The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 9:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 135th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Switzerland
The SPEAKER (09:31): I am pleased to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation that participated in the 135th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 23 to 27 October 2016. It was my privilege to lead this delegation, which also comprised the member for Forrest, Ms Marino, and Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald as well as Senators Gallacher and Sterle.
This was a hardworking and successful delegation, and all members played an active role at the various proceedings of the assembly. The delegation attended the formal sessions of the assembly and its governing council and participated in meetings of the Asia-Pacific and Twelve Plus Geopolitical Groups.
During the Assembly, I spoke in the general debate on the topic of 'Human rights abuses as precursors of conflict: parliaments as early responders'.In my contribution, I stated that human rights are not just a series of aspirational targets, but deeply held beliefs of the Australian community and that this is demonstrated by Australia's overseas aid program, the work of the parliament, and the engagement by citizens of both professional and volunteer services at home and abroad. I also participated in the emergency debate on the topic of the war and the severe humanitarian situation in Syria and expressed the Australian delegation's concern at the unfolding crisis in Aleppo. I was also privileged to be invited to chair a session of the assembly.
Another important business item of the assembly involved a session of the Forum of Women Parliamentarians at which the member for Forrest was a rapporteur developing a resolution originally proposed by the Australian delegation in 2015 concerning the freedom of women to participate in political processes fully, safely, and without interference.
Once again, the delegation participated in the work of the various standing committees. The member for Forrest and Senator Macdonald participated in the proceedings of the standing committees on democracy and human rights, and sustainable development, finance and trade as these groups considered the resolution originally proposed by an earlier Australian delegation on the participation of women in the political process. Following consideration by standing committees, this motion was adopted unanimously by the Assembly, and I wish to acknowledge the work of the member for Forrest in working to bring this important resolution to adoption in the plenary session.
One of the key benefits of every assembly is the opportunity for delegates to participate in formal and informal discussions and meetings with a wide range of representatives from other parliaments and international organisations. The Australian delegation held productive formal meetings with the delegations from Bhutan, Singapore and Lebanon. In addition, I also met with the IPU Secretary-General, Mr Martin Chungong and, separately, with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Mr Akbar Khan.
In addition to our demanding schedule at the IPU, Senators Sterle and Gallacher attended a meeting at the World Health Organization on the issue of global road safety to explore how progress could be made to reduce injuries from road deaths.
The Deputy Clerk of the House accompanied the delegation to attend the meeting of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments, which is held in conjunction with the IPU. Details of that meeting are also included in the report.
The IPU assembly continues to provide a unique opportunity for members of the Australian parliament to meet international colleagues and consider issues of mutual interest at both an informal and formal level. It is also a distinctive form of professional development for parliamentarians and strengthens parliament-to-parliament relationships.
On behalf of the Australian travelling party, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this successful delegation. I wish to acknowledge the support provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Geneva, particularly the Australian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and to the Conference on Disarmament, His Excellency, Mr John Quinn and his staff, who provided a wide range of practical support and local advice to the delegation. His Canberra based colleague at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ms Natalie Boyes, also coordinated detailed and useful briefings to the delegation.
I would also like to extend the delegation's thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary Library for providing comprehensive and timely briefing materials prior to departure and to staff in the International and Parliamentary Relations Office for their support.
I make particular mention and convey the thanks of all of the IPU delegations to Brien Hallett, who was the Secretary of the IPU for the 44th Parliament. His work behind the scenes of the IPU, negotiating for, advising and guiding the IPU delegations has been invaluable, and I thank him for his work. Brien has now handed the role of IPU secretary over to Toni Matulick and we all wish Toni well in this role.
Finally, I thank my fellow delegates for their participation in the assembly's meetings and their commitment to our program of work which has led to the high regard in which the Australian delegation is held.
I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:36): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 is an omnibus bill that proposes a number of changes to the Customs Act, as well as amendments to the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, and the Maritime Powers Act.
The amendments proposed in schedule 1 of the bill will allow regulations to be made so that export permits for defence and strategic goods can be revoked where, in the opinion of the Defence Minister, the exportation of those goods would prejudice Australia's national security, defence or international relations. After this amendment to the Customs Act commences, the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 will need to be amended to give effect to this power.
Following feedback from participants throughout the pilot phase, schedule 2 of the bill will further streamline the accreditation process for the Australian Trusted Trader program, by amending the Customs Act to remove the requirement that the Comptroller-General of Customs enter into an agreement with an entity that confers interim trusted trader status. This is being done at the suggestion of industry, and will reduce the regulatory burden on businesses seeking accreditation under the Australian Trusted Trader program, and incentivise greater industry participation.
The Customs Act does not currently contain any mechanism by which an owner of goods can be exempt from liability to pay the import declaration processing charge. Schedule 3 of the bill will amend the Customs Act to allow a determination that certain parties or goods are exempt from liability to pay this charge. These amendments will allow Australia to comply with international agreements and treaties involving the application of fees and charges at the border. These amendments ensure that people who pay the charge but are exempt from doing so are able to have their payment refunded.
Schedule 4 of the bill will amend the Customs Act to extend the circumstances in which a person can apply to move, alter or interfere with goods for export that are subject to customs control. Outwards duty-free goods, including those issued under the current duty-free 'sealed bag scheme' require the same screening as any other baggage of travellers on international flights and voyages.
Screening staff at an international gateway airport are required to screen all liquids, aerosols and gels presented at a departure screening point. If an alarm is triggered while screening the goods, the goods are required to be rescreened. If the item is a duty-free item, this means removing it from the sealed duty-free packaging. However, the opening of sealed duty-free bags and/or tampering with the contents without permission while they are subject to customs control is an offence punishable under the Customs Act.
These amendments will allow screening authorities to apply for permission to open sealed duty-free bags for rescreening without breaching the Customs Act. Granting this permission will be relevant at international gateway airports, such as Melbourne, where departure screening occurs prior to customs processing.
Schedule 5 of the bill will amend the Customs Act to remove unnecessary requirements for producers when demonstrating that they have made goods in Australia. Currently, when Australian manufacturers apply to have a tariff concession order revoked, or object to the making of a tariff concession order, they must meet two tests. They must demonstrate that at least 25 per cent of factory costs of substitutable goods occur in Australia and that a substantial process of manufacture is also undertaken in Australia.
Where a substantial process of manufacture in Australia is proved, the Australian content always exceeds the 25 per cent threshold as a matter of fact. Therefore, this requirement is to be removed. Providing evidence of factory costs requires detailed and confidential company accounting information and is a significant and costly administrative burden for manufacturers. Its removal is consistent with the government's deregulation agenda.
Schedule 5 of the bill also clarifies the requirements for Australian producers of made-to-order capital equipment when seeking to revoke a tariff concession order, or object to the making of a tariff concession order. If the tariff concession order relates to goods that are made-to-order capital equipment, Australian manufacturers need only demonstrate that they have the capacity to produce substitutable goods. Australian producers of made-to-order capital equipment do not need to have actually made substitutable goods the subject of a TCO application or revocation.
The amendment also extends the evidentiary window for a local manufacturer to demonstrate capability of production of substitutable goods from two years to five years. The current period of two years is often insufficient for an Australian manufacturer to demonstrate such capability in relation to large-scale capital works such as unique mining machinery, given the amount of time and labour involved in such manufacture.
Amendments to the Customs Act proposed in schedule 6 of the bill will repeal an obsolete provision relating to the collection of duty on goods imported for a temporary purpose.
Schedule 7 of the bill amends the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act to allow an officer to inspect and examine goods that are, or that the officer reasonably believes are, goods prescribed by the regulations made under that act which are imported, and allows those regulations to prescribe penalties, not exceeding 50 penalty units, for offences against those regulations. These amendments reflect modern drafting practices.
The amendments proposed in Schedule 8 of the bill are intended to confirm the government's clear intent that the powers under the Maritime Powers Act are able to be exercised in the course of passage through or above the waters of another country in a manner consistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Finally, Schedule 9 of the bill will repeal the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Act 1999 and the Import Processing Charges (Amendment and Repeal) Act 2002 as these acts are now redundant.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Code of Procedure Harmonisation) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:44): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration Legislation Amendment (Code of Procedure Harmonisation) Bill 2016 contains a number of amendments to the Migration Act 1958.
These amendments complement the amendments made by the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015, which merged the former Migration Review Tribunal (known as the MRT) and the former Refugee Review Tribunal (known as the RRT) into the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (known as the AAT).
Currently, there is a code of procedure under part 7 of the Migration Act for protection decisions that may be reviewed in the Migration and Refugee Division and there is also a code of procedure under part 5 for migration decisions that may also be reviewed in the Migration and Refugee Division.
The separation of the code of procedure in part 5 and part 7 reflected the previous existence of the two former tribunals—the RRT and the MRT.
Now that the former MRT's functions and the former RRT's functions have been merged into the Migration and Review Division of the AAT, it is sensible and appropriate for part 5 and part 7 to be harmonised and streamlined into a consolidated part.
It will also assist applicants intending to lodge a review application, or who currently have a review on hand, with the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT to have one consolidated part in the Migration Act to refer to for the code of procedure governing review. This is so regardless of the decision being a protection decision or migration decision, given that both may be reviewed by the Migration and Refugee Division.
The new consolidated part will be achieved by the amendments in schedule 1 to this bill harmonising the code of procedure in part 5 and part 7, into one code of procedure in part 5 of the Migration Act.
The harmonised code of procedure will preserve the provisions currently in part 7 that are specific to and necessary for the review of protection visa decisions and that are not currently provided for in part 5. This includes, for example, the provision prohibiting the publication of the identity of a protection visa applicant and their family members.
The harmonised code of procedure will not affect the rights of current and future applicants to seek merits review under the Migration Act. The new code of procedure will also not alter the decisions for which merits review is currently available under the Migration Act.
In addition, this bill makes amendments to clarify the operation of certain code of procedure provisions to ensure they are interpreted as intended as well as clarifying the notification requirements in relation to oral decisions of the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT.
The amendments also ensure that the Immigration Assessment Authority (known as the IAA) can review fast track reviewable decisions together, and specifically provide that the minister may refer fast track reviewable decisions together if the decisions are in relation to fast track applicants who are members of the same family unit. It is important to note though that permitting the IAA to review the decisions in relation to family members together does not mean that the IAA is bound to do so.
The amendments will also provide that where those decisions are referred to the IAA together and the IAA then reviews those decisions together, a document given to any of the fast track applicants will be taken to be given to each of them.
This will improve the administrative efficiency of the IAA and promote a more effective and more coherent merits review framework for fast track reviewable decisions.
This is an important bill that will make the merits review system for decisions under the Migration Act simpler and stronger and complement the amendments made by the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On behalf of the minister, I introduce into parliament a bill that will ensure that relevant Commonwealth law will continue to be applied to the Australian Capital Territory.
The bill will also—in the spirit of red tape reduction—simplify the legislative framework and reduce the amount of legislation users need to consult.
The Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016, which I am introducing today, will provide for relevant Commonwealth legislation to more clearly apply to the ACT.
As it currently stands, text of applicable Commonwealth law relies on the ACT Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations (the Regulations).
While the text of some Commonwealth law does not refer to the ACT, a court currently reads that it does because the regulations make modifications to a number of acts to ensure they are interpreted as applying to the ACT.
This bill will repeal certain provisions of the regulations and modify legislation to remove the complexity associated with the use of the regulations, simplifying the legislative framework and making it easier for users to interpret and apply the legislation.
The risk of continuing to rely on the regulations—which are due to sunset in 2018—are that users of legislation may only consider the acts, and omit the regulation's function to include the ACT.
Given the impending sunsetting of the regulations in 2018, this bill will make sure the acts continue to apply to the ACT.
If the regulations sunset, and the bill is not passed, the legislation will no longer apply to the ACT.
The function and application of the law itself will not change.
The bill will simply change the text of the applicable Commonwealth law to make clear their application to the ACT.
Conclusion
The bill will ensure that Commonwealth acts continue to operate in the ACT and result in administrative clarity and efficiency.
I ask on behalf of the government that both Houses show bipartisan support for the bill and its non-controversial measures.
On behalf of the minister, I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and others for the time and effort that went into preparing the bill.
With this, I commend the Statute Update (A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandums presented by Mr Hawke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016 contains four amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that will further enhance the operation of certain aspects of this act.
Firstly, the bill will repeal schedule 1 to the act and will enable its contents to instead be included in the Customs Tariff Regulations 2004. Schedule 1 provides for countries and places that are eligible for preferential rates of customs duty for certain goods. Placing these details in a regulation will allow the provisions to be updated in a timelier manner, when required.
Secondly, this bill will remove the expired safeguard provisions relating to the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement from the act. These agricultural safeguard provisions expired on 31 December 2008, and their removal will not affect the collection of customs duties.
Thirdly, the bill will add three new additional notes to schedule 3 of the act to clarify the tariff classification of certain fruits, vegetables and pastas in response to recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions. These new notes will ensure that goods imported into Australia are classified consistently with our trading partners and our international obligations. This amendment will help to minimise administrative costs for importers and will not affect the amount of customs duty payable on such goods.
Finally, this bill will amend the provisions relating to the concessional treatment of goods imported under the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme, which is implemented under item 44 of schedule 4. This scheme was closed to new applicants as part of the 2016-17 budget. Importers that currently have a valid determination will continue to be able to access the scheme until 31 December 2017. At this time all valid determinations will have expired. This bill will provide clarity to importers using this scheme by inserting the end date in item 44.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
National Broadband Network - Joint Standing
Membership
The SPEAKER (09:53): I have received advice from the opposition whip that he has nominated Mr Jones to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network in place of Ms Rowland.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:54): by leave—I move:
That Ms Rowland be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network and that, in her place, Mr Jones be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Treaties Committee
Report
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (09:54): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Report 165: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr ROBERT: by leave—Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 165 which contains the committee's review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, commonly referred to as the TPP. While it is true that it is now somewhat less likely that the TPP will come into effect following the US election and President-elect Trump's outline of his first 100 days' priorities, the committee believes that reporting on this agreement is still important.
Some have argued that the committee should not report, citing that the US is highly likely not to ratify it. I argue, and the majority of the committee argues with me, that the role of the committee is to report on the benefits of any proposed treaty action, including the free trade agreement and whether it is or is not in the interests of Australia. The committee's role is not to determine whether foreign parties will ratify an agreement or what actions foreign parties will take in their respective parliaments. That is indeed the rightful role of the executive. Accordingly, the TPP report is tabled this morning.
It also provides an opportunity for the committee to make two clear statements about how we view the future of free trade in Australia. Firstly, in a world where protectionism and nationalism are on the rise, the committee wishes to reiterate the importance of free trade as a bulwark against international economic decline; and, secondly, the benefits accruing to Australia from the improved access to markets in the agreement and the plurilateral basis of the agreement in setting global trade rules should not be lost in future free trade negotiations.
I think it is fair to say that there are few people alive today who remember the privations of the Great Depression or the horror of the Second World War. Few people remember that free trade in the modern world is one of the strategic tools developed at the end of the Second World War to prevent another Great Depression and another global conflict. Many people, however, realise that international trade is the cornerstone of Australian prosperity. We are an open market that needs open markets.
It is pretty clear we do not make iPhones and we no longer make sophisticated aircraft. If we want those things, we have to sell what we do make to other people around the globe. Regardless of whether it is cheese, iron ore, coal or apps, it is crucial that Australian products have access to other markets on terms that are as fair as can be negotiated. The TPP would have provided access on fairer terms to a significant part of the world's economy for so much of what Australia produces. In tabling this report, the committee means to emphasise how important it is to Australia that we are seen to remain committed to free trade and to oppose protectionism.
Many participants in the inquiry had genuine concerns about some aspects of the TPP. These are discussed in some detail in the report. However, the committee found that, taken as a whole, the TPP would have advanced free trade and provided opportunities for Australians and is therefore in Australia's best interests.
I would like to draw out some of the aspects of the TPP that allowed the committee to reach this conclusion. Probably the most significant benefit of the TPP was its plurilateral nature. This first plurilateral agreement to be successfully negotiated in 20 years provided an opportunity to overcome the increasing complexity of bilateral free trade agreements, evocatively called the 'noodle bowl' effect, and replace it with a standard set of free trade arrangements across many trading partners. We are talking about one set of strategic global free trade rules that cover something like 40 per cent of trade across the nation. It was an opportunity for the bulk of the world to finally set, pluriterally, a set of strategic trade rules.
The TPP would have reduced the administrative burden on Australian exporters by simplifying arrangements for exporting to all other TPP countries. Small and medium sized businesses would have found it much easier to access the benefits of international markets under this arrangement. In addition, the TPP would have given Australia the capacity to address arbitrary and discriminatory non-tariff barriers in a range of Australia's most significant trading partners. The issue of attacking, drawing down and reducing non-tariff barriers is and will increasingly become a major effort required by our nation as we seek to get further into other markets.
Finally, the TPP would have levelled the playing field for Australian companies competing with exporters from other countries across a range of product types, eliminating the advantage of lower tariffs those competitors have benefited from for many years.
In summary, the committee wants to ensure that the outcomes Australia obtained from the TPP negotiations are not lost if the agreement does not go ahead. The committee wants to affirm that it stands by the outcomes in the TPP, and that the Australian government should work to retain as many of the benefits the TPP offers as it can in any future negotiations with current TPP partners or with others. The committee has recommended that binding treaty action be taken on the TPP. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:00): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on this report.
Leave granted.
Mr DANBY: Unfortunately for this report, on 26 November, US President-elect Trump in his first announcement about what will happen when he takes over, again attacked the TPP and said that will be the first thing that his administration undoes. He described it as a potential disaster.
Last night at drinks for the Emperor of Japan, I was discussing at the Japanese embassy the important statement of the Japanese cabinet secretary that without the United States this treaty is in effect inoperative, and it seems therefore a shame that the Prime Minister and foreign minister are the only people who do not seem to understand that the TPP is unfortunately, or fortunately, not going to happen.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement requires ratification of the United States to be enacted. Of the 12 signatories, they are the most important, biggest economy. As I said, President-elect Trump has said he will withdraw the United States. Most significantly, and sadly for the member for Fadden, the Obama administration has announced it will not push the current Congress to consider it in the lame-duck session. Indeed, the Minister for Trade has conceded that the ratification is unlikely to happen.
If the other 11 TPP countries move to omit the United States from the agreement so that it can be enacted, this will be a new agreement that will have to come back to the committee for consideration. Labor would need to see new economic data on the benefits of the agreement with the omission of the United States. As the Minister for Trade said on 13 November when asked if the deal could go ahead without the US:
In theory, yes, … But really with the United States not being part of it, first of all, one officially the TPP would not get up but, secondly, if we looked at; ‘Is there enough merit to look at a trade deal among the 11 of us?’
Nevertheless, the government seems determined to go ahead with the ratification process.
As the agreement currently stands, there were some modest economic and strategic benefits the TPP would have for Australia but there are a number of areas where members of the opposition on the committee—including the member for Fremantle, who is here—made clear. They were the removal of labour market and skills testing, the potential rise in the cost of biologic medicine, the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, intellectual property clauses, and the lack of independent assessment of the agreement.
I would like to take this opportunity to focus on two of these concerns; first of all, labour market testing and, second, investor-state dispute settlement provisions. The removal of labour market testing fundamentally undermines the 457 visa program and is at odds with community expectations. Australians expect that if there is a local who is able and willing to fill a job vacancy, they should have priority. This is not new and it is not protectionist. It is just common sense. The TPP may have had a poor effect on this by allowing six countries exempt from labour market test provisions, and there is widespread public concern that the skills testing would be taking place in those countries rather than to the standards we expect in Australia.
With all the denigration of unions and the ETU et cetera, Australians do like to have highly qualified electricians accredited in Australia, or at least the equivalent, putting in the electrics in their houses.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the 457 visa system needs to be tightened, not relaxed. It is there to complement the Australian workforce, not replace it. It is there to fill gaps in our experienced workforce so skill shortages do not slow down our economic growth. Labor would like to see the government take the opportunity, if the Trump administration does reopen negotiations on the TPP, to look at these provisions. No other country was as generous as Australia in this area, and Labor members are unable to understand why, when unemployment is rising in some parts of the country and we could and should have more apprentices who are capable of filling these positions.
The inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly known as ISDS, was also concerning for Labor members of the committee. Throughout the hearing process, opposition members thought there was insufficient evidence that the ISDS would benefit Australia, in the face of evidence presented to the committee showing that it would in fact put our nation's sovereignty and reasonable policymaking at risk.
The member for Fadden and the committee entered the examination of this treaty with an honest purpose and have done a very good job, from all of the documents that I have read, although I came into this process late. It is very disappointing to see the United States withdrawing from international economic and strategic areas. I hope some of the people who constantly attack the United States think that this is going to be a benefit to the international system. It is not. We see that China is moving into the space that the United States is vacating. Politics abhors a vacuum. You will have a Chinese-led rival to this, perhaps not even as good, which will eventually take its place if the United States continues to vacate the field. Let us hope that this does not take place in the area of strategic concerns to Australia, because of course that would have a very bad effect on our ability to defend this great island nation.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (10:06): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (10:07): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:07): Continuing on from my speech last night, I would like to start by just stressing how important this piece of legislation, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, is as part of a forward-looking agenda of the Turnbull government. When you look at the challenges facing the media landscape across the world, one of the great challenges it faces is making sure that the industry can consolidate, can focus and can afford to be able to continue to produce high-quality content. That is only going to be achieved by removing barriers, regulations and restrictions that stop the media sector from flourishing, thriving and consolidating its investment to build the content that is needed into the future. That is extremely important not just for the survival of the industry and particularly around making sure that we have credible sources of information but also because we want the content that Australia can produce to export to the world.
If you look at the challenges and the opportunities of the 21st century for this great nation, they come from producing service-based content in the media market to be able to export to the world Australian stories, Australian drama and Australian news. That is what people want in Australia: to be able to see themselves reflected in media. But they also want to be able to export it to the world so our stories, our narrative and our perspective can be consumed by people all throughout the world. That is both a laudable objective and key to what this bill has the potential to achieve as part of the challenges facing the media sector.
The objectives of this reform are to enable media businesses to compete at an appropriate scale in an increasingly diverse international media environment. We know full well the challenges of technology and how that is increasing the sources of diversity and competition in the marketplace, something that I am very supportive of and very much encourage, but we should not ignore the fact that it has an impact on the challenges of the industry in Australia.
This bill will also reinforce continued diversity of news sources and information within the media industry, and that is why I support it. This reform is an opportunity to advance Australia beyond a framework that was designed in the analog era of media, and that is the problem with the opposition to this bill. It is based in a 1950s-style analog mindset rather than recognising the evolution, the diversity and the dynamic nature of media in the 21st century. The predictability of media sources meant that regulation in the past was able to be proximate to the number of diverse media sources and the structures that those media companies operated by, but, in the modern world, we live in a significantly different era. The volume of news sources enjoyed by Australians has expanded rapidly in the past 20 years. We have access to online content and subscription services as well as the traditional platforms of television and of radio. These digital platforms are not currently subject to operational or investment restrictions.
The objective of media regulation today should be to affirm media diversity, but it is not currently working. Instead, the restrictive regulation prevents local news sources and outlets from providing effective coverage while stifling their efforts to keep pace with the change the industry is experiencing on the ground. This bill primarily seeks to repeal two control and ownership rules that no longer make sense in the digital media environment of the 21st century: the 75 per cent audience reach rule and the two-out-of-three cross-media-control rule. These rules are antiquated anachronisms and do little to support media diversity. Their removal will allow regulated media companies to achieve greater scale in their operations and, subject to the general law, to restructure their businesses to make the most of opportunities as they emerge.
The 75 per cent audience reach rule prevents a person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, from controlling commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined reach exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. This rule effectively prevents any major commercial television network—that is, Seven, Nine or Ten—from merging with or acquiring the regional television networks of Prime, WIN and Southern Cross or vice versa. In the digital media environment, the 75 per cent audience reach rule is simply redundant. The digital era has allowed content to be seen by viewers all over Australia and, of course, internationally, something that we should encourage. The consequences of these restrictions mean that television broadcasters have very little capacity to compete in the modern media environment.
The two-out-of-three rule also has harmful consequences. It prevents mergers or changes in control that involve more than two of the three regulated media platforms in any commercial radio licence area. The distinction between online media and traditional media platforms has become increasingly hazy. We know that. Anybody on the other side of this parliament who has consumed media would know that that has changed over time, yet only one platform remains regulated. Again, it is an anachronism of the past to do with an early 20th century mindset. Viewership from different media sources is as fluid as ever. For traditional media outlets to be restrained while online platforms are free to adapt and to emerge is both uncompetitive and unsustainable and does not reflect the reality of the environment that Australians are choosing to consume their media content.
It is important to note that the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule would have very little impact on cross-media ownership in Australia. Most of the licence areas do not contain all three platforms and therefore do not prompt the use of the rule. In a large sum of the remaining areas, further media transactions of any sort will still be prohibited due to the diversity floor requirement of a minimum of four voices under the five-four rule, which states that at least five independent media organisations must be permanently operational in metropolitan commercial radio licence areas and four such groups in regional commercial radio licence areas.
Each of these reforms will be instrumental in unshackling the traditional media outlets and allowing them to properly and fairly compete with their digital counterparts—something that the opposition, I would have thought, should support. The net result is a more flexible media market environment that encourages good journalism and investment in good journalism through product differentiation and delivers high-quality news and entertainment services to Australians.
The media landscape, as we know, is rapidly changing. It is therefore crucial that the law of the land keeps pace with the change that is already upon us. Over the past 15 years, as viewership shifted to digital mediums and traditional media assets declined, we have seen the emergence of a number of online giants who enjoy a massive market share of advertisement spending. Online platforms have grown from having a 6.1 per cent share of the Australian advertising pie to achieving the largest share of advertising revenues, capturing 36.2 per cent in 2014. Over the same period, television shares declined to 30.7 per cent while radio shares fell to 8.2 per cent. The share of newspaper advertising has fallen from 37.5 per cent to 15.7 per cent. Analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers has shown that these trends will cause a concerning depreciation of revenue for free-to-air television stations in real terms. If we are to continue to enjoy a wide range of broadcast services with the content that Australians want, it is vital that our traditional stations are given the ability to simply be free to compete with other new sources of media.
