's employment. The cost of living is an everyday concern for people, especially the cost of energy. We all pay gas and electricity bills. It is essential for households to have power. So good government should not increase the cost of living for Australians, but under the previous Labor government electricity prices went up by 100 per cent. The back pocket of everyday mums, dads, pensioners, veterans, farmers, workers and business owners all took a massive hit. Why? Because of green tape. During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, the Labor government took 12 different positions on climate change and energy policy: 'cash for clunkers', the carbon tax, the citizens assembly, the ETS—the list goes on. The radical green policy hit power bills with a 100 per cent hike. If you had a mortgage, were building a small business, were paying school fees or living on a pension, your life got tougher.
Since forming government, the coalition has been working hard to fix Labor's mess. We scrapped the carbon tax and delivered Australian families and businesses the biggest drop in electricity prices on record. This pushed down power bills all around Australia, particularly in Canning, in places like Byford, Mandurah and Pinjarra. This government made it easier for Australians to balance their household budgets. But cutting regulation is one part of the story. Energy security must also be a priority. Making sure the lights stay on is an essential task of government.
The South Australian blackout should have been a wake-up call. Although a major storm precipitated the black out, there was no resilience within the system to absorb the hit. The South Australian Labor government have run headlong after green ideology. By rushing new tech and closing down the old tech, SA currently gets about 46 per cent of its energy share from renewables. But the technology just is not ready. The SA government failed at the basic duty of government: to provide essential services to their people. Renewables clearly have a strong future in Australia's energy mix. The coalition supports renewable energy and emissions reduction, but the way we get there is incredibly important. Minister Frydenberg is working with COAG to review state energy security because some state governments cannot be trusted to implement change pragmatically, in a way that protects the livelihoods of Australian people.
Across the country we can see state Labor's green impact on the mining and energy sectors. They are squeezing out thousands of Australian jobs. Victorian Labor is chasing 40 per cent renewables by 2025. Queensland Labor wants 50 per cent by 2030. These targets are strangling business, investment and jobs. In Hazelwood, Victorian Labor pushed the employer of 750 people out of town with its anticompetitive policies. This has a flow-on effect. Closing Hazelwood is a threat to the nearby Portland Alcoa facility, which relied on Hazelwood for its energy supply. If it closes, another 700 jobs will go. In my state of West Australia, energy and mining are big employers. The WA Liberal government supports the federal government's energy plan. It has no official renewable target of its own. It is pragmatic and it wants to secure the livelihoods of Western Australians. The WA Liberals are not driven by green ideology. They are pragmatic, and that is a very good thing for the power bills, energy security and jobs in Western Australia.
But what about WA Labor? They have been pretty quiet. They have a radical green energy plan themselves. On 27 October, the shadow minister for state development, energy, mines and petroleum, Bill Johnston, told the National Environmental Law Association WA State Conference that his party would introduce at least a 50 per cent renewable energy target if they won office, rivalling Queensland. This would be a disaster for the workers and rate payers of West Australia. It threatens jobs and budgets for thousands of families. Labor says they will put people first, but I will tell you the truth: if you are paying a mortgage, if you are paying school fees or if you are trying to start a small business, carefully consider your choice in March at the state election. Labor will make your life more difficult. The Barnett government is about supporting you and securing your livelihood. The Commonwealth government will back them up with sound economic and energy policy, creating better lives for not only Western Australia but Australians around this continent.
Migration
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (12:39): I want to express my concern to the parliament about the remarks earlier this week of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Peter Dutton. I was surprised and saddened when in question time on Monday the minister himself questioned the wisdom of the immigration program of the 1970s and 1980s on the basis of the crimes committed by a minuscule proportion of the grandchildren of immigrants who were fleeing the civil war in Lebanon. It was an unthinking and, frankly, offensive thing to say in the Parliament of Australia, where we are all supposed to be leaders in the community, and ministers, I believe, have a particular obligation to lead and do their best to set an example as to how we as people living in Australia should treat and speak about others living in this diverse community.