Print media readership has also declined and rapidly changed over time. The fragmentation within the radio sector is evidenced most significantly between our regional areas and cities. Due to the vast difference in market size, metropolitan commercial radio services attract larger audiences than their regional counterparts. On top of this, there is also the growing divide between AM and FM stations. But perhaps the most recent digital disruption of recent years has been within the audio visual market. Video streaming devices are proliferating around the world at an incredible rate, and I am a part of the audience and consumer drive towards that. And a large part of that, I might add, is for Australian content—wanting to see high-quality productions from traditional media outlets moving into the digital environment so that I can see the future of Australia and see our stories.
The Australian launch and rapid consumer uptake of streaming service Netflix in March 2015 resulted in 11.4 per cent of Australian households having access to a prescription only seven months later. That means 2.68 million Australian's aged over 14 now have access Netflix and can stream media content on demand. That is an overwhelmingly positive outcome but, given the ability of competition to pressure companies into offering more for less, we must ensure our traditional platforms are on a level playing field. Because, when it comes down to it, we want Australian content to be on online subscription services and for them to produce the content that Australians want to see. We must ensure that whether it is through audio or through visual media, Australians are able to have the content that they seek and for it to be available in a sustainable way, in a way that Australians will invest in it compared to overseas counterparts. This reform is so critical because it provides the foundation for the continuation and investment in Australian stories, Australian music and Australian content so that this country's past can be recorded, its present can be projected to the world and its future can be captured for the benefit of all Australians.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (10:18): It is a great pleasure to be speaking on a bill, which, in its title, promises great things. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 contains three schedules. The first repeals what is referred to as the 75 per cent reach rule. The second, schedule 2, repeals the two-out-of-three cross-media ownership and control rule. And the third schedule provides a new division in the bill to introduce new local programming requirements for regional commercial television, and it revokes current programming requirements in the same schedule.
This bill has a grand title, as I have said. When we saw the title, we expected great things. We thought that it could be at long last the coalition government is going to focus its wandering attention upon the important task of comprehensive media reform in Australia. We were told that the Prime Minister himself with the original author of this material but could not get it through the cabinet in the previous parliament. But now he has the opportunity to paint with a broad brush the sort of media reform that we are calling for in this country but, when we go through the details of this bill, it is sadly missing.
The industry is crying out for reform—reform that will tackle the issues of convergence, reform that will bring our broadcasting legislation into the internet and live-streaming age and reform that will tackle the issue of the silo of regulation between telecommunications, between broadcasting and radio communications. This complex system of regulation needs to be updated. The bill we have before us does absolutely none of that. You would have thought that a government so seized with the issue of freedom of speech would turn its mind not just to the message but to the medium through which freedom of speech is transmitted. We find none of that within the bill.
It has long been recognised that the existing media ownership and diversity rules are based on distinctions between traditional broadcasting and print media that no longer exist. Today our media operates across a range of platforms. You only need to pick up your iPad and look at any major daily newspaper to find a combination of embedded video and multimedia technologies, which in many respects are hard to distinguish from the mediums that are broadcast over television signals.
The Abbott-Turnbull government has done nothing in the last three years on media regulation and ownership policy. It was virtually silent on the entire topic during the election campaign, but now Mr Turnbull and the minister want to rush changes through the parliament on the basis that they are urgent. I remind the House that it is not four days since the minister responsible made the announcement that there was no possibility that they were going to get this regulation through the House this year. In fact, they were not even going to put it on the agenda because they were far too busy. We were very critical of that approach, for reasons I will spell out, but now it seems that they have been panicked through that criticism. Concerned that they are going to be seen by many within the community and the industry as having done nothing, they have rushed this bill into the House in the dying days of this year's parliamentary sitting.
The reality for the urgency is the interests of a number of media players. At the recent inquiry into this bill, Professor Michael Fraser told the Senate that there is a lot of political horsetrading with powerful media interests and that has meant that we have had these small piecemeal approaches to legislative reform. Representatives of Seven West Media told that same inquiry last month:
Media policy is littered with trade-offs over the years. It is very hard to make changes in one area without that having impacts in a whole range of related areas.
We have to ask ourselves: what are the trade-offs being made for these changes? It is a valid question that Seven West Media asked.
This bill is a huge disappointment to the sector that it seeks to regulate. The minister said that the Turnbull government's failures on media reform are Labor's fault. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the parliamentary equivalent of saying, 'The dog ate my homework.' Despite Minister Fifield proclaiming the importance of media reform, he has failed to deliver on any part of it. The minister knows that he could get the long-awaited and much-needed provisions that repeal the 75 per cent reach rule through both Houses of Parliament. In fact, if could happen this week. There is no reason why we could not facilitate the expeditious passage today and tomorrow of the 75 per cent reach rule provisions contained in schedule 1 of this bill. There is no reason why that cannot happen.
The only reason, if we get up from this place in a few days' time and the 75 per cent reach rule continues to exist, will be because of the intransigence of those opposite, the laziness of the minister and the incapacity and incompetence of the government. I want to make that very clear: if the 75 per cent reach rule continues to exist in three days' time it will be because of the incompetence of the minister and of this government.
Labor has repeatedly indicated its support for the removal of this rule, which stops a person being in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the population.
The reason that there is unanimous support for repealing the reach rule is quite simple: with the advent of streaming capacity—the ability of any licence holder to stream all of their content over the internet, not just to 75 per cent of the population but to 100 per cent of the population, in an unregulated fashion—makes a mockery of the 75 per cent reach rule. So of course we support its repeal. When a media company can today reach 100 per cent of the Australian population through streaming over the internet it makes no sense to persist with a rule that does shackle media companies in their commercial arrangements but does nothing to present diversity of voices in respect of the ability of companies to broadcast a signal to 100 per cent of the population. Indeed, it has been argued by some media companies that live streaming is not even covered by the Broadcasting Services Act so they are free to ignore the legislative restrictions in any case. Clearly, the reach rule is long past its use-by date.
Labor acknowledges the particular challenges faced by regional broadcasters. I come from a regional electorate; I have the headquarters of one of the largest media broadcasters, the WIN Corporation, based in my area in the Illawarra in New South Wales. We understand the problems that they are facing. I see the member for Ballarat, also a member who represents a regional electorate, very keenly focused on these issues as well. We on this side of the House—and I know also that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, representing a regional electorate—are keenly focused on these issues.
Today, in an act of bipartisan cooperation, we can see reform which will make an enormous difference to this sector and to this industry. We can do that by the end of this week. Labor has offered the minister a pathway to securing some reform. If the government persists in ensuring that the other two provisions of the bill must be passed as a package then this will not occur. Let me explain why.
In Labor's view, schedule 2 of the bill, which abolishes the two-out-of-three rule, would lead to an increased concentration of media ownership in Australia. The government quite simply has not made the case for the repeal of this provision and Labor cannot countenance supporting such a provision that is so far from our national interest. And I want to talk about media diversity in this country. Among comparable democracies, Australia has the least diversity in its newspaper and media. This is a matter of deep concern to Labor MPs and senators. In our democracy we take great pride in our free press and in our free access to multiple sources of news and information. This free access to information is a basic tenet of our democracy. It is the right of citizens to know what is happening in their name in the parliament and elsewhere, and to have the ability to speak out freely on information which is unrestricted by government interference. Our democracy, therefore, is predicated on the availability of a diversity of voices.
Concentration of media ownership is the enemy of this diversity. Concentration of media ownership means that certain corporate interests may have louder voices in our information landscape and in our democracy than others. That is not in the national interest. If all of the information that we have comes from one media business then there may be stories that we simply do not hear about. There is no doubt that there is a vast range of voices in the new online space—more news and information is available to us—and quality journalism based in fact and information should be distinguished from the vast output, the wall of noise, that often populates and passes as content on the internet. The producers of such content are not bound by the code of ethics that governs the people who report our news in this place and elsewhere.
The primary argument in favour of repealing the two-out-of-three rule is the rise of these online sources that are competing for both news and advertising revenue. However, traditional media players still dominate the production of news information consumed by Australians. There may be more places to access news, but seven out of the 10 top news sites in Australia are still owned by the traditional media companies; it is simply the same voices on different platforms. That is not media diversity, and that is why Labor is unwilling to give the green light to more concentration of media ownership. And it is why Labor rejects the abolition of the two-out-of-three rules.
We understand that the media industry is facing challenges—this impact, and the forecast decline of traditional media, is irrefutable. However, it does not necessarily follow that the technological developments have negated the need for Australia to maintain rules around ownership and control of broadcasting licences in order to satisfy the objectives of diversity in the Broadcasting Services Act. The big disruption to broadcast media is coming from Google and Facebook. Neither of these companies practices journalism as we understand it nor creates much original content, and these companies do not pay licence fees to operate. Some have described their roles as parasitic, as they provide access to the journalism and content created and paid for by others. I have seen evidence from the Australian media companies that say that 70 to 80 per cent of total Australian digital advertising revenue is going to these very same platforms—Google and Facebook.
Similarly, evidence to a recent Senate inquiry by media companies claims that Australia's commercial free-to-air broadcasters have had a $4.2 billion decline in their market capitalisations in the three years since 2013—that is more than 50 per cent of their combined market value. By contrast, the market capitalisations of the big tech companies are growing. However, the many challenges faced by all aspects of the broadcasting sector and the appropriate regulatory arrangements to meet these disruptive challenges now and in the future are not served by this narrow bill.
I am reminded that disruption is not new in the media landscape. The owners of newspapers in the 1920s were not enthusiastic about the arrival of radio. They claimed it was likely that broadcasters would pirate print and news stories without providing compensation to their sources. And so it was with the arrival of television to the broadcasting landscape; there was a lot of reticence from radio and newspaper proprietors that this was going to be an unwelcome entry into the market. But time moved on, there was a rationalisation within the market and regulation moved to adjust to the new media landscape. It is our position that we need a thorough reform, and this bill is not that.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:33): I am pleased to rise this morning to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill. This bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act of 1992 to repeal outdated media ownership laws and control laws to better reflect the changing digital media environment, with three separate things which will change.
First is the repeal of the 75 per cent audience reach rule; second is what is known as the two-out-of-three cross-media ownership rule; and third is the introduction of new programming obligations for regional commercial television broadcasting licences where a changing control, known as a trigger event, results in a licence forming part of a group of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population.
The first schedule of the bill is the 75 per cent audience reach rule. This currently prevents a person in their own right, as either an owner or a director of one or more companies, from being in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licenced area population exceeds 75 per cent of the population of Australia. This rule has had the practical effect of preventing mergers between any of the predominantly metropolitan commercial television broadcasting licences such as Seven, Nine or Ten and any of the regional commercial television broadcasting licensees—being Prime, WIN and Southern Cross—because such a transaction would result in a person controlling commercial television licences whose combined licence area population substantially exceeds the 75 per cent threshold. Clearly, such a provision in the laws is completely redundant in today's digital media age, where someone can have access simply online to 100 per cent of not only the Australian population but, effectively, of most of the world's population.
The second change is to the two-out-of-three cross-media rule, which prohibits a person from controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms—that is, a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and associated newspaper—in any one commercial radio licence area. Again, this is a redundant provision, given the change in the media technology.
I myself, and I am sure many in this parliament, have noticed that, when we go to hand out our newsletters at railway stations during election campaigns, we rarely see someone carrying a traditional newspaper. In fact, I saw and said, 'Good morning,' to at least several thousand people at local railway stations over the recent election campaign, and I think I could count on one hand the number of people carrying a newspaper under their arm to read on the train. Being in Sydney, those newspapers were simply The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph or The Australian. But on their mobile devices, they in fact had access to almost every newspaper in the world—whether it be TheNew York Times, The Washington Post, South China Morning Post, The Straits Times from Singapore; anyone can access any of those newspapers online. So it clearly shows how such legislation once was perhaps fitting to ensure diversity, and how diversity of opinions in our media landscape are no longer.
We need to continue to monitor our media landscape, because diversity of opinions and a variety of ideas—the contest of ideas; people putting up different ideas—across our media are essential for our democracy. We have concerns about that with the growing amount of what is called fake news across the digital spectrum—not only the digital spectrum; also traditional media outlets. I would like to give a couple of examples: during the US presidential election campaign, there was a news report in the major metropolitan papers throughout Australia. It was also reported on some of our current affairs programs. It was alleged that a group of a thousand people, pro-Trump supporters, were chanting disgraceful words in New York: 'We hate Muslims. We hate blacks. We want our great country back.' When I heard that on one of the current affairs programs being stated as a fact, I thought: that just simply does not seem right. I could not imagine people in New York chanting those obscenely offensive words. But, yet, it was reported as news across many different platforms and it turned out to be completely and utterly fake.
Another example is the recent coral bleaching we have seen on the Great Barrier Reef. We have seen stories printed in our newspapers saying the reef was dead or that 70 per cent of the coral reef had died off. Without in any way minimising the seriousness of the recent bleaching on the coral reef—
Mr Dick: Pauline went to a place where it wasn't happening.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I see the member over there interjecting. I hope this may be an opportunity to educate him, because I am sure he may have been influenced by some of this fake news. It wasn't actually 70 or 60 per cent of the reef that was killed off—
Dr Leigh: On a point of order: the speaker is straying a great deal from the question of media reform. It is not a debate which will allow him to discuss any story he has read in the newspapers this year.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Further to the point of order: one of the crucial points, which was raised by the previous speaker, is diversity in the media. Diversity in the media is important, because of the variety of fake news so, examples of how different stories are reported are clearly relevant to this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I think it might be best that we stick to the bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Stick to the bill—which is the importance of media diversity. Therefore I would like to give examples of why that media diversity is so important and how different stories give different points of view—some which can be fake to get to the truth—and why this bill is important and, it is clearly allowed under the rule of debates to give examples.
The example that I was giving was of the story about the bleaching of the barrier reef. While it was reported across many media outlets that two-thirds of the reef had actually died off, it was only two-thirds of what is called the far northern parts of the reef. The reef is divided into three parts: a central part, a southern part and the northern part. Yes, those stories that were reported were true that two-thirds of the northern part of the reef had died off. But the central part had only six per cent coral bleaching; and the southern part was less than one percent. So it is very important that we have diversity of media ownership, that we have the two-out-of-three rule and that we have the 75 per cent audience reach rule. It is very important that, within those rules, we have full diversity because, without it, people are simply being influenced by fake news.
Another example of media ownership—also going back to the US presidential election: we saw during the election that those speaking against Trump were telling us that his election, the election of a President Trump, would have a huge detrimental effect on the economy. That was reported in multiple news outlets across many areas, which clearly exceeded the 75 per cent audience reach rule. But what we have seen since the election is the exact opposite: we have seen a boom in the share market, and yesterday the OECD reported that they have actually upped their forecasts of global growth. Global growth at 2.9 per cent—the OECD are now reporting—which was the previous forecast, is now up to 3.3 per cent for 2007; and up to 3.6 per cent in 2018.
In the US, their previous forecast of 2.1 percent—
Mr DICK: Can you speak about Australia?
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I am more than happy to come to Australia. We are talking about the growth in the US which we had reported back in September at 2.1 percent. They are hoping that it will go to 2.3 per cent in 2017 and maybe they might get to three per cent in 2018. So it is the complete opposite of what was reported in the media, which goes to the importance of this bill: media diversity.
I will take the interjection from the member opposite: let's come to Australia. So that is the US growth. They are hoping that they might get to three per cent in 2018, which would be the highest growth in the US since 2005. Guess what, member over there? Australia's growth is at 3.3—you asked me to bring it back to Australia on that particular point; I am more than happy to—so when we talk about economic growth, it shows how well Australia is going. This is an example of why we need great diversity. It is clear the member over there simply either does not understand or he has been reading from media outlets that tell him Australia's growth is not going well. If he did his homework, he would realise that Australia's economic growth at 3.3 per cent is one of the highest in the world.
Another example of why the 75 per cent media reach is out of tune and needs to be changed can be seen in an article by Terry McCrann that was published in the Herald and The DailyTelegraph yesterday. He was talking about a story that had been reported widely, in The Economist, on the BBC and SBS and by literally hundreds of news outlets across the world—so easily covering that 75 per cent rule or the two-out-of-three media ownership rule; the control rule. McCrann said in the article that last month the Paris-based International Energy Agency, in its latest World Energy Outlook, stated that 'renewables have surpassed coal last year to become the largest sources of installed power capacity in the world.'
Mr Dick: Again we have the anti-climate change debate.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Again, I may be able to educate the member over there, because I am sure that he has read that story: 'Renewables have surpassed coal last year to become the largest source of installed power capacity in the world'—reported in The Economist, reported on the BBC, reported on SBS, reported on the ABC and reported across many media streams online.
Mr Dick interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Oxley will get his turn soon.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: In contrast, Terry McCrann, in his article, said:
THE first and most important thing to understand about the global warming true believers and the pushers of so-called 'renewable energy' is that they lie.
They lie effortlessly, seamlessly, continuously and without the slightest sense of shame. They lie deliberately and carelessly and casually …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fenner on a point of order.
Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, fascinated as I am to hear the member's views on the anthropogenic global warming scam, I do again make the point that this is not an opportunity for him to raise with the House anything that he has read in the newspaper this year on the spurious pretence that that has to do with diversity.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: On the point of order: this bill goes to the 75 per cent audience reach rule and it goes to the two-out-of-three cross-media ownership rule, and it is clearly within the standing orders to give examples of current media stories to show how they fit in with those rules, and that is exactly what I am doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I would suggest to the member for Hughes that he stick to the content of the bill so that we can have a nice, pleasant Wednesday morning.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I had hoped that I would have the opportunity to further educate the member for Fenner in these last few minutes, but the point I was making is that this story that renewables had surpassed coal had gone across countless media outlets—far exceeding the 75 per cent audience reach rule or the two-out-of-three cross-media ownership rule. But, when you actually look at the evidence, this is simply an example of fake news.
If we are talking about electricity generation, from the OECD's own report we see solar at less than one per cent of energy generation—actually, 0.8 per cent—and we see wind at three per cent, compared to coal at 41 per cent. That is just electricity generation. If we go to total power across the world, we see wind at 0.45 per cent and we see solar at 0.1 per cent. So this is another clear example of false news and why we must all protect media diversity in our market. We must have as many independent voices as possible putting independent views across our media aspect.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:48): The government's recent reforms to broadcasting legislation have been welcome. Recently I voted in support of reducing the licence fees on Australian free-to-air broadcasters. These are broadcasters who invest heavily in local Australian content, employ Australian workers and serve as a fantastic training ground for Australian talent. I note that my Nick Xenophon Team Colleague, Senator Stirling Griff, moved amendments to abolish licence fees entirely but that the major parties rejected those amendments. Given the incredibly high licence fees that our free-to-air broadcasters face, I was surprised to see that the major parties showed no consideration for these amendments, especially when they continue to let other companies pay no licence fees or taxes.
As I have stated previously, the biggest competitors to our commercial broadcasters are now multinational content companies such as Netflix, Apple and Google. These companies pay no licence fees and do not invest in local content. The number of Australian jobs they provide are minimal. Facebook, for example, employs roughly 75 people in Australia. The NXT have made it quite clear that our position when it comes to these multinational corporations is to impose a 'turnover tax' on these companies to make sure they pay their fair share.
I urge the government to look to the United Kingdom, where a stricter line was taken after it was revealed that Facebook paid only 4,327 pounds in corporate tax in 2014, despite Britain being one of the company's biggest markets outside of the United States. Recently, Facebook announced that it will pay back over 200 million pounds in tax to the UK government. Given where Australia is with its current budget deficit, and considering the revenue lost with the much-needed reduction in licence fees, forcing these multinational tax avoiders to pay their fair share could deliver a significant windfall. Earlier this year, The West Australian newspaper reported that Facebook paid just $814,000 in tax in Australia in 2015, despite its gross revenue being over $30 million. This is staggering in itself but, given that the investment bank Morgan Stanley estimates that Facebook earned over $500 million from advertising in the Australian market alone during the same time, some serious questions have to be asked about its disclosure practices and the tax that it pays.
So, while I am very supportive of the reduction in licence fees, there are some aspects of this current legislation that deserve further consideration. The majority of stakeholders that I have met with on this issue support the removal of the 75 per cent audience reach rule, which prohibits a person from holding a commercial TV licence which covers more than 75 per cent of people in Australia. Given the current state of the online media sector, with news from across the world available at the click of a finger or a swipe of a finger, this rule effectively works as a barrier to longstanding commercial broadcasters and disrupts their ability to compete with online content providers.
My biggest concern with this legislation is that it proposes to repeal the two-out-of-three rule, which will remove the limitation that precluded one person or company from owning more than two out of the three traditional media platforms in a certain area—these platforms of course being television, radio and newspapers. The removal of the two-out-of-three rule opens up the possibility of mergers and buyouts, and the added corporate efficiencies that come with them. While I understand the need for all companies to be as efficient as possible, the real effect of this will be that, as mergers happen, local branches will merge with companies and will scale back their regional workforce. This means there will be fewer local journalists to cover local issues, and this will impact regional and rural communities the hardest.
I will give an example to illustrate my point. Mount Barker sits in the heart of my electorate, nestled in the Adelaide Hills. It is serviced by the Mount Barker Courier. The Courier is an independent, family owned and operated newspaper that has been publishing local news for over 125 years, winning many state and national awards in the printing industry. The district council area of Mount Barker is a region with approximately 30,000 people and is growing rapidly. It is roughly 40 minutes to an hour from Adelaide, depending on where you live within that region, and as a consequence many people choose to commute to Adelaide each day for work. Many have no other choice, I might add. However, Mount Barker has news stories and community interests that are very different to those on the Adelaide Plains, and these interests can be lost on people that do not live in the hills. Whether they be local sporting results, updates on infrastructure developments or local interest stories of Adelaide Hills citizens, this gap is filled very admirably in local media by the Mount Barker Courier. My concern is that, given the geographic proximity to Adelaide, a merger under the proposed legislation would see the local media reporting specifically on Adelaide Hills issues removed. I fear the impact of this would be a decline in rural communities knowing what is going on in their communities.
I understand there is going to be required minimum local content included as a part of this legislation, but this will only do so much to alleviate a problem that can be easily foreseen. In my electorate, there are five high-quality regionalised local newspapers that service our community admirably. Each service has its own niche. I have talked about the Mount Barker Courier, which services the Adelaide Hills. A 20-kilometre drive south of Mount Barker, which takes around 30 minutes—unless you are behind a tractor, when it takes a lot longer!—is Strathalbyn, which is serviced by The Southern Argus. Just 30 minutes south of Strathalbyn, you enter the readership of the Victor Harbor Times, which provides content specific to the southern communities of Goolwa, Victor and Middleton: the Fleurieu Peninsula. After a short ferry ride from Cape Jervis, you hit Kangaroo Island, where locals read The Islander with great interest every week. I must not neglect to mention the Adelaide Hills Weekender, which services a number of towns throughout our region. As you can see, we have regionalised, high-quality newspapers and I want to ensure their longevity and that they will not be compromised. All of these newspapers are geographically close to each other and independent of the metropolitan area of Adelaide, but they each service their own specific communities. My concern is that, with the lifting of the restrictions on media ownership, papers such as these will be under the threat of merging and regional communities like mine will have media distributed to them from people who work in the cities. At the very least, the local flavour that adds so much to these outlets will be lost.
The removal of community minded media outlets has already begun in South Australia, with a long-time favourite, our local Channel 44, being forced to transition from free-to-air broadcasting to purely online delivery as part of the Prime Minister's decision in 2014, in his capacity as Minister for Communications, to clear broadcasting space for the commercial networks. Many of the viewers of Channel 44 are elderly and they will not be able to watch their favourite channel anymore because they possibly do not have the internet or a computer at home. I think this is a great travesty for Channel 44 and for community television more broadly.
Removal of the two-out-of-three rule could lead to a smaller number of media owners in Australia, which in turn leads to less media diversity. Media diversity is a fundamental part of our free and democratic nation. The public deserve the right to have news and current affairs delivered to them by different sources, as it creates a more informed and engaged nation. An engaged nation is a great nation, and we should not allow any legislation to lessen the media diversity in our country. We should make sure that we look out for our local radio stations, our local newspapers and our local television broadcasters. I think everyone in regional Australia will join me in stating how important they are to our local communities.
I welcome the broadcasting reforms that the government has already passed, although I believe they should have gone further. Allowing our homegrown broadcasters to be competitive with the international giants is a step in the right direction. I hope the government will follow the lead of the Nick Xenophon Team and examine the tax paid—or the lack of tax paid—by companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple. My colleagues and I are still considering the legislation, and my Senate colleagues will have greater time to consider the bill. Today, I will give my cautious support to this bill, and that will allow my Senate colleagues to consider the bill in further detail and move any amendments we consider appropriate in the upper house.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:58): Well, if there was ever a reason why we need more media diversity in this nation, it was the member for Hughes's contribution in this place. Apparently, as a result of the so-called reforms, we are going to see fewer fake Donald Trump rallies. We are, apparently, going to see that only one-third of the Great Barrier Reef has been destroyed and that the climate change sceptics will be able to get away with more.
This government is not reforming; it is tinkering with an important part of Australia's media diversity. I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, but it is hardly media reform. The 75 per cent reach rule was first enacted in parliament by the Hawke government in 1987, at 60 per cent, then changed to 75 per cent in 1992. The two-out-of-three rule has been implemented to protect diversity of media outlets in the sector and to prevent concentration of the media market. As we just heard from the member for Mayo, in regional South Australia those media markets which are concentrated need these provisions in place to protect that diversity.
The Centre for Policy Development has found that Australia now has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world. Since their election, the Abbott-Turnbull government, despite the Prime Minister being a former communication minister, have been doing absolutely nothing. There has been no review and no attempt at coordinated legislative and regulatory reform of the sector.