At the time the minister made these comments, joining us in the parliament was a delegation from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN. It included representatives from Vietnam and Cambodia. I can only imagine with deep sadness what our Vietnamese and Cambodian friends took away with them from these reckless words. I am not going to condemn the minister in this place. My only hope is that he was careless and appallingly unaware of the meaning and effect of his words that used a very small group of 22 people charged with terrorist related matters—and charged only, I might add; the court process is yet to go forward—to clearly imply that Australians with Lebanese heritage should now have the immigration of their families to this nation, decades ago, called into question.
I want to speak briefly on what I believe to be a regressive turn of events in the WA media. In Western Australia we have been fortunate to largely have avoided the culture of radio talkback figures that regularly stoke simmering pots of prejudice and discrimination. While we have an active radio talkback community on commercial and ABC broadcasts, it has not reached the fever pitch we sometimes witness and hear about on the eastern seaboard. Up until a couple of weeks ago, we also did not have Andrew Bolt taking new pride of place in the daily newspaper, which is the only Western Australian daily newspaper. The West Australian has great journalists, and I have had the pleasure to meet some of them and to work with them. I regularly read their work. Andrew Probyn provides some of the best political analysis in the nation, and indeed was awarded the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery Journalist of the Year award earlier this year for his work in revealing the Turnbull government's plans to privatise important parts of the Medicare system. Along with his colleague Nick Butterly, Andrew also won this award in 2015. Phoebe Warne, Shane Wright, Stephen Bevis and my old friend and music editor Simon Collins all work with many other journalists to provide Western Australians with good and balanced daily newspaper articles.
I think this might be at an end, and I am sad about it. Bolt now receives a semiregular full page in The West Australian to put his opinions about. No-one else gets this privilege in our monopoly daily newspaper market. No Western Australia based commentator gets anything like this kind of opportunity. But I am not raising the Bolt appearance for parochial purposes. I take great issue with the nasty tone of his opinion piece and the misleading assertions he makes in relation to the Lebanese community in Australia. My colleagues in the east, I know, have sadly had to read this awful stuff for many years. We in the west have not had to see it so regularly every day in our daily news. In fact, I do not think I had read a Bolt piece until he first started appearing in The West Australian. Sadly for readers of this great newspaper, that has all changed, and the good work of its hardworking journalists is, in my view, degraded by the appearance of these pieces which are, after all, just ranty personal opinion works and not any form of investigative or balanced journalism. To be honest, I would like to cancel my subscription to The West Australian, but I cannot. I cannot ignore what is being said, no matter how much I disagree with and repudiate it.
I urge those in my community of Brand, and in communities across Australia, to resist the temptation to be fearful of those around you that have different backgrounds. Please do not be hoodwinked by charlatans, these empty vessels making all their noise that seeks to sow discontent, worry and fear in our communities. They do this by labelling some of your neighbours as somehow not worthy to share in what Australia is and by implying that they do not contribute to what Australia is. Immigrants and descendants of immigrants to this nation—and, after all, each of us that are not Indigenous are immigrants of some sort—all contribute to Australia and always have. Migration and the successful sharing of cultures in this multicultural nation is, in my firm view, one of the cornerstones on which this nation has been built. Multiculturalism joins the rule of law, the continual pursuit of liberal democracy, and a remarkable and persistent belief in equality. Long may these cornerstones hold this country up, and let us not live in fear of our own communities.
Dunkley Electorate: Environment
Dunkley Electorate: Renewable Energy
Dunkley Rail Plan
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (12:44): I know I am biased but I truly believe that my electorate of Dunkley is the most beautiful electorate in Australia. The residents in Dunkley truly have it good, with the best of the country, the city and the coast. So much of what makes my electorate a wonderful place to live is the natural environment, which I would like to talk about today. Places like the Seaford Foreshore Reserve, Kananook Creek, The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, the Langwarrin Flora and Fauna Reserve, the Frankston Nature Conservation Reserve, the Mount Eliza Regional Park, the Sweetwater Creek Nature Conservation Reserve, the beautiful cliffs and beaches of Mornington, and the beaches of Mount Eliza, Seaford and Frankston—just to name a few. My electorate of Dunkley has so much to offer the residents who call it home, as well as visitors to our beautiful area.