We heard a lot of mumbo jumbo from the member for Hughes, and a bit of voodoo economics for good measure. But, despite this being a critical piece of reform, we have had two or three speakers on this from the government. It is so important that the minister has even refused to pick up the phone and call the shadow minister, and has refused to engage on the issue. We know that this is not genuine or meaningful reform. Do not take my word for it; rather than the nonsense and the carry-on we saw from the member for Hughes—talking about Donald Trump, talking about climate change, talking about anything other than actual media reform—I want to put into the record what the experts and what the industry, more importantly, have said about this so-called reform. By reading the submissions to the Senate inquiry, you only need to look at the Seven West Media contribution, under the heading 'The Dangers of a Piecemeal Approach.' I will read the submission into the Hansard:
We see great danger in addressing these matters in a piecemeal manner.
… … …
And in the current case of changes to the 2 out of 3 rule, we have pointed out that these changes only comprise a small sub-set of the complex set of related media ownership rules. … we risk making changes at the behest of a few players with specific deals in mind and creating uneven outcomes in the competitive marketplace.
… However we have pointed out that the current approach is unduly narrow. It risks legislating a single media ownership deal because other media ownership rules such as the minimum voices test or the limits on ownership of television and radio licences in each market, have not been reviewed as part of this process.
The member for Hughes read into the record some media commentary, fake or otherwise. I could not really follow what his argument was.
I will refer to how Minister Fifield has handled this issue. I only need to read in The Australian last week:
The end-of-year awards season is almost here but there's already an odds-on favourite for the title of the most ineffective politician in the land.
Take a bow Mitch Fifield …
We know that the minister, of all the ministers in this government—and that is a pretty low bar to set—is grappling and struggling with his portfolio, but the industry itself has serious concerns about the pathway that this government is heading down with the removal of the two-out-of-three rule. Reading through the proposals which are being put forward today, Labor does support, and has been on the record as supporting, the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule, and the shadow minister, the member for Greenway, made that clear yesterday in her contribution.
However, we will not and cannot support repealing the two-out-of-three rule. I note that the minister lauds that this reform will bring the media ownership laws into the digital era. The problem is that these legislative changes fail to recognise that traditional media news sources still exist. They are still there, despite the member for Hughes saying that people are not walking up to him with newspapers. We understand that even though there is this wonderful invention, as we heard, the internet, the traditional media sources are still dominant in the sector, and this dominance permeates the online media market as well. Newspapers have not faded away into irrelevance after the advent of radio, and radio did not switch off because of television. We know that this illogical argument by the minister simply does not stack up.
But, more importantly, the core of the debate is the removal of the two-out-of-three rule. As Labor senators noted in their dissenting report to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry, it is clear that the removal of the two-out-of-three rule has no justification. There is no argument being put forward by those opposite for the removal of this key safety net to ensure diversity and to prevent the further concentration of the media sector. The question is whether this is an effective tool for achieving diversity in the media sector, a question which appears to pretty much remain unasked by the minister and by the member for Banks in his contribution yesterday. I do not know whether it is just laziness or arrogance; I am not sure.
But the media sector is not like any other sector. Australia has, as we know, as I have said, one of the highest market concentrations of any media market in the world, and the last 20 years have seen a significant reduction of competition and the diversity of voices and viewpoints. It is a matter of public policy to ensure a greater reluctance towards mergers of media outlets and additional scrutiny and interpretation of market rules in the context which is needed, being the Broadcasting Services Act and its objectives to guarantee market diversity and recognise that the media sector is not like any other sector in the economy. It plays an important public interest role to encourage diversity and control of the more influential broadcasting services, to promote the role of broadcasting services developing and reflecting a sense of the Australian identity, to promote the availability of audiences throughout Australia of television, radio programs, particularly about local regional significance. This is balanced against the need to provide a regulatory environment that will facilitate the development of a datacasting industry in Australia that is efficient and competitive, and responsive to audience and user needs. So this should not be new to the minister or government members.
The objective of the Broadcasting Services Act, and the purpose of this legislation, is as a special legislative regime to guarantee diversity in the media landscape in the public interest. But what is clear is that the doors will be flung wide open for mergers and acquisitions of media outlets and the further convergence of media landscape, if we accept the government's proposal for the removal of the two out of three rule.
I would also like to reflect on the online media market. One of the central arguments that the government has put forward is that, somehow, this reform is justified by technological changes or, somehow, by digital disruption. However, we all know the media sector is no stranger to disruption, and nor has it remained unregulated. But the problem with this idea that the minister has cooked up with—I repeat—no review and no approach to genuine holistic reform is that the technological developments of the new digital era do not automatically give cause for this government to simply remove the need for Australia to maintain rules around ownership and control of broadcasting licences. The case simply has not been made. The argument is flawed.
I will put on the record, just as the member for Whitlam did earlier today, that seven out of 10 of the top online media sources are major traditional media companies. Although the internet undeniably creates more content, the majority of that content still comes from traditional news sources. The University of Canberra's digital news report and consumer study indicated that well above 70 per cent of Australians who access news digitally still cite a 'mainstream news source' as the main source of news. This research is across all age brackets, with almost 50 per cent of 18-24 year olds preferring to digitally access, through the web or on social media, a traditional news source, and nearly 90 per cent of those over 50. So, yes, as the minister has made us all too aware we have heard the argument about Google and we have had Facebook. But that does not mean that you cannot look at the Sydney Morning Herald, the Courier Mail in my home state, or The Australian. In fact, Chris Mitchell, a former editor-in-chief of The Australian says:
The truth is that newspaper editors still drive the national media agenda. Their ideas are followed by news directors in the electronic media and on social media.
Even the minister's own department has said:
… the proliferation of online sources of news content does not necessarily equate to a proliferation of independent sources of news, current affairs and analysis.
It is notable that eight of the top 10 news websites in Australia in 2013, in terms of average unique daily users, are owned by those major mastheads or their publishers, and there is a notable clustering of users within the top two or three news websites.
I also want to touch on the aspect of regional access in the digital divide. We have heard it said a lot that this is the reason we need to ensure these rules are brought in. But if this government is hanging its hat on access to the NBN or if it is hanging its hat on what a great job it has done in providing regional Australia with quality telecommunications, they are kidding themselves. In fact, in their submission to the Senate inquiry the NSW Farmers Association said that traditional media platforms still have strong reach in the regions and 'regional internet remains very poor in comparison with urban populations'. We all know that is the case. We live in the real world where those opposite sometimes reside in a fantasy.
The ABS has highlighted that there is a gap between regional centres and major cities, with households in major cities with internet access being 88 per cent, compared to 82.3 and 79 per cent of households with internet access in inner and outer regional areas. In my own community, in the Ipswich City Council region and on the outskirts of Brisbane, I know just how poor in quality the access is to internet services and to the NBN broadband services that there are. The 2014-15 Roy Morgan Single Source survey indicates that non-urban areas have a higher representation of older Australians. So the Prime Minister's mishandling of the NBN has not helped this divide.
The University of Canberra's digital news report and consumer study research indicates 'news about my region, city or town' being rated in the highest categories of interests in types of news accessed by Australians. So the evidence is clear. Clearly, the government has chosen to ignore the research that came forward and the industry that provided evidence on this piece of legislation. The fact is that most Australians, and in particular regional Australia, ensure they get most of their news information from traditional media sources. As the NSW Farmers Association told the senate inquiry into this bill:
… we pointed out in our evidence to the Committee, we fear that the definition of 'local' may shift as the footprint of a broadcaster …
… … …
Our members make regular complaints to us about the loss of local media programming, or about its quality–they seek real local voices who understand them and their industries.
What that says to me is that we are already losing regional local content. We are already seeing a reduction and these reforms will only make things worse.
Do we need genuine reform and meaningful reform—principles based reform, which this government has simply failed to do with this bill. Australians want a diverse media sector and Australians deserve better than the bill being proposed by this government.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:13): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill. My colleague the member for Greenway has outlined why Labor supports the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule, why we oppose the abolition of the two out of three rule, and why Labor is seeking to separate this provision from the bill.
The way we access media is changing rapidly. Over the last fifteen years the internet has revolutionised the way we access news and entertainment. It is right that the parliament considers ways to reform and enhance our media in this rapidly changing context. However, this bill, and the attitude of the government that introduced this bill, demonstrates that they are completely out of touch with the challenges that face Australians who live outside the major capital cities. That is what I want to address in my remarks today, following on from the excellent contribution from the previous speaker. They do not understand what is going in our regional cities and in our rural and regional areas or why this bill, in its current form, is inadequate for dealing with those challenges.
Firstly, I want to draw to the attention of the House the significant problems that many of my constituents have in accessing free-to-air television, and the need for media companies to invest in and improve services in regional Australia. Over one-quarter of the people in the electorate I represent, Shortland, are over the age of 60. This group overwhelmingly relies on traditional mediums of communication such as television, radio and newspapers, for its information. It is relevant to highlight that many of my constituents, particularly in that age bracket, but also young families and singles, have serious issues with their television reception. This is regularly raised with me when I talk to my constituents.
Since the transfer from the analogue to the digital system, many constituents have received even poorer service. For many constituents, particularly seniors in my community, the television is a fundamentally important part of their lives. It is how they access news and entertainment and know what is happening in our community. Poor television reception has a significant impact on their daily lives. Many of my constituents have told me that they have problems with particular stations cutting out regularly or not working at all. In fact, many people have told me that they have completely given up on accessing free-to-air television. Yet, they cannot afford pay TV or other measures like that. They have invested thousands of dollars in new aerials, in rewiring their antennas and in all sorts of methods of trying to fix the television reception, but, for many parts of my electorate, they still cannot get free-to-air television. In the year 2016, that is simply not good enough.
My electorate is not in an isolated part of rural and remote Australia. The southern part of Shortland is just a bit over an hour's drive from the Sydney CBD. I cannot reinforce this point enough. We have a situation where people living just one hour's drive from Australia's pre-eminent major international city are having significant problems watching television. I want to emphasise that this is not a 'first world problem'. Whether they are pensioners or young families, watching television is an important part of the daily lives of my constituents. It is important from a democratic point of view. For many families in my area, and, in fact, all of Australia, the way they access their news remains free-to-air television. The nightly news, whether it be five o'clock, six o'clock or seven o'clock, is the way they understand what is happening in our country and what is happening in this place. It is an essential part of gathering the information they need to make democratic decisions in this country. This is an issue of fundamental importance to how our democracy operates.
The bill we are discussing now will have significant impact on the profitability of media companies. Changing the system around the reach rule and, if the government is successful, the two-out-of-three rule, will impact our media industry structure and will impact on their profitability. I will repeat my very firm view that media companies have an obligation to invest in regional communities like the one I represent—to invest in the infrastructure and the broadcast towers—so that my constituents, and constituents like them around the country, can access their television services. Government also has a role. Government should be co-investing with these media companies to make sure that my constituents have access to free-to-air television.
Secondly, in discussing broadcast and media reform, it is very much in the context of the internet revolution we have seen over the last 20 years. This highlights the importance of the internet, and the National Broadband Network in particular, to how my constituents access news, education and entertainment. The thesis behind this bill is that the current media landscape—the current media companies—are under significant threat from the rise of the internet. That is true to some extent although many of my colleagues, in particular, the member for Whitlam, have pointed out that the old, traditional media companies still dominate the most visited websites in this country for people accessing news. So, it is not quite the one-sided story that people hear. Nevertheless, it is true that this bill is constructed in the framework that the rise of internet access is undermining the business model of traditional media.
Yet this is not particularly relevant to parts of my electorate because the rollout of the NBN by the Abbot-Turnbull government has been such an absolute farce. For example, the suburb of Belmont in my electorate had the second-highest level of complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman regarding the NBN over the last year, and five of top ten suburbs for complaints were in the Central Coast or Lake Macquarie regions. Let me repeat that: a suburb I represent had the second-highest number of complaints regarding the NBN and five of top ten suburbs listed by complaints in the entire nation are in the Central Coast or Lake Macquarie regions, which are areas that I represent or are very close to my constituency. Over the past year, my office has been contacted on an almost daily basis by constituents complaining about the transition to the NBN. Many of those people have been left without a telephone connection for weeks at a time. Many have had alarms, both health alarms and security alarms, cut off for considerable amounts of time. One constituent who owned a boat business slept in his office for a month because his back-to-base alarm was cut off and he was worried about the potential theft of millions of dollars of stock.
It is important to note that the architect of this farce is the Prime Minister. His expensive, second-rate, fibre-to-the-node network is having a huge impact on my community. In fact, many of my constituents are finding that, even when they finally get their connection to the fibre-to-the-node NBN, their speed is as slow as they were experiencing on ADSL and, in some cases, even slower. The Prime Minister and his colleagues consistently and arrogantly boast about the success of the NBN rollout. I would invite him to visit Belmont and meet with my constituents who would tell him how terrible their experience has been.
This is at the heart of this bill. We cannot talk about increasing the profitability of traditional media companies to make sure that they survive the onslaught of the internet-based competition they are facing if the constituents of my electorate and many regional parts of the country do not have adequate NBN services. If we are reducing the diversity of traditional media landscape—which is what this bill effectively seeks to do through the reach rule and, if the government is successful, the two-out-of-three rule—on the basis that Australians can access other diverse sources of news online, they need access to online services. They need access to high-speed internet to access those news services. This is the lie that is at the heart of this bill and is one of my many concerns about this whole debate around telecommunications in this country.
Nevertheless, if the government agrees to our sensible amendment, Labor will support this bill. This point was made by the member for Greenway. Broadcasting reform is important, and accessing free-to-air television is fundamentally important. Nevertheless, it is a disgrace that so many of my constituents are unable to access quality free-to-air television in their homes or access decent internet speeds. I will continue to campaign on behalf of my constituents.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (11:22): Australia's media sector does not sell widgets. It shapes our culture and it moulds our national identity. Our media provides a bulwark against the otherwise unfettered power of the state. But, left to its own devices in a free market, the media sector can be just as tyrannical as any nation-state. As companies devour each other to increase market share and audience reach, the owners of the few remaining corporations, whether individuals or boards, wield ever more power because of their ability to shape what is said, seen and heard over their networks. And, as the corporate stakes get higher, when government decisions can make the difference between mere billions in profit or tens of billions, the temptation to wield that power, to influence the making of decisions most profitable to the corporation's own interests, becomes irresistible.
It is for this reason that media requires being treated differently to other companies on the market and why this parliament, which embodies the collective will of the citizens of this nation, is charged with ensuring our media sector remains both viable and diverse. It is with both viability and diversity in mind that Labor supports abolition of the 75 per cent audience reach rule but opposes abolition of the two-out-of-three rule. This is a sensible outcome that meets the needs of broadcasters in the internet age while also protecting the public interest in ensuring some level of diversity in Australia's already too-concentrated media market.
I am disappointed that this legislation is the best the coalition could come up with after three years in government. This so-called media reform bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, offers mere tinkering around the edges of a rapidly evolving sector that requires significant policy attention. It is not major sector reform. The government have had three years to take action and have done nothing to date. Now, as usual, they bring it on in a rush, demanding it be passed because it is suddenly so urgent.
Australia's rapidly evolving media sector deserves to be taken more seriously by the government. Any so-called media reform bill should have at its centre the national interest, not the interests of powerful corporations whose focus is on squeezing out the competition and maximising profits. I do not hold it against corporations for seeking an outcome that best serves their own corporate interests. They are entitled to lobby for laws they believe will best enhance their bottom line. But I do hold it against this government, and this minister, for failing to better balance the public interest against the self-interest of corporations. The public interest requires regulatory processes and industry structures that support strong and independent and diverse media outlets. The public interest requires investment in regional media infrastructure and services, and the public interest requires a minister and a Prime Minister and a government with the will and the strength to stand up to the self-interest of corporations and occasionally say no. Notably, this bill fails to provide any assurance of greater local content, including in regional areas.
More and more, across every sector, we are seeing regional communities hollowed out, with services either disappearing or being centralised in big towns and cities and then provided on a drive-in drive-out basis. I have seen this happen in my electorate of Lyons. Services are taken out of communities to meet an economic bottom line that looks good on paper but ignores the people who live in the town and the community. With media, we are hearing fewer local voices over the air and seeing more syndicated material. Again, I do not blame the corporations. Syndicated content is cheaper to produce and license. Without robust regulation that legally demands local content, corporations seek to save every dollar they can and they will cut where they are allowed to do so. I recall the words of comedian Chris Rock, who said—and I will not try the accent:
I used to work at McDonald's making minimum wage. You know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law."
It is the law that provides the minimum standard beyond which companies may not go. Companies will do what they can within the law to maximise their profit and their market share. It is up to us as the representatives and the guardians of the public interest to act and to set boundaries that are in the public interest. If we want more local content over our airwaves and on our screens, we need to legislate for it. If we want to protect diversity, we need to legislate for it.
But what about the internet? Well, if there is anyone who should not mention the internet it is those opposite. Despite the best efforts of the government to frustrate Australians' relationship with 21st century broadband, the internet is being used by communities in my electorate precisely because of the failings of corporate-owned media to offer local content. As the many members of this place who are my age or older will remember, there used to be local newspapers everywhere around Australia. Radio stations, and even TV stations, used to be owned locally. Local stories got told on locally owned media. Those days are largely over, and social media accounts run by local community groups are filling the gap to some extent. In my largely regional electorate, Facebook pages centred on particular communities are popular and serve a useful information-sharing function. One proved invaluable, for example, during the Dunalley bushfires nearly three years ago. Another, in Bridgewater, brings folks together during clean-up events. But such sites are generally run by volunteers and share community information and events but do not carry journalism. Social media is no substitute for professional news and current affairs broadcasting, and nor, for that matter, for the production of dramatic content that tells our local stories.
We have all heard the complaints about the Americanisation of our media and our culture, and much of it is inevitable, given the popularity of American movies and music. But surely we should be doing all we can to provide Australian voices, and, beyond that, localised voices, on our TV screens and over our radio airwaves—and not just one Australian voice, as one corporation might see it to be. We are a diverse community, and that diversity must continue to be reflected in our media.
Yes, there is news on the internet, but it is the traditional players who continue to dominate—the same traditional players who stand most to benefit from any relaxation of the two-out-of-three rule. News Corporation and Fairfax mastheads continue to be the most popular commercial offerings.
The government argues we do not need the two-out-of-three rule because the internet provides diversity. After all, there are—to name a few—Crikey, New Matilda, the Conversation, the Guardian and more. But I have got news for the government. If one corporation dominates print, radio, TV and the internet, we do not have real diversity, irrespective of how many small players there may be. If one political party holds the vast majority of seats across the various governments of Australia, and a grab-bag of small parties and Independents hold the remaining handful in perpetual opposition, would the government argue that we have democracy?
I suppose it all depends on your perspective. My perspective is rooted firmly in my largely regional electorate. We are relatively well served, with Tasmanian news offered by two commercial TV outlets, Southern Cross and WIN, and the ABC. With radio we have a number of commercial stations offering local programming and bulletins, and the ABC, which also provides morning talkback and a 'country hour' every day. I would hate to guess what would happen if the two-out-of-three rule were abolished and we were to see more concentration in that market, because, as good as the commercials are in Tasmania, they do focus on the more heavily populated cities and suburbs. That is where the audiences are, so I understand that.
Might I say that regional Tasmania would be absolutely stuffed without the ABC. I know the ABC is not part of this bill, and the shadow minister and shadow Treasurer may groan at this, but I would love it if Labor could go to the next election pledging more resources for our national broadcaster. They have been cut to the bone in Tasmania and are operating on the smell of an oily rag, but the ABC crews do manage to tell Tassie's story every day. And right now ABC staff are giving up their own time for the annual giving tree, which provides donations to families and kids facing an otherwise bleak Christmas, and I take my hat off to them.
But I come back to my point about the importance of regional focus in Tasmania. Only last weekend I visited the community of Bronte Park, the gateway to the central highlands of Tasmania. Because of the topography, folk in this community cannot get any local TV signal; they never have. All they can receive is satellite from a mainland-based service. Of course, if they had decent broadband they might be able to stream a local TV service, but that is out of the question, given the awful—or even non-existent—internet service they get.
People in regional communities like my electorate deserve better than being forced to receive all their information essentially from the one source, no matter what that source is. The challenges faced by all aspects of the broadcasting sector, and the appropriate regulatory arrangements to meet the disruptive challenges now and in the future, are not served by this narrow bill.
Labor will develop a comprehensive, principles-based approach to sector reform and is prepared to work with the government to achieve this. If they support our amendment, then we are halfway there.
Economic reform of current licensing arrangements is clearly the priority of the sector and should be addressed before any reform to industry structure. We understand that Australian media companies are concerned about their viability in the face of licence fees and local content requirements which are not borne by online competitors such as Google, Facebook and Netflix. And, having come from the media myself in a previous life, I know that the fracturing of advertising content and the fracturing of audiences across the sector has just been devastating. The once-coined 'rivers of gold' from the classified sections of print newspapers are no longer there; that has all shifted to the internet. The relationship between advertising and journalism is broken. People used to read newspapers; that would fund the journalists and then the newspaper would be funded by the advertising revenue. Well, the advertising revenue has now shifted to the internet.
So who is funding journalism? That is a very critical question. And, frankly, that is one that I would have loved this bill to have addressed, because the future of journalism in this country is really under threat. Just today I have learned that the Mercury newspaper in Tasmania is facing another round of cuts. Some might say it is inevitable that print newspapers and print journalism in Australia are going to face cut after cut, year after year, as audiences decline as they move to the internet. But the fracturing of audiences for the old technology involved in print journalism is undeniable. We need to find ways to better fund journalism and better ensure that the local Australian voice is heard and does not disappear from our TV screens nor our radio stations.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:36): I am pleased to speak on a bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, that relates to an issue that for many years I had a vested interest in as a journalist. I followed closely the pressures applied to government by media proprietors whenever media reforms were on the agenda. While we have indicated our support for schedule 1, the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule in this legislation—which was, in fact, our proposal originally—I have concerns about schedule 2, the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule.
There is no doubt that getting the regulatory settings right in the broadcast and media sector is a challenge. The disruption that is occurring in the sector is significant. As a former news journalist, I worry about the consequences for reporters in a market that is increasingly fragmented and where jobs are contracting. Any reform needs to be done based on the principles of: independence in media and higher standards; diversity in content, including in ownership of companies and industry structure; making sure there are regional services and regional content; and supporting jobs and local Australian content. This government has not bothered to do the work in four years to come up with any substantial reform, and that is why we have this bill before us.
Why do I not want to see the two-out-of-three rule dumped? The two-out-of-three rule restricts a single owner from controlling a free-to-air TV station, newspapers and radio stations in the one market. You can have two of them but not three. Firstly, a history lesson: this rule came in in 1986 with the first serious media reforms since television was invented. Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating introduced this rule to ensure that no single player dominated a market. As Keating so beautifully said, 'You can be the queen of the screen or the prince of print, but not both.'
I was a journalist back then, working in the Canberra press gallery for commercial radio 2UE. That period was a time of big change. Kerry Packer bought 2UE and 3AK from the Lamb family. So I found myself joining the Packer stable. Only a year later Packer sold to Alan Bond for a record price. So not only did I report extensively on those reforms but I was caught up in the massive changes that occurred. Now, as then, the aims were to ensure that there was viability and, we believe, diversity.
While the reach rule has been made obsolete by the advances of technology—which means you can stream things from a whole lot of devices and the lines between platforms are blurry—as far as the two-out-of-three rule goes there are still good reasons to think more carefully about the implications of abolishing it. And I do not believe the government has thought very carefully. Seven West Media's submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill is particularly telling. They said:
No clear consumer benefit from merger and acquisition activity that may follow removal of the 75% reach rule or the 2 out of 3 rule has been articulated. And previous M&A activity from the 2006 changes did not deliver more or better services to Australians. In fact, these changes will arguably see greater consolidation, less diversity and less local content than ever before.
This is a very telling statement from a key media player.
We do need to ensure there is a diversity of Australian voices. Traditional media still dominates as a source of news information, and the concentration of ownership is intensifying. Don't believe me; listen to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, whose words seem to be quoted more often on our side of the chamber these days than on the other side. He said:
In my term, there were seven print proprietors. Now there is one and a bit. We have the most concentrated media in any democratic country, anywhere in the entire damn world. That is dangerous.
These days, seven of the 10 top news websites are owned by the traditional media companies. You do not just read the Daily Telegraph, you click on news.com, you stream news clips from Facebook or Twitter. The distribution is different, but the content is the same. It is terrific to see alternative voices like Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, but the only new entrants to the list of top-10 news websites outside the traditional media are Britain's Daily Mail and the Australian version of the British-owned Guardian. And you have to feel for New Zealand, where it looks likely that the two Australian-based groups that own the two main New Zealand titles, Fairfax and APN News and Media, will actually join forces. They will be even more restricted to a narrower number of voices.
As a former journo, the real problem for me with restrictive ownership is that you cannot afford to take chances. The fewer owners, the fewer people you can annoy as a journalist. I experienced this concern myself when owned by Packer. In fact, I recall that my radio station had only recently been taken over by him when Lionel Bowen, the formal Attorney-General, dismissed allegations made to the Costigan royal commission against Kerry Packer, who had been identified with the codename 'the Goanna'. This was by no means a difficult story to report. It would have been much harder if the Attorney-General had found the other way, but as a young, green journalist in my early 20s I had to report this. You tread really carefully when it is your boss. And it was my boss I was writing about. I remember being more cautious than I would have been reporting on just about any other individual. I can only imagine how much more risk adverse you are in your reporting if you know that there is no-one else to employ you.
But journalists are there to break stories. They are there to report things that someone does not want said. That is their vital role in our democracy. The Democrats might have coined the phrase 'keep the bastards honest', but the media has been doing that from day 1. A well-functioning democracy has, at its heart, an informed constituency. It is a journalist's job to find and verify information in the public interest, rather than just rip and read from media releases. Sure, the technology means that citizen journalists can be local news gatherers. But there is none of the rigour of a trained reporter, and it can lead to huge gaps in subject coverage and be really hit and miss.
I remind myself that these proposed changes are happening at a time when there are ongoing cuts to journalists at every major media outlet. It is estimated that around 700 journalist jobs were lost in Australia during the GFC between 2008 and 2009. This was followed by the loss of another 2,500 journalism jobs between 2012 and 2015. Since then, hundreds more jobs have gone. Earlier this year Fairfax cut about 100 full-time equivalent positions in its metropolitan daily news and business divisions in Sydney and Melbourne. A year ago it was 55 from News Corp. Fairfax's regional publishing business, ACM, is moving ahead with a common newspaper template, with opportunities for content sharing. Journalists spared from the sackings are required to do more with less, including taking photographs, subediting their stories and uploading them online. All major media companies, including Fairfax, News Corp, West Australian Newspapers, AAP and major regional publishers, have slashed their workforces. No community has been spared.
A survey by New Beats found the average age of journalists made redundant—and most job losses have come through voluntary redundancies, which appeal to more senior journalists who have worked with an employer for many years—was just over 49 years. They had worked in journalism for an average of 26 years each. So that is a lot of journalism experience walking out the door. There are implications of these changes: they undermine the diversity of local reporting and its accuracy, and they narrow the voice and threaten democracy. I would have to agree with my union—yes, I am a proud member of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance. The MEAA does not support the removal of the cross-media control rule, because it sees the bill's dominant focus as relieving regulatory burden on media entities rather than benefiting media diversity.
It is not just journalists that I worry about; I worry about local businesses. I noticed in an editorial in The Australian that the removal of the cross-media ownership law may be the way that local content offerings can be improved for regional areas, because a proprietor who owns television, radio, print and internet assets in an area could 'deepen and expand local content and news.' But my concern about this is that if you are a small business operating in a regional area, if you are a big business in a regional area, if you are a local government agency operating in that region or if you are a local community group operating in that region, again, you have only one organisation with which to build a relationship. If they take a dislike to your business, then there is no other medium in which to get the facts out. Right now, if you get bad press, you can turn to another medium whether it is the local commercial radio station or TV station and present a different side of the story. But if you have the one owner—the one organisation, the one editorial controller—there is no second bite and no way to correct misinformation or to provide extra information to a commercial audience.
The decline of journalist jobs in this commercial media sector, whether it is print or broadcast, places even greater importance on Australian taxpayers' continued support for strong public service journalism. Therefore, the other issue for me is that this coincides with attacks on the national broadcasters: the ABC and SBS. These organisations provide essential diversity—different voices in a whole range of ways—and yet they too are being undermined. The ABC plays a unique role delivering local Australian news across the nation's states but it too has suffered recent substantial funding cuts and journalism job losses.
In 2014, a $200 million federal government cut reduced jobs and editorial output in state newsrooms, regional newsrooms and international bureaus. As a result, over the last decade, audiences have witnessed the loss of much specialised TV, radio and digital content, both at home and in our Asian region. Of course, the cuts have not stopped since then across the ABC, with a whole range of editorial roles simply disappearing.
The ABC said that more than $6 million would be axed from the ABC news division annually over the next three years following the 2016 budget, along with millions of dollars worth of cuts to the ABC's online and mobile capacity. There was the axing of the ABC Fact Check unit and other editorial redundancies at the ABC in the lead up to the last federal election. Journalists from the Fact Check unit and national reporting team were sacked, resulting in a loss of quality journalism and talented journalists, with impact on newsrooms around the country. The MEAA warns that this will place news services at the ABC under extreme pressure. Even after these cuts, the Director of ABC News, Gaven Morris, has warned of more challenges to continue delivering original and investigative journalism, and local and regional news gathering.
Like some ABC employees, I am not the first to be concerned that the changes constitute 'a serious breach of the ABC Charter and a disservice to the Australian audiences that the ABC is funded to serve'. In my electorate, the Blue Mountains Friends of the ABC, one of the most active groups of that volunteer organisation, recently held their AGM and these issues were top of mind, not least the latest ABC Radio National cuts.
As we consider changes to the way media companies operate, we cannot ignore that change is occurring. I have found it interesting to hear the other side say how unnecessary the two-out-of-three rule is. In the same breath they have trumpeted the need for diversity yet the only diversity I can see coming is more US programs and news dumped on us.
In the broadcast media sphere, US owned Netflix announced it will undercut local competitors—Presto, jointly owned by Foxtel and Seven West Media; and Stan, a Fairfax and Nine Entertainment Co. partnership—to stream video content directly to Australia. The potential dominance of foreign owned media is concerning given that we once had specific laws to guard against it so that we could protect Australian news content and its democratic function and hear Australian voices. Isn't it strange that in 2016, when local newspapers are experiencing financial pressures, there is little examination about what these offshore arrivals mean for Australian audiences and Australian news content, particularly in terms of local news?
We are seeing here legislation that is simply attempting to tinker with the rules rather than really respond to the seismic shifts that are happening. On this side, we are committed to genuine reform. Labor wants to see a comprehensive inquiry into ownership, concentration and competition in the Australian media market, because there has not been one in nearly 20 years. It needs to be done independently.
Whatever changes this parliament agrees to will have wide-ranging implications for decades to come, not just for my children but for my grandchildren. You have to wonder why the government wants to rush this through, particularly given it was not even one of their priorities at the last election. You would think that a former communications minister, now the Prime Minister, would take this stuff seriously. Although, when we see what he has done the NBN, perhaps it is absolutely no surprise at all.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:51): I rise with pleasure to support the member for Greenway's amendment to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. I do so knowing how hard the shadow minister has worked, in terms of stakeholder consultation, to get across all of the issues that this legislation proposes, and to support the notion that the two-out-of-three rule should be looked at much more carefully over a much longer period of time and with much deeper consultation for all members in this place.
The fourth estate plays a central role in the preservation of our democracy, as does drama, media and entertainment play in the preservation and the continuation of our developing culture. I am proud that everyone in this country is encouraged to vote. On both sides we value the fact that almost everyone participates in our democratic processes. However, these processes need a diverse media in order to inform voters of key issues, challenge their assumptions and hold politicians to account. We need them to report the truth so people can make informed decisions. Having said that, Labor, unlike those opposite, acknowledges the political economy of the media. We understand that some degree of government regulation is necessary in order to protect citizens from abuses of media power. We believe that the two-out-of-three rule needs to stay. A completely unregulated media market is likely to result in a handful of powerful media outlets dominating traditional forms of media.
I understand that the internet means that there are more outlets for media, but the evidence suggests that there are still only a few trusted names in the media space. When media power is consolidated, we run the risk of having our society become an echo chamber. We run the risk of only hearing one point of view. We need a diverse media landscape because that is when the powerful are held to account and the views of people from across the political spectrum are represented. I say this acknowledging the challenges facing the media interest as it stands. There are clearly risks to its future. However, the challenges faced by all elements of the broadcasting industry are not served by this narrow bill.
The regulatory arrangements that need to be made in order to assist the broadcasting sector through this period of disruption are not served by the government's plan. Some elements of media regulation in this country are antiquated. That is why we support removing the rule that prevents a person from being able to exercise control over a commercial broadcasting licence that can reach 75 per cent of the Australian population. In the age of the internet, a kid with a camera can, theoretically, reach 95 per cent of the Australian population. However, this part of the regulation is not antiquated; it is vital. When radio came about, newspapers were initially sceptical, but then they promptly acquired radio stations. Similarly, when television arrived, radio stations and print media were nervous but quickly found a way to move into that space and become viable.
It holds that large media companies still have the time and expertise necessary to produce content that consumers trust and want. In fact, seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia are owned by traditional media companies. This is not necessarily about a decline in readers; it is more about a shift towards the online space, which is admittedly harder to commodified. If local media companies feel it is unfair that competitors such as Google, Facebook and Netflix do not bear the burden of licence fees and local content requirements, then they should join Labor in calling for swift and wide-reaching reforms that will level the playing field while making sure that we do not diminish our democracy or our capacity to tell our own stories.
I will reflect on my time in classrooms at this point, and specifically on sharing with students the Lockie Leonard works of Tim Winton. Teaching Australian literature and film is an absolute privilege, but one of the strongest memories I have from a classroom is teaching Tim Winton's Lockie Leonard series with year 7s. It was an extraordinarily powerful thing when they recognised the Australian voice, the Australian landscape and the Australian experience in the stories—their voice, their landscape, their experience. It changed their writing. It emboldened them and it validated their experience as a legitimate basis for narrative. This cannot be underestimated in the way Australia moves forward. We need to protect our ability to tell our own stories, to share them with our children and to encourage our children to take this up as we move forward.
Let's not pretend that it is easy for new players to step in and become trusted news sources or trusted entertainment and drama sources. You need to spend years developing a brand that the Australian public will respect and listen to. While many Australians might read blogs, on election night they are looking for Antony Green, they want to hear Laurie Oakes' analysis, they will tune in to the ABC, to SBS or to 10, 9 and 7. Why? It is because people trust those media brands. So, when they are looking out for information that they will use to form their opinions on political issues, it is likely that they will continue to look to 'old' media sources. When you give one of those trusted sources unfettered access to the entire media landscape and limit others' access, you prevent other organisations developing their own relationships with the public and with consumers and you prevent their building up trust for their brands in their own sector.
Diversity in this space is absolutely critical. We know that people get cues about where society is headed or where society has been from drama and entertainment. A couple of friends may discuss the latest episode of, say, House Husbands, commenting how a particular character or relationship reminds them of their own or perhaps challenges their own habits or labels. Entertainment prompts people to reflect on aspects of their own lives. It might sound trivial, but something as simple as characters' relationships or the types of characters portrayed in entertainment can have a huge influence on what we perceive to be normal. It is, in many ways, a reflection of ourselves and our customs. If a handful of companies are able to control what we get to see, that could directly affect our culture.
Having said that, the Australian stories are largely told by our domestic media companies. While there is more that unites than divides us, there is still a range of Australian experiences that need space to breathe and be heard. If I think of Lockie Leonard, Tim Winton was telling a particular story—a Western Australian story, and a quintessential Australian story. But I know that if Tim Winton had lived in Melbourne it would have had a different flavour; it would have been a more multicultural story.
We need to ensure that we have the domestic capacity to continue to tell these stories. We need to ensure that we have an industry that makes sure that the emerging Australian story also has space in that field. Australian stories are largely told by domestic media companies. I will say again that, while there is more that unites us than divides us, there is still a range of Australian experiences that need space to breathe and to be heard. Increasing ad revenues from an additional sector of the media is not going to stop people from going online for content. Regarding Australian content, we need to make sure that there is a range of editorial voices telling Australian stories. There is a clear way forward. There is a way to support local media entities while also ensuring our democracy is protected and ensuring every Australian consuming Australian media can see someone who looks like them, sounds like them and has relationships like their own.
I know that Netflix and the unfortunate scourge of illegal downloads mean that more and more people can choose what they want to watch and are no longer beholden to what is presented to them on free-to-air TV, radio and print. The internet is a major disrupter but, if we think about it, ad revenues are falling across the sectors and it has become easier to produce good content online, so allowing the consolidation will not correct the trend—it is more likely to create even larger media empires that have delayed their demise by a couple of years.
In order to protect the local media industry and to ensure local media jobs are preserved, we need a principle-based approach that focuses on independence in media and better standards of diversity in content, including the ownership of companies and industry structures. We need to ensure the provision of regional services and support for regional content, and we need to support local jobs and local content.
Labor sees and appreciates the firms that are failing, which is why we are committed to undertaking reform of licensing agreements to help smaller firms to stay competitive. We need real reform that is in the national interest, not a poorly thought-through scheme designed to help corporate media interests. If you think about the narrowing in this space and what it may mean for the way our population informs itself, particularly around the democratic processes, you will realise that the narrower that editorial voice becomes, the more at risk our democracy becomes. We need to ensure that Australians are hearing from a wide range of voices, not a minimalist one.
This government has clearly not put much thought into this policy proposal. It will not help media companies to innovate and embrace the future; it just allows a few key players to increase their influence at the cost, potentially, of our democratic processes and at the cost of Australia being able to tell its own stories. Here we need a much more thoughtful approach, and I support the amendment the member for Greenway has presented to the parliament to ensure that we have that.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:01): Can I begin by wholeheartedly endorsing the comments by the member for Lalor about the importance of the Lockie Leonard book series in teaching young Australian children about an Australian voice in our literature history of Australia. As a person who has very much benefited from reading that series as a student not long after they were written, I wholeheartedly endorse her comments.
Turning now to the core of this bill, the challenges faced by all aspects of the broadcasting sector and the appropriate regulatory arrangements to meet the disruptive challenges now and into the future are not served by this narrow bill. The bill is not about genuine sector reform. After three years in office, this is a substandard response by government—something which is even acknowledged by stakeholders. Labor will go on to develop a comprehensive principles-based approach to sector reform, and is prepared to work with government to achieve this. Labor also acknowledges the particular economic challenges being faced by regional broadcasters, which is why we are prepared to support the abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule.
Economic reform of current licensing arrangements is clearly a priority for the sector, and must be addressed before any reform to industry structure. The government and a number of media interests continue to express dismay, in fact, at the time it has taken to pass this bill. However, consider this: the Abbott and Turnbull governments did nothing in media ownership policy for almost three years; indeed, they were virtually silent on the topic during the election campaign. Now Mr Turnbull wants to rush some changes through this parliament on the basis that they are, supposedly, urgent, when the reality for this urgency is actually the interests of a number of the media players themselves. Labor has indicated it will support the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule, as I indicated, but we are not yet convinced of the merits of repealing the two-out-of-three rule.
The primary argument in favour of repealing the two-out-of-three rule is the rise of online sources. As I think was so eloquently put by the member for Greenway: 'The government's argument boils down to this: because internet.' They say that they are competing with online sources for both news and advertising revenue. This impact on the forecast decline of traditional media is irrefutable; however, it does not necessarily follow that technological developments have negated the need for Australia to maintain rules around ownership or control of broadcasting licensees. Traditional media players still dominate the production of news and information consumed by Australians. There may be more places about to access news from, but seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia are still owned and operated by traditional media companies. It is the same voices that we had before; they are just operating on more and different platforms.
Western Australia, and Perth in particular, has one of the most concentrated media markets in the country, with Seven West Media now owning the only daily newspaper, The West Australian, and The Sunday Times—covering all seven days of the week—as well as Channel Seven, with a combined newsroom. This is not necessarily a criticism of the work that they do, as one only has to look at some of the great work coming out of The West Australian's press gallery here over the last 12 months in breaking federal stories to realise that Western Australians are well served by our state newspaper. But this does highlight the importance of having alternative news sources available in WA, given that our main local newspaper network, the Community Newspaper Group, is also 50 per cent owned by Seven West Media, with the other half being owned by News Corp.
In its recent review of the Seven West acquisition of The Sunday Times the ACCC noted that Western Australia's news content was highly valued by Western Australian consumers, as national news sources do not cater to the WA news market. I would go even further, and point to the importance of local and regional news sources in ensuring that our local communities can access the news that matters to them that might not be picked up in state and national media. Being so far away from the eastern states, this is particularly important to those people in WA.
Disruption in this dynamic sector, though, is not new. The owners of newspapers were not enthusiastic about the arrival of radio back in the 1920s. They claimed it was likely that broadcasters would pirate their print news stories without providing compensation to the sources. Then newspapers started complaining when the ABC moved away from reporting news as printed in newspapers and started running its own radio newsrooms, competing against the papers in the provision of news—thereby diversifying the sources. Then, as noted by Nick Herd in his book Networking: Commercial Television in Australia, aHistory:
Initially newspaper interest saw radio as a competitor, but as it grew in popularity, they moved to acquire ownership.
With regard to television, he said:
… commercial media of newspapers, magazines and radio were initially apprehensive about the prospect of television, but quickly realised it was something they could not ignore.
Thus we have seen the ever-growing march towards consolidation of our media resources and sources.
Related to the issue of technological developments, Australian media companies are concerned about their viability in the face of licence fees and local content requirements, which are not borne by online competitors such as Google, Facebook and Netflix. However, it is notable that this concern is of course being faced in other jurisdictions around the globe, and other governments are looking seriously at options to secure tax dollars from such entities and using it to produce more local content. The industry is already adapting to the challenges posed by their shrinking advertising revenues compared to their online competitors. On 3 September 2016, for example, it was reported that Australia's three major news publishing groups—Fairfax, NewsCorp, Seven West—were looking at collaborating to compete against their online rivals. The ACCC may say things about that later.
The government believes there is no point with another referral of this bill to a Senate committee. However, the positions of new crossbenchers in the Senate are largely unknown, and their public comments appear to indicate that they have not formed a firm view and are open to persuasion. Senator Lambie was most critical of Minister Fifield's attempts to block the referral, arguing that this is a complex policy area that requires scrutiny—and it does.
These changes are not about genuine reform of Australia's media sector. The Australian media landscape has seen enormous change over the past 20 years. But, after years of telling us that everything was changing, all that Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Fifield have been able to come up with is some tinkering around the edges of an important but complex regulatory scheme.
The changes proposed by the government are about the corporate interests of certain industry players; they are not about the national interest. The government's reform bill does virtually nothing to put in place a regulatory framework that will deliver for 24 million Australians going forward through the 21st century. Worse still: it does not provide any assurance of greater local content, including in regional areas, which I am sure our friends in the National Party will be most concerned about, as we are on this side. Labor believes that it is critical for Australia to have the regulatory processes and industry structures that support a strong and independent media in the public interest.
Mobile technology and the growth in internet use have completely reshaped how we consume content in these modern times. And, while convergence and globalisation have driven changes to the way content is developed and distributed, as I said before, traditional media players still dominate the production of news of information consumed by Australians. What is required is comprehensive media reform. On that path, I just want to mention that it is critical that we continue to support our local media—both independent and those run by the major media companies.
People in my electorate are particularly lucky to have two local news outlets producing weekly papers focused on the issues that matter to our local community. I pay special tribute to the independently owned Examiner Newspapers. The Examiner started out as a local newsletter in 1989 and now has a circulation of almost 100,000 across Armadale, Gosnells, Canning and Serpentine-Jarrahdale. The Examiner produces quality local content and, during the Canning by-election, Examiner reporters unexpectedly found themselves at the centre of some very large national media packs—and they did the south-east of Perth very proud.
At a time when traditional media is struggling and the media landscape is becoming more and more concentrated, to have an independent news source going from strength to strength is a testament to the strength of the team at The Examiner. And I would like to give a shout-out also to Heritage FM in Gosnells, which is broadcasting 24/7 community radio to residents across Perth's south-eastern suburbs.
The bill before the parliament is a disconnected and piecemeal package that will benefit certain incumbents. Labor will not stand by and watch this government waste more time with their dithering and pandering to vested interests. Labor will undertake further consultations not just with industry but with stakeholder experts and the community on a comprehensive package of reforms to take to the next election. And we are prepared to work with the government to achieve these outcomes during this term.
Our approach seeks to foster a comprehensive package which ensures the independence of media in Australia with standards; diversity in our content, including in the ownership of companies and industry structure; ensuring the provision of regional services and the support of more regional content; and supporting jobs and local content. However, before any reform to industry structure can take place, there needs to be real economic reform of licensing arrangements.
Australian media entities have submitted that these changes will provide the best incentives to support the creation of local jobs and Australian content, because the economics of local content are being challenged by these new over-the-top providers who do not have to deal with the issue of licensing fees. Indeed, the experience from the United Kingdom shows that reducing licensing fees has resulted in stronger investments in jobs and local content. That is a critical element of what we need to see. It is not just locating the local content but combining it with ensuring that we maintain and create local jobs.
To truly put in place the right media market, there must be an examination of the entire landscape of the media industry in Australia and the key trends that we are seeing not just here but how these are being dealt with around the globe. This government has really shirked its responsibility to do the job right and to look at the entire sector to make sure that we get meaningful change that ensures the protection of the sector, the protection of local jobs, the creation of local content and a diversity of news outcomes for all Australians. Unfortunately, we have not seen that at all in the presentation of this bill by the government.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (12:13): In beginning my comments on this piece of legislation, I would like to acknowledge some constituents who are with me in parliament today: to the Fraser family, how fantastic it is to have you here—to Brian, Mary and Annie, thanks for making the effort.
I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 and I will be supporting this bill in the House. Australia's regional media has seen a serious decline in recent years, and the rise of digital media has put pressure on all traditional media focusing companies to seek savings, cut jobs and services, and centralise production in capital cities and larger centres.
In my electorate of Indi, there have been some dramatic cuts to media. In 2015, Fairfax Media cut 62 journalists from its papers in regional Victoria, including 23 staff at The Border Mail in Albury-Wodonga. And, as recently as this month, there has been another reduction of five advertising production positions at The Border Mail, with ongoing outsourcing of work overseas.
These cutbacks mean a loss of extensive corporate and local knowledge from among those staff who leave these publications and diminishing career paths for journalists and media professionals in regional areas. There is also the difficulty of maintaining skills when work pressure is enormous, and we are hearing fewer voices with less experience. For the communities affected, there is a loss of connection with their newspapers and/or masthead and an impact on how many local stories can be told.
In recent years we have also seen a consolidation of resources within electronic newsrooms. Prime has shut broadcasting studios in Albury, Tamworth, Orange and Wagga in New South Wales, while Southern Cross sacked more than a dozen staff in Canberra and undertook to renew services in Tasmania and regional South Australia. Bulletins have been centralised in Canberra, Ballarat and Wollongong. We have seen WIN Television withdraw its licences from the Riverland and Mount Gambier regions in South Australia, leaving these regions without a dedicated local news service. WIN has also closed bureaus in Albany, Geraldton and Broome in Western Australia.
I would like to take this opportunity to do a call-out, a thank you, to local media. I want to pay tribute to the expertise and professionalism of the many who are involved in local media within my electorate. There are so many journalists who continue to tell the local stories within Indi and with whom my office and I have built ongoing relationships as we share the region's issues and positive news stories. So thank you to Jamie Kronborg and Leah Tindill at the Wangaratta Chronicle; to Shana Morgan at The Border Mail; to Jan Deane and Erin Somerville at ABC Goulburn Murray; to Monique Kuzeff at Albury Wodonga News Weekly; to Mark Blackman and Ashlee Charlton at WIN Television; to Josh Matthews and Helen Ballard at Prime; to Paul McSweeney and Andy Walker at Radio 2AY; to Matt Griffith at River FM; to Libby Price at the Benalla Ensign; to Anne Richey at the Alexandra Standard and Yea Chronicle; and to Pam and all the team at Mansfield Courier. That is just a few that I have named. To all the editors, the production staff, the marketing people, the camera people and all the people who, day to day, ring my office and help us to sort things out: we really appreciate your work and we acknowledge your skill and your professionalism.
This bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to repeal the two-out-of-three rule, which provides that a person must not be in a position to exercise control of more than two of the three regulated media platforms—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers—in any commercial radio licence area; to repeal the 75 per cent audience reach rule, which provides that a person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, must not be in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population; and to introduce new local programming obligations for regional commercial television licensees, where, as a result of change in control, they become part of a media group whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the population.
These changes are aimed at addressing the media control and ownership rules that were developed in an analog era, last century. There is a desperate need for reform of these laws, as my colleagues have said, to ensure that the media laws remain relevant and enable media businesses to compete in a changing media landscape. The proposed changes to the control and ownership rules will, I believe, enable Australian media companies to compete in an environment where new services and platforms are growing rapidly and are not subject to existing regulations.
It has become increasingly evident that the rise of online services has had a significant impact on Australia's media sector. The recent report by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee examining this bill noted how the increase in online advertising services is affecting the advertising revenue on which media companies have traditionally relied. Chief executive officer of the Prime Media Group, Ian Audsley, commented that, while online news sites such as The Guardian, Crikey and SMH.com.au may keep consumers up to date with what is happening in our capital cities and around the world, they 'don't tell the residents of Launceston, Mackay or Ballarat'—or many in my electorate of Indi—'about what is happening in their home town.' He told the Senate inquiry that, 'without some form of consolidation' those living in regional Australia are going to see less local information and less diversity in the voice from our regional areas. Professor Rodney Tiffen told the same inquiry that the 75 per cent reach rule 'is not just outdated; it never made sense,' explaining that preserving 25 per cent for others to own 'did nothing for media diversity and little for localism' and 'it is well and truly time for that provision to be knocked back or dispensed with'. I agree.
The WIN network, one of three covering regional Australia in my electorate, alongside Prime and the new configured Nine-Southern Cross partnership, offered its opinion at a previous inquiry, saying that the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule 'is as outdated'. The WIN network further said that, although the aim of the two-out-of-three rule is to protect diversity of voice, in effect 'all it is doing is constraining the three traditional mediums of TV, radio and press'.
CEO with Fairfax Media, Greg Hywood, told the most recent Senate inquiry that the removal of the two-out-of-three rule would be beneficial as, in the face of declining revenues and the implications of this for supporting journalism and local content, companies could consider restructuring to achieve a better financial result. From Fairfax Media's point of view, Mr Hywood said:
… the extent to which these organisations, based offshore, are diverting advertising revenue away from and undermining Australian media companies that invest in local content and journalists and which pay taxes is one of the prime justifications for abolishing the current two-out-of-three restriction.
The Labor Party has indicated its support for removing the reach rule but has said it does not support removing the two-out-of-three rule. It believes doing so would likely reduce the number of owners in the media and risk reducing the range of voices in Australian media. Again I refer to Greg Hywood from Fairfax Media who, when asked about whether the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule could potentially lead to a loss of media diversity, replied:
That horse bolted years ago. I mean there is not anybody that has access to the internet that cannot access instantaneously a range of diverse opinions.
Today I would particularly like to talk about the regional response. I acknowledge the important point made during the inquiry by the New South Wales Farmers association, which highlighted how the media needs of those living in regional Australia differ to those in metropolitan areas. New South Wales Farmers said:
… a lot of submissions took as assumed that the media landscape had changed substantially for all Australians, and therefore that the old style of media ownership did not have the same reach or importance for consumers.
I agree with the association's observation that, while in regional and rural Australia we seek to be part of the digital age, often communications in the bush are more 19th century than 21st century. Traditional media platforms such as newspapers, radio and television continue to have strong penetration in our regions. We listen to the radio, we watch TV and we buy and read newspapers. The Senate committee shared the New South Wales Farmers association's concerns about the ability of regional consumers to access adequate telecommunications services and noted that improved data capabilities will help regional media consumers engage in the online environment. In this area, I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of my local newspapers to pick up the online presence in my electorate and how important it is becoming, with Facebook and Twitter linking into the regional local papers. It is having a huge impact, but not everybody in my electorate has access to the internet and, until that day comes, we need to rely on the newspapers.