I have had the privilege of meeting with many people and groups in my electorate who have poured their efforts into keeping our electorate the most beautiful electorate in Australia. On 22 September I met with Ella Boyen from Langwarrin, along with the Australian government's National Landcare Program, who assists in the maintenance and conservation of the Langwarrin woodlands and our local wildlife corridors. Ella does a fantastic job, as do many Landcare groups across Australia. On 9 August I also had the privilege to attend the Green Army graduation of some incredibly dedicated young people, who had been working on The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve and the Devilbend Reservoir. They worked alongside Conservation Volunteers Victoria, Frankston City Council and Parks Victoria.
As the member for Dunkley, I am very pleased to be able to support the efforts of local councils and the various groups and individuals in maintaining and improving our local environment. I recently met with the Minister for the Environment and Energy, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, and had the opportunity to discuss the importance of several environmental projects in my electorate. Minister Frydenberg and I also discussed the delivery of my election commitments, which have been supported by the federal government, towards the environment in Dunkley. These include in excess of $4,000 for several Green Army projects, including to clean up, revegetate and improve Kananook Creek; The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve; Seaford wetlands; Baxter City Council boundary and railway corridor; the Mornington coastline; Boggy Creek, which runs through Langwarrin, Skye and Carrum Downs; and Mount Eliza Regional Park. Groups like the Kananook Creek Association and the Boggy Creek association should be applauded for the wonderful work they do in our electorate.
I also had the opportunity to discuss solar power. In Dunkley, we are rolling out $100,000 for solar community buildings. This includes an the amount of over $10,000 for the Frankston Bombers football club and Baxter Cricket Club; over $8,000 for the Seaford Life Saving Club; over $12,000 for two projects for the University of the Third Age in Mornington; and over $6,000 for the Frankston East Tennis Club. For the Pines Football Netball Club we are contributing $15,000; for the Belvedere Community Centre, over $8,000; for the Langwarrin Tennis Club, over $10,000; and for the North Seaford Tennis Club, over $6,000. There will be over $4,000 for the Belvedere Park Tennis Club and over $4,000 for the Kananook Tennis Club and the Frankston Croquet Club. Last but not least there is the Mount Eliza Cricket Club, to which we are contributing over $10,000.
During the campaign I was also very pleased to launch the Dunkley rail plan, which will see the electrification and duplication of rail from Frankston to Baxter. This will incorporate the station of Leawarra, which services Monash University, and provide a new station for Langwarrin, which would also service the residents of Frankston South. A new station for Frankston Hospital will also be considered, which would be great for serviceability of the hospital. Not only is it great for that but it enables people to come and see the local environmental assets in Dunkley. Particularly coming up to the summer period, I encourage tourists to come and see the lovely environment in Dunkley. Come and see what the best electorate in Australia has to offer by visiting—and staying—in Dunkley.
I would also like to pass my regards and thanks to the former Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, as well as the current minister, Josh Frydenberg, for the wonderful work they are doing for the environment.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:50
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Australian Rainforest Foundation
(Question No. 18)
Mr Katter asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 13 September 2016:
(1) Is it a fact that (a) the not-for-profit environmental organisation, the Australian Rainforest Foundation, was awarded a $775,500 Commonwealth grant for weed control on a Maria Creek property and that this weed control has not been carried out as per the grant guidelines; and (b) despite requests from members of the public to investigate these concerns, no action has been taken.(2) Will he investigate these concerns.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Rainforest Foundation was awarded a Commonwealth grant of $775,500 (GST inclusive) under the Caring for our Country Targeted Area Grant initiative for weed control on a Maria Creek property in Queensland.
In September 2014, a formal complaint was received by the Department in relation to the misuse of Commonwealth funds by the Australian Rainforest Foundation in relation to the management of the Maria Creek Invasive Species Control Project.
Shortly thereafter, the Department launched an investigation. This investigation remains active.