Among the recent changes and decline in regional media, there has been much good news. Earlier this year, Nine and Southern Cross announced a new programming affiliation agreement. As a result of this agreement, they have announced that they will broadcast 15 dedicated local Nine News bulletins from early 2017 to regional markets in Queensland, southern New South Wales and regional Victoria. More than 110 staff, including five in each of the centres at Albury-Wodonga, Ballarat, Bendigo and Gippsland, will be employed by Nine in its regional news division. The one-hour Monday to Friday news bulletins will contain local stories focusing on local communities, dedicated local sport and weather reports, together with state based, national and international news. This is a win for regional Australia, with the Nine News brand extending into country areas for the first time, at a time when regional news services have been under significant pressure.
I would also like to talk briefly about the ABC. While operations within the ABC are not the focus of the reforms outlined in this bill, since 2015 the government has imposed cuts on ABC funding of almost $200 million. The ABC has come under fire for cutting regional radio broadcasts and state based current affairs, as well as the closure of regional reporting posts and television production houses in Adelaide and Hobart, further centralising production in Sydney. We have in recent years lost the wonderful Bush Telegraph radio show and the 7.30 program has been nationalised. This year, local radio programming formats were changed so that local news headlines are not broadcast between 9 am and noon. The ABC has confirmed it is pushing content away from traditional radio and television to online content. The problem is that a lot of people in rural, regional and remote Australia do not have adequate access to the internet and we will not be able to zoom in to this new online digital content. So, on behalf of the people of Indi and rural and regional Australia, I take this opportunity to call upon the ABC board not to make its savings on the back of rural and regional Australia. Further, I am asking the ABC to plan its push to digital to match the capacity of its audience to access these technologies.
In closing, the broadly held view is that the media environment has changed so significantly since the introduction of the 75 per cent audience reach rule and the two-out-of-three cross-media rule that both rules are now outdated and do not meaningfully contribute to media diversity. In fact, these rules now act to restrict certain media companies from being able to better service the sector. The abolition of these rules will best serve the industry's future. However, at the same time, we must be mindful of concerns about the character and quality of local content broadcast following any mergers that will take place and the Australian Communications and Media Authority's ability to police compliance with local programming requirements. The bill provides for a review of local programming requirements within two years of the commencement of its provisions. I hope and believe that this will serve as the means to ensure the quality provision of local media and that its coverage of the stories from our regions continues to best service our regional and rural communities.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:27): I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution in relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, particularly after the contribution by my electoral neighbour the member for Indi. There is only a mountain range between us, but we share many similar interests in the way we service our two electorates. Both electorates typically rely very heavily on the regional media networks to keep our communities informed, particularly during times of natural disaster. The member for Indi, I think, touched on the important role of the local journalists in her community, and equally that applies to Gippsland, where we do depend very heavily on our local newspaper journalists, television services and the regional ABC. As we approach the summer season and the grassed areas of our region have had spectacular growth throughout the spring, the likelihood of a severe fire season is something that I know the member for Indi is conscious of, and I am also in Gippsland. The role that our regional ABC will play, particularly through radio broadcasts, in alerting our residents in times of natural disaster is something that we are greatly appreciative of. Equally I am appreciative of the role that our commercial radio station plays now as an emergency services broadcaster, letting people know of impending natural disasters, particularly during the summer season.
I have had direct personal experience in the local media. I started my career as a newspaper journalist at the Gippsland Times in Sale in the order of 30 years ago. The transformation which has occurred in the media market just in that 30 years has been quite extraordinary to see. The rate of change has been something I guess no-one could have forecast only as recently as 1986, when I started my career. I went on to work in regional television as well, and the transformation in the regional television networks has also been quite spectacular and has given rise to the need for this amendment to the broadcasting legislation. There is a very important role for regional media, as the member for Indi rightly indicated, to hear local voices telling local stories. In our regional communities that role is often filled by the ABC. Only last week I had the opportunity to be in Yackandandah, where ABC Regional—
Mr Snowdon: Yackan-bloody-dandah!
Mr CHESTER: It is hard to say the name Yackandandah without a smile on your face. The member for Lingiari is interjecting in good spirit, and I accept his interjection. I am not sure if Hansard will appreciate it, but it is hard to say Yackandandah without smiling, and it is a beautiful little community—
Ms McGowan: In Indi.
Mr CHESTER: in the seat of Indi. The member for Indi is interjecting as well; I will give a shout out to her once again. It was particularly good to see ABC Regional's commitment to that live broadcast, bringing the stories of that community to a broader audience. I strongly believe and am confident that the growing strength in ABC Regional is something that will deliver many benefits to our regional communities in the future. There seems to be a renewed passion for telling those local stories to a broader audience.
I want to mention one particular program, the Heather Ewart fronted program called Back Roads, which has been, I think, one of the great successes of ABC Regional in recent times. I congratulate the ABC for bringing that program to air. I congratulate Heather Ewart for her storytelling capacity, for her willingness to go out to those regional communities and tell the stories of local people and bring them to a broader audience. It is a terrific program, and one day I am sure Heather will find a Back Roads T-shirt for me so I can promote the program even more heavily than I already do. It is a great program, and just an example of how we do rely very heavily on regional media and the ABC in particular.
In relation to the bill before the House, as I indicated, the changing nature of the media market in Australia has led to three significant amendments being put to the House today. In relation to the abolition of the 75 per cent audience reach rule, much of the legislative framework governing the Australian media was developed when the industry really only had the three main media platforms. As I indicated previously, I worked in newspapers about 30 years ago and then went on to regional television. Obviously, the radio networks in our communities have been important and will continue to be so in the future, but we have also had the near saturation of smart phones, social media platforms and streaming services, which have made the 75 per cent audience reach rule redundant.
The current 75 per cent audience reach rule prohibits a person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, from controlling commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined reach exceeds 75 per cent of the Australia population. In the digital media environment, I, as a member of parliament, can post a video on YouTube and potentially have 100 per cent reach to the Australian population—not that I am likely to get that sort of coverage from any of the videos I would post. It has become redundant to have those requirements in the digital age. Viewers can already receive myriad online video and audio media services such as Netflix, Fetch TV and the streaming services of the metropolitan commercial television services, which do not have these geographical restrictions placed on them throughout Australia. Two of the three metropolitan commercial television networks are already providing those streamed versions of their services, which are available in regional markets across Australia.
What we are seeing from the flexibility now provided by media is that people will view programs in their own time, not necessarily when they are put to air in the first instance. The term 'live to air' has almost become redundant when the consumers will choose a time that suits them when they catch up with their favourite program. They do not go to the scheduled programming time and watch their program when it suits the networks; they watch those programs when they are mobile, perhaps commuting to work by train, and catch up with their favourite programs in that way. This rule has little or no impact on media diversity, as we are already seeing viewers in regional areas receiving the same number of commercial television services and substantially the same commercial television programming, including news, as their metropolitan counterparts, due to their affiliation agreements.
I am concerned about the reduction in work opportunities for regional journalists, cameramen, photographers and producers. Those of us who live and work in regional Australia need to be particularly conscious that there should still be good career pathways and good career opportunities for regional journalists. I put it to the ABC management, in particular in recent times, that there is no reason whatsoever why more senior journalists and more senior ABC staff cannot be located in regional locations. We are starting to see that in the last couple of years, which has been a good move. I reflect on a member of staff in the ABC Gippsland studio, a gentleman by the name of Mark DeBono, who has had a long and illustrious career in regional media. Mark has had the opportunity to be promoted to a position of management within the regional ABC networks, but still has his home base in Gippsland at the Sale studio.
I think with the diversification of media there are more opportunities for some of these senior journalists to remain in the regional locations. It used to be a rite of passage for regional journalists to go to university or do a cadetship—like I did—move to a regional location, get some experience and go straight back to the city for career opportunities. What I would like to see is more opportunities for those talented and experienced regional media professionals to remain in their own communities and continue to progress through the ranks, and I think the ABC is uniquely placed, amongst all the media operators in Australia, to make that happen in regional Australia. I think the opportunity is there, and it is one that the ABC is closely monitoring.
The other opportunity that exists, with the technology that is available to us now, is for a greater diversity of voices to be heard through ABC investment in technology in those studios that are located right around Australia. There is the capacity for members of parliament, like us, or other leaders in regional communities, to have the opportunity to attend their local ABC and be streamed live, such as on ABC 24, which obviously is a service that requires an enormous amount of content. Rather than attending the studios here in Canberra or in Sydney or Melbourne or in other capital cities, there is a real opportunity here to have those voices heard without necessarily having the interviewee travel the distances they may have had to travel in the past. So I think there are real opportunities for regional media, but it is important that we seek to use those opportunities to help establish a better career path for regional media professionals without the necessity of moving to a metropolitan environment.
In relation to schedule 2 of the legislation, which is the abolition of the two out of three rule, and the legislative framework that referred to newspapers, TV and radio—the old media, if you like, although they still have a very significant role to play in the future—the two out of three rule was really intended to prevent a person from controlling more than two of the three regulated media platforms in any commercial radio licence area. It served to restrict those traditional media companies from optimising the scale and scope of their operations and from accessing the resources, the capital and the management expertise in other media sectors. At the same time, other unregulated platforms are free to consolidate and adapt their businesses as much as they like, although they are subject to wider considerations, like the competition rules. From a consumer's perspective, though, the online media is no longer viewed as something that is distinct from those traditional media platforms. Now we are seeing the consumer, the audience, using multiple sources to obtain information and multiple platforms to discover and to access the news. So I think changes to this rule would have a material impact only in the capital city markets and in a limited number of larger region licence areas, where, for most part, the sources of news and information are multiple and widespread, and maintenance of diversity is generally not an issue.
Turning to schedule 3 of the legislation, which relates to establishing new local content obligations, this is something that several members have commented on. I know that the member for Indi mentioned it in her contribution to the House just a few months ago. This is a critical part for those of us who are interested in making sure that regional Australians continue to have access to the local content and the local news that they do value. These new obligations will apply to regional commercial television broadcasters who are subject to what we describe as a trigger event, where, as a result of a change in control, they become part of a group of commercial broadcasting licensees whose combined licence area populations exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population. These new obligations will apply to licensees as a trade-off for the opportunity they will receive to exploit new possibilities and improve the efficiency of their operations. The bill specifies the minimum amount of local content licensees must broadcast each week to applicable local content areas, depending on the type of licence area and whether a trigger event has occurred.
Again, I see huge opportunities for media owners in a regional setting. The provision of local content, I think, is a critical part of their service to the community, but I think it is actually a bankable service, in the sense that people will watch their networks if they are seeing good local content on a regular basis. As someone who worked at WIN Television 20-odd years ago now, Deputy Speaker, the half-hour WIN news service that is provided in our regional communities—in Gippsland in this case—were very well watched and well regarded in the community. It gave them a chance to see the good news and perhaps sometimes the bad news that was occurring in the community. It ensured that people felt they were staying in touch with all the issues in their community. There is a need for local communities to feel part of the bigger mass of the region and I think the regional television networks and regional radio play a very important part in that regard. In Gippsland, we still have local radio stations 1242—GOLD—and 3TR actually doing local football matches during the home and away seasons. That is a real addition to the community's appreciation of sport in the region. So I think these local content rules are important and a valuable addition to the legislation before the House today.
In closing, I commend the bill to the House. I think it is a much-needed step in the right direction. I remain positive about the role of the media in a regional sense and I look forward to support across the chamber for these commonsense and worthwhile amendments.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (12:42): I, too, rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. The bill proposes to repeal two of the control rules that apply to commercial television broadcasting, commercial radio broadcasting, and associated print newspapers.
Labor believes that it is critically in the public interest for Australia to have the regulatory processes and industry structures that support a strong, diverse and independent media. This is particularly important for the diversity and content requirements for regional and rural areas, such as my area on the far north coast of New South Wales.
In regard to the bill, Labor has indicated its support for the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. It was in fact a Labor proposal to remove what we now see as a redundant rule. But we do not support the repeal of the two out of three rule. As our shadow minister, the member for Greenway, pointed out in her contribution, Labor has made it very clear that we remain to be convinced of the merits of repealing this rule. In fact, Labor senators said in their dissenting report to the Senate committee that we are unconvinced that the two out of three rule, which is the cross-media ownership restriction that prohibits mergers of more than two of the three regulated media platforms—that is, TV, radio and associated newspapers—in a particular licence area, should be repealed.
Turning to the provisions of the bill, schedule 1 of the bill proposes to repeal the sections of the Broadcasting Services Act that set out the conditions of the 75 per cent reach rule. This rule prevents a person, either as an individual or as a director of one or more companies, from being in a position to exercise control over commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence population area exceeds 75 per cent of the population of Australia.
Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to repeal the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, which is also set out in the Broadcasting Services Act. The two-out-of-three rule prohibits a person controlling more than two of the three regulated media platforms—that is, a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and an associated newspaper—in any one particular licence area. We are not convinced as to the merits of this specific action.
Indeed, schedule 3 of the bill also contains licence conditions for local programming obligations that would apply to regional commercial television broadcasters in the event a change in control occurs—what is referred to as a trigger event. A trigger event will occur where a person starts to be in a position to control a commercial television broadcasting licence and immediately after that event is in a position to control two or more commercial television broadcasting licences, including at least one regional commercial television broadcasting licence, in a combined licence area population exceeding 75 per cent of the population of Australia. In those circumstances, the event is a trigger event for each regional commercial television broadcasting licence in the group and each such licensee will be subject to additional local programming requirements under proposed sections for regional aggregated commercial television broadcasting licensees, which will commence six months after the trigger event. Those are the schedules of the bill.
When we look at issues relating to the regulation of the media, the federal government has played a role in the regulation of broadcasting in the media since the 1930s. Since those times, and in any particular changes that have been put forward, predictably the industry have always raised their concerns that they do not particularly like any sort of media control and they want to have less regulation. We are also aware that many sections of the broadcasting industry have been lobbying for the removal of certain rules, which they consider outdated and which they argue prevent mergers and economies of scale which will assist them to remain economically viable in the changing and challenging modern media environment. But we in Labor maintain that regulation is necessary and reform is necessary. What we need to see is a comprehensive reform based on the evidence that it is necessary. There does need to be some sort of regulation, but we need to see, across the board, more comprehensive media reform. We are not seeing this.
I can appreciate that the industry objections have increased, particularly with the rise of the emergence of the internet. It is a new media landscape. We all acknowledge that. There are new media technologies and there are increasing convergences of various media platforms. We have had the entire broadcasting and media industry really change in the last five, 10, 15, 20 years. But it is important to remember that when we hear people talking about the increased role of the internet and the greater role that it plays in many facets of our society—in this instance in terms of broadcasting and media—it is in some ways quite a false argument. We refer to regional areas, because of the fact we do not have access to the internet and access to the national broadband network in many parts of rural and regional Australia.
In my electorate, for example, there are many areas that are still waiting very long times. We have said on this side of the House on many occasions that the rollout of the NBN by this government has been incredibly chaotic. We have to be quite careful when people are talking about the rise of the internet, because there are many people in regional and rural Australia—indeed in many parts of metropolitan Australia too—that just do not have access to the internet. So it is indeed a very false argument.
When we look at the history of regulatory controls we see that prior to the introduction of the 75 per cent rule by the Hawke government in 1987 broadcasters were not permitted to own two television stations or radio licences in the one market and ownership or control could not exceed 60 per cent. The Hawke government's report into the broadcasting media recommended that the government encourage local ownership, control and presence and prohibit the buying and selling of licences for purely investment purposes.
When we look to some of the media reforms and we relate them to this government, who have been in power since 2013, we have seen that they have done nothing effectively and nothing comprehensively when it comes to the media sector. There should have been a thorough review of the entire broadcasting sector, but that did not happen. The last time we saw such a thorough review was around 2000, by the Productivity Commission. It had a strong evidence base for a holistic review of the sector, and corresponding legislative and regulatory reform came out of that.
But none of that has happened under this government. It certainly did not happen under the former communications minister, who is now the Prime Minister. We did not see any effective media reform or regulatory changes, on top of not seeing any effective rollout of the NBN. I do not think we are going to see anything else as this parliamentary year draws to a close in terms of any commitment from this government to effective evidence based reform of the media sector.
In the current climate, the large media providers continue to remain a primary source of news and information for the majority of people. It is not in the public interest to remove regulations which are likely to encourage mergers of existing media outlets and the consequential impacts that this would involve. These impacts will lead to less, not more, media diversity in the long run. This is because one owner will be able to control radio, television and newspapers in local areas. Despite minimal local content requirements that may be in place, there will be at the larger companies fewer independent voices and fewer local journalists employed to report on and investigate local issues. This will potentially create a less transparent and informed society. We want to see, particularly in those regional areas, more voices, greater input, greater transparency and greater diversity. That is what we aim for.
Let us not forget, when we are talking throughout this debate, that seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia are still owned by the big traditional media companies. That is the reality. The industry, however, asserts that certain media regulation is unnecessary and is preventing media entities from realising the economies of scale needed for them to survive in the modern media environment. This alone does not necessarily negate the need for Australia to maintain rules around the ownership and control of broadcasting licensees in order to satisfy and ensure diversity. We have to have that in place to make sure we have that diversity and transparency.
Despite all the concerns, the controlling influences are in the hands of the traditional media players who, as I have said, still dominate the production of news and information accessed by Australians. There are certainly many more places to access news than five or 10 years ago. There is absolutely no doubt about that. But despite all of that, with seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia still owned by traditional media companies, it is still very, very concentrated. So we have to make sure we include that when we talk about the challenging and changing media environment and the role that those traditional media companies still play. Labor is aware of the impact of convergence and globalisation, but we remain committed to ensuring Australia maintains regulatory processes and industry structures to support a strong and independent media in the public interest. That is what drives it to make sure we have that diversity.
I referred earlier to the Senate inquiry into the bill. It was quite rushed and was completed before the election was called. This was duly noted by Labor in a dissenting report. The inquiry provided scant analysis of the most pertinent issues needed to inform this debate and these questions still remain today—we still want answers to them: what are the potential consequences of the removal of the two-out-of-three rule? What are the potential models of activity as a result? And what would be the likely effect on the ability to make and broadcast diverse Australian content, including Australian news? We still have those questions unanswered.
The Australian media landscape has seen enormous change over the past 20 years and the government would have us believe that some of the reforms they are putting forward in this bill are about genuine reform of the sector. They are, in fact, not that. They had an opportunity to do that but it just really has not happened in this case, or in the term of this government or the previous one. The bill before us is a disconnected and piecemeal package that maybe will just benefit certain incumbents. The changes proposed by the government are about the corporate interests of certain industry players and not in the national interest in terms of what the public wants to see—diversity and transparency. This is especially so in those regional and rural areas, like the one that I represent. The bill does not really put in place an effective overall regulatory framework that will deliver for everybody; it just delivers for some groups.
We believe that it is critical for Australia to have the regulatory processes and industry structures that support a strong and independent media in the public interest. And we believe that only a comprehensive, principles-based approach to media reform will succeed in giving all Australians that fair and equitable access to a variety of locally and nationally produced media content, which is indeed what people do want to see in their media.
Labor's approach seeks to foster a comprehensive, principles-based approach with a focus on: independence in media and better standards; diversity in content, including in the ownership of companies and industry structure; and ensuring the provision of regional services and the support for regional content—that is an issue that I will always talk about in this House, that focus on regional Australia. It is also focused on supporting jobs and local content—we recognise how important that is.
I would also note in my contribution the outstanding role of the ABC and SBS in regional and rural Australia, and also right throughout the country. Again, I condemn the government for their continuous cuts in these areas, because the services they provide are absolutely important for regional Australia. There should be a greater investment in their services, not a cutting of those services. We want to see a greater role that is played by them. They are often the lifeline in regional areas, and we should always support them; we should not continue to see cuts by this government.
As I have said: it was Labor's proposal to remove the now redundant 75 per cent rule. We have indicated that we certainly support the move to do that. Whilst it is true that the industry is going through large structural changes—and we acknowledge that, and we acknowledge the challenges ahead—we still remain unconvinced of the merits of repealing the two-out-of-three rule and thus cannot see the merit in changing that.
As we have said consistently, our policy position is based on the evidence; and the evidence is clear that Australians are concerned about these issues and that they are concerned about the potential of the diversity and content of their media outlets. They do want to see those in place. I certainly know that it is great to see the diversity of a whole range of different media outlets and the role that they play in my area in expressing the local news and local content. It is a lifeline to my electorate, which is a very diverse area. We do have a variety of different outlets, and whether they be radio, newspaper or television, they do reflect a lot of the diversity of our area. I certainly would not want to see that changed, and I know that locals feel the same way. They particularly want to see a lot of independent, transparent and comprehensive news. That is what we have, and I would certainly like to see that in place in my area and right throughout the country as well.
As I have said, Labor has many concerns about this bill. I think this was a real opportunity to have a more comprehensive reform package, and the government have really walked away from that—it was just all too hard. It could have been a much more thorough review. We certainly believe that it is valid to do that. In conclusion, we certainly have not seen it from this government; we have just seen a very piecemeal approach to the current media landscape.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (12:56): It is pretty trite to say that there have been pretty significant changes in the media landscape since the regulation that currently applies was passed in the first place. You only need to look at the likes of WikiLeaks, for example, in the new sphere to see what a big impact something that sits outside what one might have called the traditional or 'old' media formats can have. Certainly, if we look at television, many people do not consume television now at the time that the television networks broadcast it but consume it on demand.
But at the same time a number of truths still hold true. When we look at the news space, even with moving online we see that a lot of the presence online in the news space is of organisations and companies that have built up significant amounts of resources offline. Even some of the new entrants that are online-only in the news space are reliant on existing resources coming from elsewhere as well. There are many notable exceptions, but on the whole it is fair to say that simply the fact that there are new means of distributing and publishing news has not necessarily resulted in a massive flourishing or redistribution of who owns what in the industry.
This is so in TV as well. You just need to look at the fact that the existing networks are the ones who are taking up a huge amount of the online space. Yes, there are alternatives—YouTube and the like—but it is the traditional networks who are stepping in and taking up a big amount of the online space. So new forms of technology do not necessarily mean new forms of ownership or new forms of diversity.
That is why this Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 is so disappointing. With this proposed legislation, the government has missed an important opportunity to provide meaningful reform of the Australian media landscape and has instead settled on a simplistic deregulatory approach that will do nothing to improve media diversity. In fact, it might result in a concentration of media ownership at time when we need the opposite.
All witnesses to both iterations of the Senate inquiry into the versions of this bill, in May and October this year, agreed that the media landscape is changing rapidly, and that online delivery of content is one of the key drivers. And pretty much everyone agrees that regulations drafted in the pre-internet age have not kept up with the pace of technological innovation or with changing habits of content consumption. Indeed, content creation by the public is also something that is not captured by existing regulation. What is also clear is that Australia has one of the most highly-concentrated media ownership structures in the world. That makes support for public, community and independent broadcasters and publishers all the more important. But instead of grappling with these complex issues in meaningful ways, after nearly three years of consideration the government has done really nothing more than take the path of least political resistance—the bare minimum that the handful of commercial broadcasters and publishers could agree on—which is to propose the abolition of two regulations that were originally intended to protect media diversity.
Despite the emergence of online content and news delivery forming the basis of the government's rationale for this bill, nowhere does the bill provide any form of support for these emerging forms of diversity. Indeed, the government's attacks on the funding and independence of respected public broadcasters like ABC and SBS have been subjected to sustained criticism from the Greens and from the whole community, and rightly so. Ongoing neglect and crippling funding shortfalls for community radio and TV broadcasters have severely limited the potential of these important sources to provide the kind of media diversity that the government is telling us this bill will bring about. And responses to the large-scale structural changes to the global media environment canvassed in the 2011 convergence review remain entirely unaddressed in this legislation.
What is also clear from people who have fronted the Senate inquiry and, indeed, from the commentators is the self-evident assertion that access to fast broadband services to deliver new sources of on-demand content remains dramatically uneven across the country. If anything, the digital divide between those with access to rapid telecommunications services has worsened under the Abbott-Turnbull government's hopelessly incompetent handling of the National Broadband Network. This has put fast broadband out of reach for millions of Australian households. So even if a flourishing mix of local and international content were being produced for consumption, access for millions of Australian households will be out of the question for the foreseeable future.
If the government had come along and said: 'There's been a significant change to the media landscape and a lot more is being delivered online. We need to tackle that, including by making sure in the same way that people have access to free-to-air television, by and large, we are going to make sure they have access to online content. In the same way that we support public creation of content and free-to-air television, we're going to look at how we might do that in the online world,' then they might be starting to tackle some of the big issues. But the government is not going that; the government is just saying, 'What do the big commercial networks want?' and come in and ask for a change. In fact, when you look at one of the measures that is going to be removed, it is going to increase concentration of media ownership in this country.
The bill should not pass in its current form. The two-out-of-three rule should remain, at a bare minimum. Until such time as there is a plan to protect healthy media diversity in an era of changing technologies, the two-out-of-three rule provides a flawed but necessary bulwark against further consolidation of media ownership in Australia. The Greens do agree that the abolition of the reach rule could be supported, but not at a cost of the two-out-of-three rule. So until such time as the government is prepared to directly engage with those larger issues at play, the bill as a whole represents a step backwards. It exemplifies the approach of this government more broadly: upholding the interests of commercial players at the expense of the public interest and dressing up a counterproductive deregulatory agenda as though it represents genuine reform. It is the view of the Greens that this bill should not pass the parliament, at least until the two-out-of-three rule abolition provision is removed from the legislation.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:04): As I sit in this room and listen to some of the comments being made about changing the media laws, they refer back to the Howard years and to this government, and somehow or other there were six years missing in there when nothing happened. That was nothing to do with the coalition. I kind of wonder what divided and what went invisible at that stage.
There is already a concentration of media without considering, would you believe, the population numbers. We only have 24 million people in this nation. You cannot have 150 media suppliers when you only have 24 million people. It simply is not economic. Naturally, that is an economic consideration that is very often missing when it comes from the other side.
Going back to this actual legislation, why the heck would the government mess around with media legislation if it were not in the best interests of the general population—those people who are going to vote for us afterwards? Especially not when, in my view, the media often acts as the unelected fourth level of government. When the bill was first floated all my local media reps, whether they were stringers, managers or interviewers, asked me to stand up on their behalf because they believe this is great change. We talked at length about how this was absolutely critical to maintaining regional news. As a regional MP, that sort of news is essential for my community to hear what I have to say for them. Then they can have their say back to me, which is always a good thing as well.
I know that many in Gilmore are not yet using the internet or Facebook for their news, so the TV is still our primary provider of news. It has done an amazing job over many decades, and I have a great deal of respect for most members of our media. I find them to be fair about issues, for the most part. They are not always on my side, but they at least give me a chance to have my say and put an alternative point of view forward. I do not always like the clips they show, but that is okay; that is the way it is. I support the legislation as it will retain many regional jobs and we will still get great regional news.
There have been three parts to this change. It is about proposing a market aggregation. This process has been happening since the 1980s, with a gradual change here and a gradual change there. This is not actually a new concept; it has been going on for a very long time. A lot of the legislative framework is already there, but that was determined a long time ago—about the time when I was about five and this great big box came into the lounge room. It was about six feet by four feet by however much. It was Easter time. It was our first TV. I played with the box. I was not really interested in the TV, because I was only little. This legislation has been around for a very long time. It is time to tweak it. It is time to fix it. It is time to sort it. Indeed, later on, when there is different technology, it will need to be tweaked and changed again. With only three media platforms—newspapers, TV and radio—the legislation was appropriate; but with smartphones, social media and streaming services, it absolutely isn't. It is totally unfair. This includes the '75 per cent audience reach rule', which prohibits either a person in their own right or as a director of one or more companies from controlling commercial television broadcasting licences, which actually caused grief in my area. It meant that those other services were supplying the news, the items and the articles for many of my people who could not get it. I think it is a grand idea to change it. In the digital media environment, this rule is redundant.
Digital media can reach anywhere, wherever you have a phone or wherever you have reception for it or wherever you are connected to the internet. You can get anything from anywhere. There are no limits. Viewers can already receive heaps of video and audio media services, including even the streamed versions of the metropolitan television services. I am not much interested in what is going on in metropolitan news, but sometimes I need to know what is going on in the cities as well. I am much more interested in what is going on in my area. Two of the three metropolitan commercial stations already provide streamed versions going across Australia. We have already got quite a coverage going on. Viewers in regional areas already receive the same number of commercial television services and substantially the same commercial television programming, including news, as their metro counterparts. I would much prefer to have our regions retained. Any merger between metro and regional commercial TV broadcasters, should this occur, would generally involve the replacement of one television voice with another, due to the fact that metro and regional networks generally operate in separate licence areas. Media transactions would still be subject to general competition laws, and the government will ask the ACCC to update their media merger guidance accordingly.
Together, the repeal of the 75 per cent audience reach rule and the two-out-of-three rule will reduce the regulatory burden on the media industry. It will allow the media business to operate more flexibly in the market and help ensure it can continue to provide high quality news and entertainment services to Australians. The two-out-of-three rule restricts traditional media companies from optimising the scale and scope of their operations and from accessing resources, capital and management expertise in other sectors, which of course any business needs to be able to access, especially these days when things are expanding so much. You need to be able to tap into other areas to get all sorts of help in many different ways. At the same time, other unregulated platforms—YouTube and Facebook—are free to consolidate and adapt their businesses as much as they like, subject to wider considerations like competition rules. From a consumer perspective, online media is no longer viewed as something distinct from the more traditional media platforms. Audiences in Australia and overseas now use multiple sources such as news organisations, and multiple media platforms such as online social media, television, radio and newspapers to discover and access news. I know for one that most of my family, my young kids, access their news on Facebook. Heaven forbid, I am a bit worried about that. I would hope they go to some more reliable sources as well.
Changes to this rule would only have a material impact on the capital city markets in Darwin and Hobart. Most of the other places are generally going to be in advance of that. In most regional and remote markets, the removal of the two-out-of-three rule will have minimal impact. In 62 of the 99 regional and remote radio licence areas in Australia, which is 63 per cent, the current media outlets do not include operations from all three regulated platforms: commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers. The removal of the rule would therefore have no bearing on cross-media ownership in these markets. In 10 of the remaining 37 licence areas, further media consolidation of any sort will be prohibited, because they are all at or below the diversity floor of a minimum of four voices under the 5/4 rule. Only in 27 of the 99 regional and remote radio licence areas, which is 27 per cent or just over, could any acquisition or merger activity take place as a result of the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. So it is basically just under a third. Media transactions will still be subject to the ACCC. Together, these two different changes will help ensure that these businesses can continue to provide high quality news to all of us.
I think the last measure, that of establishing new local content obligations, is probably the most critical for any regional MP. This measure is needed to make sure that regional Australians, such as all my people in Gilmore, can have access to the local content and the local news that they value. They are a bit like me; they are not that keen on news from Sydney. They want to know what is happening in their local area, particularly as summer is coming and bushfires are coming. People need updates and warnings; it has to be local. The new obligations will apply to regional commercial television broadcasters, subject to what is called a 'trigger event'. This is where, as a result of a change in control, they become part of a group of commercial broadcasting licensees whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. These new obligations will apply to licensees as a trade-off for the opportunity to use new possibilities and improve the efficiency of their operations. The bill specifies a minimum amount of local content which licensees must broadcast each week to applicable local content areas, depending on the type of licence area and whether a trigger event has occurred. Points are pretty hard to get, so this is important. Where there is no trigger event, licensees in aggregated markets must continue to meet the 720-point requirement over a six-week period.
So the public can rest assured that there is still going to be an enormous amount of local content, especially when you look at how many points that broadcasters can achieve by putting in certain content. They get three points—just three points—for broadcasting during the eligible periods, which is when more people are looking at it, instead of the two- to four o'clock in the morning period. For broadcasting something that has not been previously broadcast, they get three points. If it is absolutely local content, it is three points. If it is local news, it is three points. If it is only just a little line item in the news, it is just two points. If it is any other material for a regional area, it is just two points. Seven hundred and twenty points is a lot for a regional TV station to get, so we can rest assured that we are going to get our local content. Licensees in non-aggregated markets will not be subject to any local programming obligations, which seems pretty fair to me.
Where a trigger event has occurred, affected licensees in aggregated markets must meet a higher, 900-point requirement over a six-week period. Affected licensees in most non-aggregated markets must then meet a 360-point requirement over a six-week period. These will absolutely ensure that local programming is in nearly all regional licence areas following a trigger event, including where there is none currently. That means if they are walloping in a whole stack of other stuff that has nothing to do with the local region, at the moment they do not have to. It suits them better though; they get better advertising revenue. This bill will also introduce an incentive for local news content to be filmed in the local area, which will be built into the new points system. I have to tell you, as a regional MP, I really appreciate that because running a bit of film from some other area and then having my voice over a news item does not work particularly well for my people.
Licensees will be required to submit two annual reports on their compliance with new obligations, commencing 18 months after the trigger event. So there is actually going to be some follow-up to make sure they are doing the right thing. Additionally, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will be required to undertake a review of the effectiveness of new local programming obligations two years after their commencement. This is quite an amazing change, and the reviewers, the managers and I feel that it is such a great thing for our local region.
I need to have local news stories. When I put out an idea that I am going to have a forum for youth in my area, I use the local paper and the local radio stations. That is how I get the message out. Sometimes I do paid advertising, but sometimes it is on the news. If there is a special event, like funding for Jindelara, which is going to have accommodation for children with disability, or when we have a birthing facility in Ulladulla, my local people need to see that news. If it is Yumaro, who are getting some funding for their disability structures; or if it is my local cadets, who have been given a grant; or Riding for the Disabled, who are getting a grant—all of those stories need to be run by my local media. They usually like to be involved in it, because they personally like to run local stories. My stringer, Michael, has a favourite project, which we have managed to get $300,000 for. As part of the river wash every time the Shoalhaven river floods at a particular bend, there is the loss of about a metre or a metre and a half of shore. It is a favourite project of Michael's. He keeps saying, 'When are we going to get this done?' If we keep having a storm event every six months, which has been happening currently, then that river is going to wash out part of the 'sand track', as we commonly call it where we live, and that will cut out off the alternative South Coast route to get down for holidays. We are concerned about that. The community learned about the $300,000 commitment from the government to fix that breach in the river, and we can manage that. Eventually we will get the Green Army in there to plant, and it will be absolutely fabulous. I am so proud that that is happening. I could not get those messages out to the community without my local media. I think they do a phenomenal job and we need to support them in every possible way that we can. This legislation does exactly that. We will retain our local media content and our local people will be very, very happy to see the reports on the news of storm events, shark sightings when we have to get new shark nets out, bushfires and even car accidents that are blocking off the highway. If you or your family are intending to travel and you are tuned in to your local radio or tuned into your local TV at home, you can ring your family and say, 'Don't bother coming down to the coast for a couple of hours, it's blocked.' A couple of years ago, when there were fires at Jerrawangala and the highway was cut, people would say, 'Don't bother coming up from Milton, you can't get there, and don't bother trying to get south.' So, thanks to the local media.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (13:19): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, and I thank the member for Gilmore for her contribution. This bill will remove two media control rules currently in broadcasting legislation. These are known as the 75 per cent audience reach rule and the two-out-of-three media control rule. The bill will also require those regional commercial television broadcasters, which are subject to certain media control changes referred to as trigger events, to provide additional levels of local content to local areas in regional Australia—the member for Gilmore was stressing the importance of regional content for regional areas.
Reform is necessary and, indeed, well overdue. The existing media control and ownership rules were developed when the media industry was dominated by just three established types of media—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers. The modern media environment is significantly different as viewers move to online and mobile. Newspapers were the first to bear the brunt, with print readership plummeting over the past decade. News Corp and Fairfax have together cut thousands of jobs since 2012. In 2015-16, Fairfax reported a net loss of $893.5 million on the back of writedowns of close to $1 billion in the value of their publishing assets. Traditional television businesses are also in trouble. The audience for commercial television has been in decline since 2003, and there has been a drop of six per cent in revenue for the metropolitan broadcasters and 10.9 per cent for regional broadcasters between 2010-11 and 2015-16. Costs are also increasing.
As we look around the chamber, how many of us go back to our office or back home to sit down in front of a television to watch the six o'clock news? Normally, we either get the press clippings in the morning, already sanitised for us on what they think we need to know, or we watch things on our iPads or highlights of the news. We cut out the advertisements. Very few people these days sit down to watch the news.
Traditional television businesses are also in trouble. Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment and Prime Media Group recently reported falls in their operating profits in 2015-16 of 10.7 per cent, 7.1 per cent and 17.2 per cent respectively, continuing a trend of year-on-year profit erosion for all commercial broadcasters that has been evident, with few exceptions, since 2013-14. Clearly, that situation cannot continue.
These trends are forecast to continue as online sources of news and entertainment and businesses like Netflix capture viewers away from traditional media. Far from protecting Australian businesses and ensuring diversity for consumers, our media control rules now impede the capacity of local businesses to continue to provide quality professional journalism. Regional broadcasters and publishers are in particular trouble from high costs, falling revenues and online competition. None of us will benefit if major Australian media companies go out of business because of outdated rules. There will be fewer Australian jobs, less quality journalism, fewer Australian stories, and likely less regionally focused news. As one of the most diverse countries, it is important, as the member for Gilmore said, that we do get that regional focus for regional centres.
The 75 per cent audience reach rule effectively prevents the owners or controllers of any one of the major metropolitan commercial networks—Seven, Nine and Ten—from gaining control of, or merging with, any one of the regional commercial networks, notably Prime, WIN and Southern Cross Austereo. It prevents people from controlling television licences that together reach more than 75 per cent of the population. This rule now has no practical value for the following reasons. Firstly, viewers everywhere already get mostly the same television programs. This is because regional networks for the most part transmit programs from metropolitan broadcasters under commercial deals. Getting rid of the 75 per cent rule will not change what audiences see. Second, viewers can also receive streamed versions of two of the three metropolitan commercial networks' services, including in regional markets across Australia, online. Broadcasters also provide catch-up services which are available to national audiences. Through streaming, catch-up and other online services these broadcasters can already reach 100 per cent of Australians. Third, viewers can already receive a large number of competing online video and audio media services, including Netflix, Stan, Presto and Fetch TV, which are not limited by regulated audience restrictions.
To take a hypothetical example, removing the rule would potentially allow Nine and Southern Cross Austereo to merge, or for one party to take over the other. This would have little or no impact in terms of media diversity. With some exceptions, Nine and Southern Cross do not operate in the same areas. The combined Nine-SCA entity would replace the respective Nine and SCA services in each area, so viewers would continue to receive the number of television stations that they currently do, and Nine and SCA already share virtually all of their TV programs.
The two-out-of-three rule prevents a person who controls two regulated media platforms in the licence area from acquiring control of a third platform in the same licence area. For example, if the same person controlled a radio station and a newspaper in the licence area, they could not also control a television licence. The rule has only a modest impact on media diversity, particularly in the majority of regional and remote areas. In some two-thirds of regional markets no change is possible. In these areas either there are not three regulated media platforms, so the two-out-of-three rule is actually irrelevant, or no further changes are possible because other media control rules prevent new transactions.
The impact of removing this rule will therefore be limited to the metropolitan larger regional licence areas. For example, it might allow Fairfax Media to seek to acquire commercial television licences in Sydney or Melbourne, where it currently controls a commercial radio station and an associated newspaper. In Sydney and Melbourne there are multiple sources of news and information—nine voices in terms of the traditional regulated media—so any such transactions would not substantially affect diversity. There are also many other online media events such as The Guardian and The Huffington Post, news content aggregators such as Google and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Many Australians are turning to these nonregulated media platforms for their information needs. Any changes would also have to pass the test of Australia's competition laws. These operate independently, so just because a media transaction would be allowable under media control laws does not mean it would automatically be accepted under competition laws.
The new obligations will apply to regional commercial television broadcasters who, as a result of changing control, become part of a group of commercial television broadcasters who together reach more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. This change of control is referred to as a trigger event. Continuing the above example, if Nine and Southern Cross merged, the resulting Nine-Southern Cross group would exceed the population limit, and therefore the merger would not be a trigger event. Regional broadcasters in eastern Australia are already subject to local content rules. The trigger event will impose new rules on top of these existing rules, and the existing rules will continue to apply if there is no trigger event.
The additional local content obligations are aimed at ensuring that the removal of the 75 per cent control rule does not result in changes that reduce the amount of local content, for example by the merged businesses stripping costs by reducing local content production. Indeed, it goes further by increasing the amount of local content required to be provided where a trigger event occurs. Some areas, such as regional South Australia, will have regulated local content obligations for the first time.
The Turnbull government is committed to reforming legislation in areas where archaic regulation is holding Australian businesses back. This bill is yet another step in removing restrictive and redundant regulation and ensuring independent sources of news, current affairs and similar programming continue to be available to all Australians, particularly those in regional areas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Newcastle Electorate: Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:29): I rise to honour a team of Newcastle police officers who were recognised last week at the annual Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards here in Parliament House. I wish to congratulate the Restore Hamilton South team from Newcastle City Local Area Command for winning the silver award and thank them on behalf of the Newcastle community for their dedication and commitment.
The team won this prestigious award for the excellent outcomes achieved in partnership with the Hamilton South housing estate community, which saw local crime rates drop by as much as 15 per cent. Hamilton South comprises 20 per cent of the city's public housing and has a complex mix of social and economic challenges. However, not only has crime reduced, the project is also helping to address other issues facing the community like mental health, substance abuse and family violence.
The Restoring Hamilton South team went above and beyond to develop a deep understanding of the community and build trust alongside a multifaceted response. Police now lead monthly meetings with senior representatives from the New South Wales departments of housing, Family and Community Services, probation and parole and Education so the best targeted resources not only reduce crime, but also help residents address multiple challenges that they may be facing.
Congratulations to John Gralton, Steven Laksa, Dean Olsen, Mark Bird and Jeff Milton, who accepted the award on behalf of everyone who has worked in the Newcastle LAC for the past two years. This is an incredible achievement and a great model of strategic coordination and effective community engagement by Newcastle police officers.
Economy
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:31): Today is a great day for Australian jobs, particularly in the construction sector. I rise to celebrate how our government is getting on with the job of implementing our national economic plan and keeping Australians safe and secure. When there is a problem in the construction industry, it flows through to our whole economy, particularly in Victoria, where construction costs are some 30 per cent higher because of lawlessness in the construction industry and the conduct of union bosses. That is why today the legislation has passed in the Senate. We have restored the Australian Building and Construction Commission—a vital piece of economic reform.
We are getting on with the job of our national plan for infrastructure; we have passed our superannuation changes; the registered organisations bill has passed the parliament; and we have delivered a personal tax cut to 500,000 middle-income Australians. We have delivered some $20 billion in budget repair, making bank CEOs more answerable to the public. And we have legislated to protect our wonderful volunteer firefighters from union takeovers, which is an absolute disgrace. The fact that the Labor Party did what it did and deserted our firefighters is a shame on Labor. We are so proud of how we are standing up for Australian workers, putting Australian workers first, looking after our economy and delivering vital economic reform.
Sciacca, the Hon. Con, AO
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:32): I rise to speak about my friend the Hon. Con Sciacca AO—a great friend to many in this place and an amazing Australian. In my first speech in this place, I said there were people who had helped me to get elected. Con Sciacca was top of that list. For over twenty years, Con has been a tower of strength to my family. He paved and, in some cases, literally bulldozed, the way to help me become the member for Oxley.
Con is one of the true characters on the Australian political, business and legal landscapes. He is a Labor giant and there has been no better Minister for Veterans' Affairs in our nation. He has been a fixture in the legal profession in Queensland for over four decades and an enormously successful businessman. Con has achieved all of this while never forgetting where he came from and always remembering the positive and powerful change politics can make for working people.
As we head towards Christmas, Con is battling some serious health issues, with his beautiful wife, Karen, daughter Zina and precious granddaughter Grace with him every day. I know Con is strong and I know I speak for many of us in this place, across the political divide, that we are all thinking of you, Con. You are in our thoughts and prayers. There is no better fighter than Con Sciacca. Con, we are all by your side.
Page Electorate: Anniversary of Scouts Drowning Tragedy
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:33): On 12 December 73 years ago, Grafton experienced one of the worst tragedies it has ever had. It started as the annual Christmas picnic to Susan Island for 31 scouts and cubs. When they were returning home at 5 pm in a 12-foot flat-bottomed punt, disaster struck. About 400 yards offshore, the wind picked up and the water became choppy. Three older scouts jumped overboard to keep the punt steady, but a wave broke over them and caused it to capsize. Within 30 minutes, thirteen boys aged between eight and ten years old had drowned in the Clarence River. Men playing bowls nearby heard the screams and rushed to the scene in any boats they could find. They managed to pick up 18 survivors.
Those whom our community lost that day were Graeme Corbett, William Dillon, Cecil Lambert, Raymond Morris, Brian Munns, Keith Rennie and his brother Robert, Edmund Retchford, Alvin Spicer, Richard Steinhour, Dale Thorsborne, Allan Tobin and Robert Wilkes. Of the 13 victims, nine are buried side by side in the South Grafton cemetery. Three supervising scouts who survived, 17-year-old Charlie Penn, Rex Oxenford and Jimmy Doust, were rightly commended by the coroner for their actions that day.
I have spoken to Rex about this day. He, like many, was very brave, but has had to live with the images of this tragedy ever since. We remember them on 12 December.
McEwen Electorate: Breast Cancer Awareness
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:35): Today I want to congratulate two young women in my electorate who are working hard to raise awareness of breast cancer and to get funds for this important cause.
Kiara lost her mother, Michaela, to breast cancer when she was just two years old and her brother, Tom, was 10 months. Kiara, now 12, decided no woman should die from breast cancer and started fundraising in March for breast cancer awareness. Kiara and her team have worked tirelessly, wearing stand-out pink wigs and clothes at every local event, including the Wallan Market, where she got me putting on a pink wig. On 30 October, she had her head shaved and reached a new fundraising target. This young girl has raised a staggering $60,369. It is truly an amazing effort by an inspiring, hardworking young girl.
Another young woman who is determined to make a difference for breast cancer is Andrea Moiler, a 31-year-old mother of two from Sunbury, who was diagnosed with breast cancer about six months ago. She has since had surgery and is now completing her second course of chemotherapy. Andrea wants the community to know that breast cancer affects women of all ages. She wants young women to learn about self-examination, take positive steps and have abnormalities tested immediately. Andrea has raised about $7,000 so far, and has a fundraiser planned for this Friday evening at the Sunbury Social Club.
New Colombo Plan
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (13:36): I rise today to congratulate Eloise Adsett from Scarborough, who was this week officially awarded a New Colombo Plan scholarship. The New Colombo Plan has been overseen by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop. It was her idea, and she has implemented it well. It has bipartisan support, and the Governor-General is the patron. It is a fantastic plan, where young Australians can reach out into our region. It gives Australian undergraduate students the opportunity to do a semester of study and undertake internships in Indo-Pacific locations. Eloise will study in Meiji, Japan, and plans to undertake internships to do with nutrition and agriculture. She is actually the second member of the Adsett family to be awarded this scholarship. Her brother Joel studied in Indonesia for six months this year. Mr and Mrs Adsett must be very proud of their children. Congratulations to you both. They are the first family to have two siblings go through the New Colombo Plan, and they are from the federal seat of Petrie, which is good news. It is great to see young Australians achieving, and I know Eloise will be a great ambassador for Australia. I encourage other students in my electorate and right around Australia to apply for the New Colombo Plan and take the opportunity to study overseas.
Turnbull Government
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:38): Another parliamentary sitting day and another pratfall for the Prime Minister. Earlier today the Senate supported Labor's move to reduce the Turnbull-Joyce government's 32 per cent backpacker tax to 10.5 per cent. This is just the latest misstep in a years-long policy shambles from those opposite. This government has no-one to blame but itself for this debacle. If it had just consulted with affected parties upon introduction of this misguided measure, it would have known how bad an idea this was from the start.
The Turnbull-Joyce government created this mess and, unless it now accepts the Senate's will, the consequences will be on its own head. This debacle shows a government that does not listen, does not know what it stands for and will not take responsibility for its own shambles. It shows a leadership group that is utterly without public credibility, a Prime Minister who does not believe what he is saying, a Treasurer who is not believed by anyone who is listening to what he is saying and a Deputy Prime Minister who no-one can understand what he is saying!
It is time that this government started providing the economic leadership that the Prime Minister promised upon his ascension to the leadership. Those opposite promised stable government after the last election. What we have been presented with since then is the Turnbull-Joyce-Hanson-Bernardi-Christensen-Culleton government. What a shambles!
Kale, Ms Rebecca
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:39): On this momentous day, when the ABCC has been brought back to the Australian construction industry, I rise today to speak about one of my younger constituents, Rebecca Kale of South Perth. Rebecca is a bright young woman who, like many other students across Australia, has just completed her year 12 studies. On top of what is already a busy and challenging year for students, Rebecca has been selected to participate in the national finals of UN Youth Australia's Evatt Competition in Sydney next week. Rebecca wrote to me to advise me of her selection, and I was very pleased to hear she had such an active interest in the work of the United Nations and, more broadly, international diplomacy.
UN Youth Australia's Evatt Competition is a model UN Security Council diplomacy competition for students in years 9 to 12. It aims to educate our young Australians about the role we have on the world stage and assists in developing strong public speaking, research, negotiation and diplomatic skills. I encourage the involvement of all young Australians in foreign policy and I am very pleased that Rebecca will be doing the electorate of Swan very proud next week as she takes her place in the finals. I would like to take the opportunity to formally congratulate Rebecca in the House and wish her all the very best for next week as she puts her diplomacy and debating skills to work. I would also like to wish her well as she takes on the next exciting chapter of her life. We might even see her in this chamber one day!
Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:41): I have spoken many, many times in this House about how my community has been totally neglected by the Turnbull government's NBN rollout map. This is despite some areas of Canberra having the lowest quality of internet in the country. This is the nation's capital, people. I recently asked Canberrans to send me screenshots of their internet speeds, to show what it looks like to be living with substandard internet, courtesy of a substandard Prime Minister. The national average download speed is 13.9 megabits per second. Compare these speeds in Canberra: Shaun in Banks, 2.2 megabits per second; Carolyn in Tharwa, 0.3 megabits per second; Gregory in Fadden, 0.2 megabits per second; Karen in Evatt, 0.7 megabits per second. This is in the nation's capital. Karen runs a business out of her home. She is running a business using an internet connection one-twentieth of the national average speed. Her story is a reminder of why this matters. It is about small-business owners not being able to process payments. It is about students waiting hours to stream a 20-minute university lecture. It is about grandparents not being able to download photos of their grandchildren. I urge Canberrans to keep sending me your internet speeds, because these speeds are among the worst in the nation—the nation's worst in the nation's capital, thanks to this government.
Hughes Electorate: Community Awards
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:42): Volunteers are the glue that hold our community together. They are the ones we can count on in times of need to lend a helping hand and they ask nothing in return. And since 1997 the Hughes Community Awards have recognised the selfless work of the myriad of volunteers living and working within the federal seat of Hughes. These awards are for those living amongst us who do not ask for recognition or reward for their acts of kindness. This coming Sunday, I will be pleased to present the Hughes Community Awards for 2016. This year's winners include Dianne Foyle, Julie Godfrey, Maxine Gray, Abraham Stephen, Michael William Bretherton, Troy Adams, Graham Ware, Michael Zacharia, Gail Popplewell, James McDonald, Lara Giles, Maureen O'Reilly, Paul O'Neill, Faith Bancroft, Michael Peter Hodson, Jennifer Gormley, Allan Corben, Mark Henry, Alison Pritchard, Robin Gardner, Lloyd Hedges, Anne O'Grady, Coral Slattery and Berenice Nixon. I look forward to shaking the hands of every one of these volunteers and congratulating them on the Hughes Community Awards for 2016.
In the few seconds left, I would like to say thank you to all those small-business people who will be out working over these holidays, while many people here, in the Public Service and the ABC, will be taking very, very long extended holiday breaks. Many small-business people will be lucky to have Christmas Day and New Year's Day off.
Law Enforcement
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:44): It is becoming an all-too-familiar story: like many of my Labor colleagues, my electorate was visited during the recent election by the Minister for Justice, who came promising federal funding for CCTV cameras for Amaroo Village retirement homes in Gosnells and, for the City of Gosnells, the installation of local community facility CCTV. But it turns out that the promise meant nothing. The minister has backflipped on that commitment, sending letters to the City of Gosnells and to Amaroo asking them to apply for the funding that they had been promised! And in this letter he goes on to say that these community safety projects will be subject to government budget processes—a nice bit of wiggle room being created there by the Turnbull government, to talk away its promises to the people of Gosnells in my seat of Burt.
The City of Gosnells has one of the highest crime rates in Perth. More than 1,100 assaults were committed in the city in the first nine months of this year, as well as almost 1,300 burglaries. CCTV is not a silver bullet by any means, but it will create peace of mind for the elderly residents of Amaroo Village and for the users of the City of Gosnells's facilities, where there have been spates of burglaries just this year.
There are only so many times a government can break promises before the voters get fed up and tune out. My constituents were made a firm commitment during the election campaign, and I will be fighting every day to ensure that the Minister for Justice keeps his word and gives the Gosnells community the safety and peace of mind that they were promised.
Schools
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:45): The whole of Australia is grieving today with the results of an education study showing that we have fallen to 28th in the world—behind Kazakhstan, Slovenia and every other nation you have ever heard of—in schools. I would appeal to state ministers Kate Jones, Piccoli, Merlino, Close, Collier, Rockliff, Lawler and Fitzharris: reform your departments. Stop listening to unions and start rewarding achievement and progress and not just need. The more need you fund, the more need you get. Let us be honest.
Study maths and science through to senior years. Let us see that there are more maths and science teachers available to our states. We do not need any more health and PE teachers; we have got a generation's worth of them already.
Start rewarding high-performing teachers with more money. Take poorly performing teachers and retrain them—something that never happens. And let us of course make sure that we do not keep adding non-teachers to education bureaucracies.
Do more formative assessment of what works and what does not. Do more formative evaluation of our curriculum so that we improve every year and do not fall behind.
Let us end the racist stereotyping of Asian education systems. As long as they wipe the floor with us, those top achievers will take our standard of living and remove our prosperity. We must have better schools producing the greatest Australian graduates that we can. Let us no longer fund need, as this discredited Gonski model suggests. Start to fund outcomes, start to fund value and start to fund achieving schools and the principals that achieve it.
Health Care
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:47): It is with some sadness that I rise to inform the House about the loss of funding for the Kentish health service in my electorate, with four weeks' notice. They are now scrambling to tell staff that they have no longer got a job from 31 December—an awful time to be telling people that. They are telling clients that services will no longer be available.
This is all because of a change in the funding package to redirect it to coordinated chronic care. So we are seeing preventive health programs being given the axe in favour of coordinated chronic care. There is nothing wrong with CCC; it is needed. But, really, we should not be getting rid of the programs that help people stay well at the same time.
Before I wrap up, I would like to add my congratulations to the Senate, that great chamber of the parliament, which today knocked over the government's 15 per cent backpacker tax and voted for Labor's 10.5 per cent backpacker tax, which will keep this country internationally competitive and will make sure we get the labour that we need onto farms in this country, including in my electorate of Lyons. I say this to the National Farmers' Federation: 'You have a choice. You have a choice between 10.5 per cent or 32.5 per cent. That is the choice facing you. You can either kick goals for farmers, or you can play fullback for the government—but you can't do both.'
Parliamentary Friendship Group for Armenia
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:48): Australia is home to one of the largest diasporas of people with an Armenian background. Some 50,000 Australians trace their heritage to this part of the world. Armenians have long been part of the Australian community; indeed, the earliest migrants arrived on our shores during the gold rushes of the 1850s. More came following the tragic circumstances of the Armenian genocide. Most Armenians arrived, however, in more recent times, during the 1950s, '60s and '70s.
Those of Armenian heritage have become exemplary Australians, often playing leading roles in business, culture and even politics. Our relationship with modern Armenia—which celebrated 25 years of independence just this year—is an important one. I am pleased this has been recognised through the establishment of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Armenia, and I am honoured to have been appointed its first chair. I want to thank the many members who have helped establish the group, including the member for Hunter and the member for Bennelong, both of whom have been such strong supporters of the Australian-Armenian community. I also want to particularly acknowledge the advocacy of the Armenian National Committee, which has done so much to encourage the formation of the group.
In its modern incarnation, Armenia is progressing the development of its economic and democratic institutions, and the sharing of ideas between our two countries can help that process. Similarly, we can be enriched by a nation that traces its traditions and culture to ancient times. I hope that the parliamentary friendship group will be a vehicle for achieving these goals.
Work for the Dole
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:50): This lead paragraph in a Tory Shepherd piece featured in the Adelaide Advertiser is absolutely staggering:
A SEMAPHORE man dug through a pile containing asbestos while part of a Work for the Dole scheme, sparking fears for worker safety.
Unbelievable! The article goes on:
… he was sent to a Torrensville site last month.
"The first day, one of my tasks was to remove some material, dirt, charcoal from down the side of the premises. The next morning when (the supervisor) asked me to start digging into his material, I noticed asbestos material on top, right where I was working the day before…
This is unbelievable. He is then quoted as saying that:
He found it hard to get anyone to take his concerns seriously, even after the material had been identified as the potentially deadly material.
That is absolutely disgraceful. As is pointed out:
Just one asbestos fibre can cause deadly asbestosis, which is a serious scarring of the lungs.
This happened in late October, and this is significant because in April this year a tragic incident caused the loss of life of a Work for the Dole participant. The government has undertaken an internal review. It refuses to release the details of this internal review. And it refuses to demonstrated that the safety of participants in Work for the Dole is secure, and it needs to release this report right now.
Movember
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:52): I rise today on the very serious issue of men's health and also to explain the hairy abomination that has manifested itself on my top lip this month of 'Movember'. The idea of Movember was devised in 2003 in a great Australian fashion—as a joke over a beer of two mates, Travis Garone and Luke Slattery, with the goal of bringing back the 'mo' and doing something about men's health. Movember is a modern Australian demonstration of what De Tocqueville saw in America and what Burke described as the 'little platoons'—people identifying a problem and deciding to do something about it. It is evidence of a great Australian spirit of social entrepreneurship.
Since 2003 Movember has inspired support from over five million 'mo bros' and 'mo sisters' from 21 countries and raised $770 million. Money raised during Movember supports men's health initiatives, and I have chosen to focus my fundraising efforts on prostate cancer, testicular cancer, mental health and suicide prevention. I am very pleased to announce that, as of today, my mo has raised over $2,000, exceeding my initial goal. I would particularly like to thank members of this House and many friends from around the country who have kindly donated. I would also like to thank my friend and mo bro, the member for Leichhardt, for all of his sage counsel on the proper mo protocol, and thank my poor wife, who has had to put up with it this month.
I would like to invite any other members of parliament who would like to make a contribution, and people right across the country, to help support my efforts by visiting au.movember.com before Friday, when I shave the mo off.
Townsville Hospital
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:53): I rise in this place today to give a huge vote of thanks to the amazing and dedicated doctors, nurses and all staff at the Townsville Hospital. Whilst I have been here in Canberra for these two weeks of parliamentary sittings, both of my parents were admitted to the Townsville Hospital. They are both in their 80s. My father has suffered a bleed on his brain which has required two neuro surgeries within the last week. And my mother has broken a pelvis as a result of a fall when she was caring for my father. My father's condition is also complicated by the fact that he has dementia. The medical care that they have both received in the Townsville Hospital has been nothing short of world class. Because of this, they are on a recovery journey. The care that my family has been shown has been second to none. As you can imagine, this has been a stressful time for my siblings and my parents.
Queensland Health has been recovering from the devastation of the Newman government over the last 18 months. I want to send out a very clear and strong message to those opposite: keep your hands off Medicare. Stop the cuts to public health and hospital services. Regional communities like mine deserve properly funded public health and hospital services, and every citizen has a human right to Medicare. I will make sure that my electorate clearly understands your total disregard for public health and hospital services if you continue with these cuts.
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr DRUM (Murray) (13:55): Yesterday, I rose in this place to speak about how relieved I was that I had finally been able to report back to my electorate of Murray that we had found a resolution on the backpacker tax issue, and that the leadership of Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Turnbull had finally landed at a compromise of 15 per cent as a rate of tax for our working holidaymakers, down from the 32 per cent that the former Treasurer Wayne Swan put in place when he had the reins of parliament.
Mr Rob Mitchell: That's a lie!
The SPEAKER: Members on my left.
Mr DRUM: That was how it happened. The government consulted with the industry during the review process and was constantly told that anywhere between 15 and 19 per cent would be a competitive result that would enable the backpackers to make Australia their destination. But the strongest recommendation we found during the review process was the need to get this issue resolved quickly. The issue needed certainty.
Now, after we had reached a compromise of 15 per cent to enable us to get this issue through the Senate, we find that Senators Hinch and Culleton want to play games. They also now want to chase a rate of 10 per cent. It is interesting that last week Senator Hinch voted for 19c in the dollar as a rate of tax. So, in the course of a week, Senator Hinch thinks that 19c is now no good; he thinks that 15 per cent is no good; and, now, Senator Hinch wants us to chase 10 per cent.
I understand the Labor Party and the Greens playing games, because that is what they do, and they do not care about the damage they cause to industry. But, Senators Hinch and Culleton, I do not understand— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: I just remind the member for Murray to refer to members by their correct titles when he is addressing the House.
Pest Control
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:56): Carenda Jenkins, in the Herbert River Express, says it all: 'The bats are smelling out the place in hot, steamy weather. Pigs and rats are chewing through millions of dollars of cane, whilst feral goats are destroying the natural habitat of an offshore island. For decades, North Queenslanders have suffered at the hands of these protected species and protected areas. What needs to change is the laws before any council or group can enforce measures to ensure animals and humans can live together. At the moment, nothing will change. Let's be frank: the government of today will not do a damn thing; nor will the government of tomorrow do anything either.'
'In 2012, a lychee farmer south of Ingham bowed out of the agricultural industry after spending $400,000 fighting conservationists for the right to protect his livelihood against flying foxes. They developed a non-lethal electric fence that deterred flying foxes with a mild shock that scared them away.'
The life of human beings—deadly Hendra, lyssavirus, SARS, leptospirosis all count for nothing beside the brutal law of the state and its green shirts. Bats are in areas and numbers never seen before. The way our government of today is going, our economic health, our mental health and our prosperity are at risk because the lives of humans are second to the lives of these intruders—disease-ridden aliens.
We have had the most dreadful death depicted on 60 Minutes. Neither this place nor the state parliament of Queensland give any benefit whatsoever to North Queensland. (Time expired)
Groom Electorate: Pittsworth District Alliance
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:58): I have shared with the House the successes and the challenges in the electorate of Groom, particularly in Toowoomba and certainly around Oakey. The other important rural township of Pittsworth I refer to today. Too often in the media we hear that country towns are dying. Unfortunately, that is the image that all too often sticks in the minds of our city cousins. I will acknowledge that some regional towns are certainly facing challenges. Certainly Oakey is, as well as Pittsworth. But there are many towns that are embracing the issues they face and are doing something about it. Pittsworth is such a town.
Pittsworth District Alliance is a progressive group led by Mark Droney and his fearless executive. I have witnessed firsthand their passion for their community—and what a community it is. The Pittsworth District Alliance has launched a shop local campaign in a bid to drive the local economy. This involves a gift-card system that can be used through a normal EFTPOS machine at participating stores in the town. On 20 December at 5.30 pm the Pittsworth alliance will be staging their Christmas in the Park event. And I look forward to being there.
The Pittsworth District Alliance is a community organisation that gives its whole community a voice. I for one applaud that. Those who will join with us on 20 December will not be disappointed. They will truly enjoy the spirit of Pittsworth.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to a leaked cabinet document from within the Turnbull government marked 'sensitive' and 'protected'. Given the document refers to details of past and future meetings of the National Security Committee of cabinet, what action has the Prime Minister taken in response to this national security leak, and will the Prime Minister be referring this leak to the Australian Federal Police for investigation?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The document concerned is not a cabinet document. My instruction from my officials is that it was an exchange between bureaucrats. It was not a cabinet document as such, in the sense of being—
Ms Macklin: Why was it marked sensitive?
Mr TURNBULL: It was marked protected because it was dealing with matters that were to be submitted to cabinet, but were not in fact submitted to cabinet. I understand that the secretary, Mr Pratt, is conducting an investigation. I cannot advise the House whether he has called the Australian Federal Police in to do so, but he certainly should.
Economy
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's achievements, including how our economic reform—
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
The SPEAKER: Sitting is suspended until the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 14 : 04 to 14 : 40
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Public Gallery: Incident
The SPEAKER (14:40): I thank the House. Obviously, the action I took in suspending the sitting was a last resort, as members would know and have witnessed. I wondered whether we could plough on in the extraordinary circumstances and I made a judgement that we could not. Our purpose here is to conduct the business of the House and, for the period of time we have been suspended, it is very clear we were unable to do that. The dignity of the House would have been severely compromised had we continued. I just say that to members and I think we can resume.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:40): on indulgence—Mr Speaker, on your statement, obviously this is a very serious occurrence today. This is the most serious intrusion into the parliament since the riots organised by the ACTU in 1996, for which I was in the parliament.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: It is a statement of fact.
The SPEAKER: Members on my left and right will cease interjecting!
Mr PYNE: In 1996, the ACTU organised a barbecue on the lawns of Parliament House which resulted in a riot and the invasion of the parliament. Those people who were in the parliament would remember it very well—a drunken riot. This is the most serious intrusion in—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Obviously the members of the ALP do not think this is a serious matter—is that right? Members of the ALP think it is not a serious matter.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will proceed.
Mr PYNE: I would love to proceed without interruption, Mr Speaker. This is obviously a very serious matter—the intrusion of the parliament and the shutting down of question time, which, of course, is a courtesy extended to the opposition and to the crossbenchers by the government.
Mr Speaker, as the Speaker and as the person responsible for the House and the chamber, I would request that you conduct a thorough investigation because, obviously, if people are signed in from the public to the building and, in many cases, to the chamber, they are signed in by a member of parliament, in which case there may well be a trail of where the miscreants who disrupted the parliament came from. I think it would be important to determine that, and the government would also like to know what action might well be taken in the future about this matter. On behalf of the government, I would like to apologise to the rest of the members of the public who came to Canberra today to watch the parliament and had their question time disrupted. To the school students who are in Canberra to learn about their democracy, that is not the way democracy should behave. I ask you to conduct that investigation, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER (14:43): I will respond to the Leader of the House first and then call the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the Leader of the House. Of course every aspect of today's occurrence will be investigated and I will report back to the House on the matter. I am glad the Leader of the House has raised that. It was something I was going to say at the end of question time, but of course every aspect of it will be investigated. I call the Leader of the Opposition on indulgence, and then we will move back to question time.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): on indulgence—First and foremost, I want to place on record our gratitude to our security staff and the people who handled those protesters. I also want to add that the reason why the Labor Party stayed in here today is that we will never give in to those who wish to shut this parliament down. No matter what the protest and no matter who tries it or what issue they think it is, this is the exact opposite of democracy. Do we reward those who would seek to stop this parliament operating by walking away from them and giving in to them?
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
National Security
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:44): I wish to add to an answer. I am advised that, in fact, shortly before question time the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, Mr Finn Pratt, did refer the matter that the member for Isaacs asked me about to the Australian Federal Police and asked the commissioner to accept the matter for investigation.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Mr Burke: As I have indicated to the Prime Minister and to you, to make sure that the scrutiny of question time is not affected in any way, I ask for an indication from the government as to what time they now intend to close question time.
Mr Pyne: Ten past three.
Mr Bowen: What a joke!
The SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business and the member for McMahon—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting; I am addressing the House. We have had enough disruption for today. The length of question time is in the hands of the Prime Minister. We have raised this point many times before. That is a matter for the Prime Minister. The Practice is very clear. We are going to proceed with question time now.
Mr Burke: We're just asking for an indication.
The SPEAKER: You raised a point of order that was not a point of order. We have begun question time again. The Prime Minister has added to an answer. We are going to proceed with question time, and the member for Durack has the call—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Durack, Leader of the Opposition, was asking the question that no-one could hear, so I think it would be passing strange for me to not allow the member for Durack to ask her question that was drowned out.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Building and Construction Industry
Ms PRICE ( Durack ) ( 14: 46 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's achievements, including how our economic reforms are driving jobs and growth? How will the Australian Building and Construction Commission help to improve productivity and reduce construction costs?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:46): I thank the honourable member for her question. She understands very well how important the construction and building sector is to Australia—eight per cent of GDP, a million Australians employed, 300,000 small businesses. This sector, this industry has been subject to a reign of terror from militant unions—the CFMEU—who have defied the law for years ever since a Labor government under Bill Shorten, under the Leader of the Opposition as the minister—
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister needs to refer to members by their correct titles.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr Burke: You just had, on interjection, the minister for immigration do the exact same thing in not calling people by their titles. You either maintain the rules of this place for all members or you do not. On this day, of all days, you should not be letting people get away with that.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. I am going to go back to the ruling I made on referring to members by their correct titles, and I am going to address the House on this subject. I realise tensions are running high, but I would ask the Manager of Opposition Business to listen carefully to what I am saying, because it relates to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed to himself and to the Leader of the House.
At the end of question time, when I had sat members down for not using correct titles, I made a statement. You will see that that statement refers to a number of aspects about context and the like. There is another element as well that is well established within the Practice—if he wishes, through the course of question time, I can show him the reference—that special latitude on all matters is given to party leaders and, in fact, to managers of opposition business and to the Leader of the House. So, in this sense, I have exercised that latitude. I would exercise it in precisely the same way to the Leader of the Opposition, as I have on many occasions and, indeed, I did on budget night of this year, where the offences were repeated over and over again. I am going to ask the Prime Minister to resume his answer, and to refer to members by their correct titles. The Practice makes it very clear that is the case, and it was in my consideration when I made that judgement.
Mr TURNBULL: It was during the Gillard government that the Leader of the Opposition—the then employment minister—oversaw the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This was done at the behest of the CFMEU—once again, the Labor Party standing up for the bosses of militant unions, just as they have done again and again and again. Render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar, and that is the absolute obedience of the Labor Party, delivering for Cesar Melhem and all the other Labor leaders who have misused and abused their authority as leaders of trade unions.
We are restoring the rule of law to the building and construction sector. We took that pledge to the election, and the Senate has passed the legislation today, just as it passed the registered organisations bill, just as it passed the legislation to protect the volunteers of the Country Fire Authority from a takeover by another militant union, and just as the Senate agreed to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal that, again, the Leader of the Opposition set up—in that case, to defend the interests of the Transport Workers Union, to the disadvantage of tens of thousands of owner-drivers.
We stand up for workers, we stand up for families and we stand up for the interests of Australians and Australian taxpayers who are entitled to have a construction sector that complies with the rule of law. I want to thank the Senate leadership team, I want to thank the minister, Senator Cash, and I particularly want to thank the crossbenchers who supported the legislation, because they had the courage to do what the Labor Party would not, which is to recognise that the rule of law must be extended across our nation. Just as we expect Australians here in this House to comply with the law, just as we expect the law to apply in our streets, our towns and our schools, so it should apply in that sector of our economy which employs a million Australians. This is a great step forward for Australian families and for jobs and growth.
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. Ever since the government announced the 32½ per cent backpacker tax in the 2015 budget, it has been mired in complete and utter chaos. Given that the Senate has once again endorsed the sensible compromise of a 10½ per cent backpacker tax, when will the Prime Minister put policy above politics, take up Labor's offer to deliver this sensible compromise, and just clean up this mess?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:52): The Leader of the Opposition, when he is not pretending to be a champion of the poor and oppressed, when he is not pretending to be a tribune of the people, claims to be standing up for Australian workers, denouncing the horror of foreigners coming to work in Australia, stealing Australian jobs. Oh, his patriotic heart beats so hard! But, then, when it comes to backpackers, all of whom are foreigners, he wants them to pay 10.5 per cent tax. He wants them to pay lower tax than an Australian working in the field alongside them.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Mr TURNBULL: If he has his way, his message to Australians who want to go to work picking fruit is, 'You are going to pay a marginal rate of tax nearly twice as high as the foreigner from Korea, Taiwan, Norway, Sweden or Germany working next to you.' That is his idea of fairness. The hypocrisy of this Leader of the Opposition knows no bounds. He has no regard for consistency. He has no regard for accuracy. He is concerned only with seizing one political opportunity after another—no principles, no integrity, no consistency, no accuracy and no regard for the truth. Except there is one truth we all know about this Leader of the Opposition: he will stop at nothing to pursue his own political self-interest.
Economy
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (14:54): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's efforts to arrest the debt, increase wages for hardworking Australians and protect our AAA credit rating? How will the passage of the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill assist in this endeavour?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:54): I thank the member for Dunkley for his question and for his keen interest in ensuring that Australians can be supported by a government that has a national economic plan that is driving increases in job numbers and increases in economic growth. In fact we are leading the advanced world when it comes to economic growth and we will continue to do that with the policies and commitments that we outlined in the budget this year and continue to pass through the parliament. But, in particular, in addition to ensuring that the government lives within its means, you need to drive policies that improve productivity. In this place we have heard about the lawlessness, the thuggery and the militant trade unions that today have had a very bad day, because the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill has been passed in the other place, which will ensure that the rule of law will return to our building and construction sites.
This is an important productivity improvement. It is something that is good news for the one million Australians who work in the Australian construction industry. It is why our enterprise tax plan is designed to particularly support small businesses so that they can give Australians working in those businesses more hours and more opportunities to earn more to ensure that they can support their own standards of living. That is why we have taken into this place the enterprise tax plan, which is also opposed by those opposite.
In addition to that, by getting the budget under control, by ensuring that we get expenditure under control—and we have had over $20 billion of measures already, half of those on expenditure measures passed through the parliament—means that we are getting on with the job. We also have to protect the integrity of the taxpayers. It was about this time last year that those opposite voted against tax integrity measures that would ensure that multinationals paid their fair share of tax. That anniversary comes up on 2 December, when those opposite voted against multinationals paying their fair share of tax. And in this parliament in this week they are standing up for the rights of foreign workers, with the 'Federated Union of Foreign Workers' representatives who sit opposite.
Those opposite wanted to protect multinationals from paying their fair share of tax and now they want foreign workers to pay a lower rate of tax than Australian workers do. An Australian today on an average employee's wage pays an average rate of tax of 23.8 per cent. Under their policy, a backpacker, a foreign worker, coming to this country will pay an average rate of tax of 10.5 per cent. So they want Australians to pay twice the rate of tax of a backpacker to pay for their foreign workers' tax cut. That is not how you run a strong economy for Australian workers.
Attorney-General
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:57): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out appointing Senator Brandis to a diplomatic or judicial post before the next election?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:57): I knew that the enmity of the member for Isaacs towards Senator Brandis was an obsession; I did not realise it was infectious.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Member for Gorton! Members on my left will cease interjecting!
Tasmania: Soccer
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, thank you for your time last week and for allowing me to brief you on the proposal for a Tasmanian A-League football team. Obviously, a Tasmanian football team would be a wonderful rallying point for the community, would inject millions of dollars into the economy, would establish soccer as the only true national football code, and would boost TV audiences. Prime Minister, do you share Tasmania's enthusiasm for this project and what commitment can you make to support the venture, and in particular the modest improvements to North Hobart Oval that would underpin this very exciting endeavour?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:59): I can see in the honourable member's mind's eye that the 'Wilkie Wanderers' are about to take off. I acknowledge his keen interest in attracting a Tasmanian A-League football team, and also the interest of the Premier. So perhaps there will be a competition between the 'Wilkie Wanderers' and 'Hodgman Harriers', being the names for such teams. There is no doubt that soccer is a large and growing force in Australia. The honourable member knows well the question of which football teams will form part of the A-League expansion is a matter for Football Federation Australia. I am advised that the FFA will be providing all interested parties with more details of the framework for this expansion in the first quarter of next year. I encourage the honourable member to continue his advocacy for an A-League team in Tasmania.
Like the honourable member, and all honourable members, I believe, we understand that sport and the local infrastructure that supports sport and communities provides a wonderful rallying point. That is why we are supporting local infrastructure in Tasmania. Just last week, the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash, announced the new Building Better Regions Fund, providing $297 million for local infrastructure and community initiatives. The North Hobart Oval improvement, which the honourable member has referred to, is eligible for the Building Better Regions Fund and, indeed, is the type of project the fund aims to support. Applications for the fund open in January next year.
We are investing heavily in the infrastructure Tasmania needs to boost productivity and deliver the jobs growth that the state requires. We are investing over $2.1 billion to enhance Tasmania's status as the global hub for Antarctic research and Hobart as our strategic gateway to east Antarctica. That includes $38 million for extending the Hobart International Airport runway to support the Air Force's heavy lift capability and our new icebreaker, a custom-built ship, is due to arrive in 2020.
We have also made a number of other vital investments: $400 million towards the upgrade of the Midland Highway, generating more than 250 jobs; another $60 million for tranche 2 irrigation projects managed by Tasmanian Irrigation; $60 million in freight rail revitalisation; and $26 million to upgrade the Brooker Highway. As the honourable member knows, we are also contributing $150 million to relocate and expand the University of Tasmania's campuses in Burnie and Launceston. So, we are supporting a strong and exciting economic future for all Tasmanians.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER: I would like to inform the House that we have present in the chamber this afternoon a delegation from Papua New Guinea, led by the Minister for Works and Implementation, the Hon. Francis Awesa. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Building and Construction Industry
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (15:02): My question is for the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline how the Australian Building and Construction Commission will help restore the rule of law on building sites across the country.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:02): I thank the member for Berowra for his question. Today is a red letter day for the Turnbull government, for the Australian economy and for the Australian parliament because the Australian Building and Construction Commission, first created by the member for Warringah when he was the Minister for Employment many years ago, has now been brought back into existence by the member for Wentworth. This is a very signature achievement on our part. The member for Berowra might like to know that the last time that the ABCC was in existence, productivity in building and construction increased by 16½ per cent and consumers saved $7½ billion to their hip pockets because the ABCC helped to clean up building and construction sites.
The Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, deserves our absolute congratulations for the terrific job she has done in steering a bill through the Senate that had been defeated twice by the previous Senate in the previous parliament, that many people said could not be achieved and that was the source of the double dissolution election. This government steadfastly, sensibly and methodically got the bill through, along with the Registered Organisations Commission.
The Leader of the Opposition never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity—a phrase that might well be known to the member for Berowra. The Leader of the Opposition missed the opportunity on the Registered Organisations Commission, where he could have been standing up for the workers rather than the union bosses. Now, he has missed an opportunity to stand up to the CFMEU and to show that he is not a patsy of the CFMEU. He has missed that opportunity because he has $11 million worth of reasons why he sticks to the CFMEU like glue. It is another example of the abject failure of leadership by the Leader of the Opposition, making him quite unfit to be Prime Minister of Australia.
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. During the 2013 election, the Liberals promised they were on a unity ticket with Labor on school funding. After that election, the Liberals cut $30 billion from schools. Given data released today that shows Australia's results in school science and maths have flat lined, does this prove that this Liberal government should put an end to its chaos and finally properly fund Australian schools?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:05): I thank the honourable member for her question. As the honourable member is aware, the government is delivering record levels of school funding—the highest levels of school funding of any federal government.
However, we should be extremely concerned by the fall in our comparative rankings in maths and science revealed in the report today. Since 2011, in maths, we have slipped 10 places for year 4, from 18th to 28th; and five places for year 8, from 12th to 17th. In science, we have remained steady at 25th. This is a much needed wake-up call. It is important for honourable members to recognise that, during that period of that fall in relative performance—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has asked her question.
Mr TURNBULL: we have been spending more money every single year. The reality is this: that we cannot keep on managing school education in the same way that we have in the past. We need to change the way the money is spent. The reality is that we are spending more but we are getting worse outcomes. What the Labor Party says is, 'Spend even more.' They are not prepared to recognise that we need to invest in programs that will deliver better results. We are focused on that very need. We are seeking to address these failures or these declines in performance. We have got a back-to-basics focus on more teachers specialising in literacy and numeracy. I hear sighs from members opposite. Literacy and numeracy—that is what those tests are about, I would remind honourable members opposite. We are falling behind in that area. We have got to focus on it. We are ensuring more teachers are qualified to teach STEM subjects. We are ensuring that students complete a maths or science subject as a prerequisite to get a tertiary ranking and we are setting minimum literacy and numeracy standard rates for year 12s. I would cite the Grattan report on this subject released just this week, which says that money alone:
… cannot create a school system that gives every Australian child a fair chance in life. … It must be spent well.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: We recall what Ken Boston, a member of the Gonski panel, said:
The solution to Australia's education problem is not pouring more public money into education, but redistributing the existing funding strategically, to address the things that matter in the schools that need it.
That is our commitment: to do just that.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister update the House on how the Australian Building and Construction Commission will assist Australian industry, promote investment and deliver jobs for hardworking Australians? How does this compare to alternative approaches that would hurt industry and jeopardise jobs?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:08): I thank the member for Menzies, who along with many other members of this House and all of the members on our side, has long stood against union thuggery and in favour of the passage of the ABCC legislation. The reason why is that, when you look at our third-largest industry, construction, if you allow lawlessness, which is the approach which has been encouraged and fostered by the voting record of those on that side of the House, then you allow project insecurity to proceed, you allow higher costs to proceed and, as a consequence, you have lower job numbers. So this legislation which has passed today is about project security, it is about the rule of law and, above all else, it is about more jobs for workers.
There are two very different approaches. You can either support the rule of law—and more jobs in the construction sector—or you can oppose it, which they have done consistently. Why does it matter? Let us look at a couple of case studies. What we see in Brisbane is that they even allowed intimidation by the CFMEU in a project to provide security for homeless people, the Brisbane Common Ground project. In a case before the Federal Court, the court found the actions of the CFMEU amounted to a deliberate strategem. It found that a subcontractor who was not allied with the union asked, 'What are the consequences to my business if I bring my boys on site?' and a CFMEU official replied, 'You want to know what the consequences are? You would be committing industrial suicide.' That is the sort of intimidation that we set out to end. That is the sort of intimidation to which they turned a blind eye with their vote in the Senate today. They should be absolutely ashamed of standing by whilst intimidation gets the green light on their watch.
But it gets worse than that. The Pacific Fair Shopping Centre is home to many retail businesses on the Gold Coast. What we have is: a CFMEU official goes into the work shed of a subcontractor which is not unionised, throws all the gear out, throws the lunches out of the fridge and then, when asked by the subcontractors if they can go in, if they can put their lunches in, says: 'Get out of the shed, you scab. You're a'—extravagant expletive deleted—'piece of'—excrement—'mate. That's what you are.' Then he goes on: 'Maybe you can put Neil's stuff in the fridge.' Why would you put Neil's stuff in the fridge? Because Neil was a union member. At the end of the day, they stand for outright intimidation and thuggery. We stand for the rule of law and jobs. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (15:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister said the reason he sold out of a Cayman Islands 'vulture fund' was that his investment adviser told him to. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the fact the vulture fund profited from the suffering of vulnerable people was not a consideration, and is this why the Prime Minister stubbornly refuses to sell his investments in 7-Eleven, a company which is notorious for exploiting workers?
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:12): I addressed this issue yesterday, but I am reminded by the question from the honourable member that, unless he has made some changes recently, his own members' interests disclosure does not disclose where his superannuation is invested at all. Of course, if it is invested, as I suspect it might be, in Cbus, then he would know that that fund has many investments in funds that manage distressed assets. But perhaps what the honourable member should do is update his entry in the Register of Members' Interests so that he actually discloses where his superannuation is invested.
Skilled Migration Program
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of ensuring the 457 visas program acts as a supplement to and not a substitute for Australian workers? What are the risks associated with taking an alternative approach?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:14): I thank the member for his question. As we come toward Christmas, Australians will be thinking about this parliamentary year. They will be thinking about the performance of the Leader of the Opposition. They will be talking about whether they believe that this Leader of the Opposition is a trustworthy individual and whether his character determines if he could be properly considered to be the leader of this country. You know what, Mr Speaker? I think we have demonstrated at every turn during this parliamentary year that this Leader of the Opposition, on every test, fails the basic question of trust. He says outside of this parliament that he is supporting Australian workers, that he wants to put Australian workers first, yet we find out that, when he was the employment minister, he signed a secret deal with fast-food companies, including McDonald's, to allow hundreds of workers in to displace Australian workers. And, worse than that, he then said, to provide some sort of cover, that: no, no—he was bringing workers in to work in the mines; that it was the mining boom; 457 worker numbers spiked because he was bringing workers in to work in the mines. But he was found out, and he failed the character test yet again.
The difficulty is that it goes beyond that for this Leader of the Opposition because he is also, as we found out this week, signing other deals. He is signing other deals and he is consorting, as it turns out, through his CFMEU links, with criminals and thugs—people that have been convicted of criminal offences. And that is the reality of this Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting. I have asked him to resume his seat.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will not compound the situation. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I am trying to hear the Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Lingiari is warned.
Mr Burke: If that was not an imputation against a member of parliament for an improper motive, I do not know what is. He should be sat down.
The SPEAKER: The minister is reflecting on the Leader of the Opposition. The practice and the standing orders are very clear. It is not a question of what the minister might think to be the case. Members cannot reflect on each other in this chamber and they cannot reflect on senators. The minister will withdraw.
Mr DUTTON: Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw. Let me go to the substantive part of this point. There are 100 people within the CFMEU who have been hauled before royal commissions or have been scrutinised because of their illegal practices. That is the reality.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: The CFMEU has donated $11 million to the Labor Party—$11 million. There are many people who sit behind this Leader of the Opposition who are affiliated very closely with the CFMEU, and there are many people who would call themselves a friend of this Leader of the Opposition who are very intricately involved in the senior levels of the CFMEU. I will let the Australian public make their own judgement about this Leader of the Opposition. But we have seen, when it comes to 457 visas, and when it comes to this leader saying before the election that he would be on a unity ticket with this government in relation to border protection matters: you cannot take him at his word. There is nothing that this Leader of the Opposition says that he truly believes in, and he will say anything at all to the Australian people just to take this office, and he is not worthy, on any test, to become Prime Minister of this country.
Mr Rob Mitchell: No wonder you got sacked by the Queensland police—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will withdraw.
Mr Rob Mitchell: I withdraw.
Minister for Social Services
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:18): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister confirm that yesterday he wrote to me in his capacity as Minister for Social Services stating that he would refuse to table certain documents asked about in question time on the basis that the WA government asserted legal privilege over those documents, even though the minister was no longer a member of the WA government when he received them?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (15:18): I thank the member for his question. As a matter of background, and as was noted in the Attorney-General's statement, I spoke with the Attorney-General, the Hon. George Brandis, on 3 March 2016, and the terms of that conversation are very accurately described by the Attorney-General in his statement where he notes that I relayed my own knowledge, my background knowledge, of the Western Australian government's attempt to end the Bell winding-up. I also offered a view that a statutory scheme to bring the winding-up to a swifter conclusion and with a better return to creditors was, in principle, a good thing. I did note to him in that conversation that I had not been involved in any discussions between Mr Hockey's office and Western Australian ministers, and that I had not, at that time, the resources to form a view on the constitutional revenue aspects of the legislation.
The reason I went to see Attorney-General George Brandis was because, as also noted in the Attorney-General's statement, on 2 March 2016 my office had received an email from the Western Australian State Solicitor. That contained a summary briefing and slideshow of the history of the Bell matter, as well as copies of an exchange of letters between Dr Nahan and Mr Hockey. I did not pass those documents on to any of my federal colleagues or anyone outside my office; rather, because the issue was outside my portfolio responsibilities, I considered that the best course was to inform Attorney-General Brandis, which I did on 3 March 2016. I informed him that I thought it was advisable that he contact the Western Australian Attorney General directly, which I now understand he did the next day. I did not provide any documents to Attorney-General George Brandis, considering it appropriate that he receive any views of the Western Australian Attorney General directly from him. When I spoke to Ms O'Dwyer on 4 March 2016, it was, similarly, to put to her that, as Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, it might be advisable for her to contact the Western Australian Attorney General, which, again, I understand she did the next day.
I understand that yesterday correspondence was sent to Attorney-General George Brandis from Michael Mischin, the Attorney General of Western Australia. I am informed that, in that correspondence, the Western Australian government considered that the documents that were provided to me on 2 March 2016 contained repetitions of material relating to the Bell litigation which I was previously apprised of in my former role as Attorney General of Western Australia and Treasurer for Western Australia, and that the Western Australian government asserts legal professional privilege over the documents, as well as claiming a public interest immunity against their production in present and future legal proceedings.
Foreign Policy
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (15:21): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on the importance of strong leadership in dealing with international security issues? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach that would jeopardise Australia's international relationships?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (15:21): I thank the member for Moore for his question. Australia's national interest is best served by developing strong relationships with our major partners and allies—particularly on the economic front, because that also underpins our strategic and security interests. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a case in point. It has great economic benefits for Australia, but it also has strategic benefits as we deepen our relationship with China.
The Leader of the Opposition's hypocrisy and his troubled relationship with the truth are well known to this chamber and beyond, no more so than in the case of the China free trade agreement. Members will recall that the Leader of the Opposition endorsed a disgraceful, dishonest, xenophobic, anti-China campaign run by the union movement to destroy the China free trade agreement. Indeed, the lies and dishonesty in this anti-China free trade agreement campaign was so profound that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had to put out a fact sheet pointing out the falsity of the claims made by the unions that were backed by the Leader of the Opposition. The claim that there would be unrestricted importation of Chinese workers: false. The claim that there would be unskilled Chinese electricians on Australian worksites: all of this was false.
Not content with risking the relationship in this way—and it was denounced by no less than Bob Hawke, who said it threatened the relationship with China—we then had the Leader of the Opposition's incoherent, incomprehensible strategies on the South China Sea. Again, he was risking our relationship. Then, of course, he endorsed the behaviour of Senator Dastyari and his cash-for-policy behaviour.
I do give credit to the Leader of the Opposition. It appears that he wants to make amends. Apparently, he has appointed a special envoy to rebuild the relationship with China. So off went the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Don Farrell, last night to a major diplomatic event in Canberra. All the diplomatic heavies were there—the ambassadors and the high commissioners. Up stood Senator Don Farrell on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, and he toasted to the China-Australia relationship. The problem was he was in the Japanese embassy. The problem was it was an event to honour the Japanese emperor's birthday. That is called a major breach of protocol. Might I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition spend the Christmas holidays on a global apology tour.
Minister for Social Services
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:24): My question is again to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to the minister's previous answer. The WA Treasurer told his parliament:
We contacted the then Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Hon Christian Porter, who knows a lot about this issue.
… … …
We put together the draft bill. We showed it to him and we showed it to the commonwealth. We got a letter from the commonwealth saying that it supported the action. We would not have proceeded without that support.
Why does the WA government provide a different account to what the minister just provided? Can the minister now outline his entire involvement in the Bell Group matter, which is the subject matter of his letter?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (15:25): I thank the member for the question. Obviously, I have noted comments that have been made publicly by the Western Australian Treasurer, Mike Nahan. Obviously, when this matter became a matter of public note I searched my own recollection and cross referenced that with my diary. My absolute best recollection, which is supported by my recourse to my diary, is that there was a meeting with the Western Australia Treasurer, Mike Nahan, on 5 February 2015. We discussed a range of issues. I meet with Mike Nahan somewhat often. My recollection is that at that meeting he noted that the WA government was considering a legislative course to resolve the Bell litigation.
One month later, on 18 March 2015, at this person's request I met with Mr Rod Whithear here at Parliament House. He is the managing director of the Insurance Commission of WA. At that meeting he provided me with an overview of the circumstances pursuant to which the WA government was considering a proposed legislative course to resolve the Bell litigation. And, again, having cross referenced my own memory with a search of my diary, my best recollection is that I did not receive any further information or have any further meeting specifically regarding the Bell legislation until the receipt of that email—that, in my previous question, I have described—on 2 March 2016.
On 2 March 2016 my office received the email that I have described from the Western Australian State Solicitor's Office. Those circumstances have been the subject of an accurate summary by the Attorney-General, George Brandis, and the subject of the response of my last answer. And I just note further than, as I indicated in my conversation with Senator Brandis on 3 March 2016, I have not been involved in any discussions with Mr Hockey's office and Western Australian ministers.
Ms Macklin: You have with a lot of other people.
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is now warned.
Agriculture Industry
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (15:27): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House what measures the government has taken to support the agricultural sector and hard-working regional Australians? And how does this compare to other approaches?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:27): I thank the honourable member for his question and note his long experience in the agricultural sector. We have done so much to support the agricultural sector. That support is seen in the record turnaround we have had—record cattle prices, record sheep prices, record pork prices. We have had record prices in sugar. We have made sure that we have opened up three new free trade agreements. We have nine new live animal destinations. We have record numbers and a record value of live cattle going overseas.
On the back of this, we support it with infrastructure—real infrastructure. There is $2½ billion worth of dam infrastructure that we are now promoting and moving forward. In telecommunications, we have put in funds for 499 mobile phone towers and for a further 125 which were promised during the election. We have also put money on the table for the Inland Rail. It is something that never got anywhere under the previous administration. It never happened anywhere under the previous administration. Now, we have made sure that, with our investment into the balance sheet of the ARTC, this major piece of nation-building infrastructure is constructed so as to build a corridor of commerce through regional Victoria, regional New South Wales and regional Queensland.
We have put money on the table and have started the process of: the South West Loddon Pipeline; the Macalister Irrigation District upgrade; Dungowan Dam, with $75 million to further expand that. We have put $130 million on the table for Rookwood Weir and we have seen the completion of Chaffey Dam on time and on budget after getting the approvals through and putting further money on the table for that. We have started the $1.6 billion upgrade of the Toowoomba range crossing and we have launched the Sky Muster satellite, which is connecting 2,000 remote regional customers a week.
And you ask if there are any alternate policies. Well, we have one that reflects the approach of the Australian Labor Party—and, of course, that is the backpackers tax. We have seen that what they intend to do to the agricultural sector and the agricultural workforce is the same as what they did to the live cattle trade: completely destroy it. Even though a reasonable negotiation was made from the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer's position of 32½ per cent, we went about and put the money on the table so we had a period of time so that we could negotiate a proper outcome. But who destroys it? Who has only venom in their heart for regional Australia? Who is nothing but a wrecker? Who can't you trust? The member for Maribyrnong cannot be trusted. The member for Maribyrnong cannot be trusted to look after regional people. It is the only time he has let the member for Hunter off the leash. He lets the member for Hunter off the leash and it is complete and utter devastation for regional Australia.
Asbestos
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:30): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to ongoing concerns about asbestos entering the Australian construction industry through illegal imports. Has the minister had any discussions with her international counterparts about a treaty to combat the trafficking of asbestos? If so, has the minister taken any advice from her department about how to manage any conflicts of interest, noting her well-established advocacy for asbestos companies over the years?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:31): I am very happy to take this, given that I lived opposite those folk whilst they put the pink batts program into action. They sat silent and did nothing whilst four young men lost their lives. They sat on their hands whilst we had inferior goods coming in from China. The opposition's history on this matter is a history of shame, of inaction and of disgrace. By contrast, when we heard about this, we immediately sought advice, we immediately sought action, and—
Mr Dreyfus: You sought to misrepresent everything.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Mr HUNT: you are the last person—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs has been warned.
Mr HUNT: from your role in the Home Insulation Program, to show any form of piety or any sort of concern after the practised inaction while real things happened on your watch.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance. I can understand them not wanting to talk about the conflicts of interest on asbestos for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but that was the question.
The SPEAKER: Has the Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science concluded his question?
Mr HUNT: Yes.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: That is a disgraceful slur from the Manager of Opposition Business and he should withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: I did not hear the manager—
Mr Pyne: It was said at the dispatch box.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House would appreciate that, even when things are said at the dispatch box, if there are loud interjections on both sides—and this is not a critical point I make of the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, but he was responding to some interjections as well. If the Manager of Opposition Business has said something unparliamentary, in the interests of the House, I would ask him to withdraw. I do not think the Leader of the House was referring to the question. He was referring to something you said as you finished your point of order.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: If members on my right wish for me to deal with this, they will cease interjecting; otherwise, we will have to move on.
Mr Burke: I referred to the question being about conflicts of interest, which it was.
The SPEAKER: We will need to move onto the next question. Of course, it is open to any member, if they claim to have been misrepresented in any way, to seek the call at the end of question time or to use other forms of the House.
Australian Defence Force
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (15:33): My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the measures the government is implementing to improve the mental health of our Australian Defence Force members and veterans?
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) (15:34): I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and note her ongoing concern for the welfare and wellbeing of the veterans in her electorate.
Today, the government released the preliminary findings of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's study, Incidence of suicide among serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force personnel 2001–2014. The figures released today are the first accurate, robust data ever produced on the incidence of suicide amongst the serving, reserve and ex-serving populations. One suicide is one too many, and the government is committed to addressing suicide in our community. This is the start of an ongoing, long-term project that will help us better understand the extent of the incidence of suicide in the defence community and inform our efforts to ensure that the people who need help can get it.
The AIHW's study found that between 2001 and 2014 there were 292 certified suicide deaths amongst people with at least one day of ADF service since 2001. Of these: 84 occurred in the serving full-time population, 66 occurred in the reserve population, 142 occurred in the ex-serving population, 272 were men and 20 were women. When compared with Australian men demographically, the incidence of suicide was 53 per cent lower for men serving full-time in the ADF, 46 per cent lower for men in the reserve ADF and 13 per cent higher for ex-serving men.
In the wider community, suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 44. Men make up 75 per cent of all suicides. It is a problem we all need to confront. The government is acting. In the past six months, we have implemented non-liability health care for ADF members and veterans. This means that any man or woman who has served for a single day within the defence forces is eligible for treatment for depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse or substance abuse. It is free and it is uncapped. In the first three months since this has been implemented, over 1,000 people have taken up this help. We can and are doing more to treat mental health issues within our defence community, but this issue is something that all of us need to do everything we can to address.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Minister for Social Services
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (15:37): Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to correct a small matter in the first answer that I gave to the Leader of Opposition Business. I did say that when I spoke to the minister for revenue on 4 March that my understanding was that the minister for revenue contacted the Western Australian Attorney-General the next day. I have been corrected; it was in fact the same day, that being 4 March 2016.
Minister for Revenue and Financial Services
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (15:38): Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer from question time yesterday. In addition to my answer to the question from the member for Sydney yesterday, I can advise the House, as I advised the member for Sydney earlier today, that I have not received written correspondence from the Commonwealth Attorney-General regarding the Bell litigation matter. I am also advised by my office that no member of my office has received written correspondence from the Attorney-General on this matter.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:38): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Schools
The SPEAKER (15:39): I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to properly fund Australian schools.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:39): The proper funding of our schools so that every child in every school in every part of Australia can truly achieve their potential is a matter of definite public importance today and every day. Today we saw the results of a study of the trends in international mathematics and science, which showed that Australian students' results have been flatlining for two decades. While we have been flatlining, students in countries around the world have been overtaking ours and achieving much better results in years 4 and 8 than our Australian students. In fact, Australia has fallen as by as much as 10 places in global rankings since the last survey just five years ago, with Kazakhstan and Slovenia now outperforming us.
I used to hate it when Kim Beazley used to say 'even Slovenia has better, faster internet than Australia'. Slovenia is a terrific country—it is where my parents are from—but the gross domestic product per capita of Slovenia is about US$21,000 a year. The gross domestic product per person in Kazakhstan is about US$10½ thousand per year. I have used US dollars for the sake of comparison. In Australia, that figure is about $56,000, so you can see why I say it is extraordinary that countries such as Slovenia and Kazakhstan are able to invest in a way that has seen their kids overtake Australian kids in maths and science.
Dr Sue Thomson from the Australian Council for Educational Research says this a wake-up call. She says:
We're the middle of the pack, our achievement is average … and if we continue to accept that we are doing a disservice to future generations …
From these results, we know that there are particular groups of kids who are really struggling. We know that kids in remote communities, Indigenous kids, kids from non-English-speaking backgrounds and kids from poorer households are really struggling. That is exactly the reason we introduced a Gonski needs-based funding system. We introduced it so that we could direct the greatest resources to the kids that needed the most help.
We also see from this work that kids who are gifted and talented are not achieving their full potential. If you look at a system like Singapore's, so many more of their high-achieving kids really achieve at the top band. In Australia, those figures are disappointing. That is why we said that the needs-based education funding system should not only help the poorest kids, the kids who are struggling; it should also mean that kids who are gifted and talented can get the help they need to make the most of their gifts.
It is also why we said we were not just going to put extra funding in; we were going to attach conditions to that extra funding. We attached conditions about improving teacher quality, improving teacher training, giving principals more say in their schools—a whole range of conditions. What is really disappointing from this government is not just that they have cut $30 billion from our schools—and that is pretty disappointing—but that they have also cut the transparency and accountability and school improvement measures.
We wanted to achieve more with this extra funding. Christopher Pyne, when he was the education minister, said, 'I'm not going to interfere with how schools run themselves.' We said at the last election that with our extra funding we wanted to get Australia back into the top five in the world for maths, reading and science. We were determined to improve school completion rates. We were determined to see better-trained teachers—and more of them—more students studying maths or science to year 12, more coding in schools and better support for students with a disability.
The schools I have visited in the early years of the flow-out of the needs-based funding are already seeing the results delivered in their schools. Merrylands school, in the shadow Treasurer's electorate, has doubled the proportion of its kids being offered places in university. I visited Minimbah school in Armidale in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate, which has hired more Aboriginal teachers because they think it is really important for their Aboriginal kids to have the great role models that those teachers provide. We see those improvements everywhere we go.
What is really frustrating is the remarkable inconsistency of those opposite. In 2012 we saw plenty of Liberals prepared to stand up beside teachers and parents in their communities with pictures such as the one I have here that says 'I give a Gonski' and pretend that they supported needs-based funding in their schools.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The member for Sydney will resume her seat. Any more props and I will be getting people to leave under standing order 94(a).
Ms PLIBERSEK: They were very happy to get the publicity back in the day but, in early 2013, the then shadow education minister described Labor's plan to properly fund schools as a 'conski' and said that they were never going to have a bar of it; they were not going to put a dollar into it. It was so unpopular with teachers and parents and other people who care about kids that, just a month before the 2013 election, they had to completely reverse themselves—completely back out. They had to say, 'not a dollar difference'. They had to say they were on a unity ticket with Labor on schools funding. In fact, they even paid for posters to be made for their electorates for election day.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat. I call the member for Mitchell.
An honourable member interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warned about using props. I will not have this House made a mockery of. The member for Sydney will resume her seat. I call the member for Mitchell.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:45): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, because the government regards education funding as very important. Today it is concerning, as the Prime Minister said, when we do see—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lalor will remove herself under 94(a). She is out of her place and she is out of order.
The member for Lalor then left the chamber.
Mr HAWKE: This is an example of exactly the kind of poor behaviour that Australians are turning against—this sort of sham protesting, faux outrage. They are not here for an intelligent, sensible debate, but are instead holding up shameless props—which do not say anything, mind you, because if you listen to this debate carefully and you follow what is going on, if you listened to the Prime Minister today— (Quorum formed) Of course, it is good to have all my friends and colleagues here to talk about the importance of education spending, because this is a government that is spending record amounts of funding on education in Australia today. And it is to the eternal shame of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she storms out of here in a hissy fit because she is not allowed to use props in relation to a debate. They are the rules of this chamber, and the rules of this chamber apply to all members equally because we are here to debate intelligent points.
When you consider that this government is spending record amounts of money in education—every year, every Australian government has increased education funding in Australia. And it is, of course, a fact today that we are still seeing results in international standards and international terms in important subjects like maths and reading and writing that are not living up to the amounts of money that the government is spending. If you listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: Mr Deputy Speaker, the bells are still ringing outside, as though the quorum is still on. We have a member here on his feet as though the parliament is happening.
Mr Hawke interjecting—
Mr Burke: No, I am not blaming you. I am just referring to the chaos that is going on in this building at the moment.
Government members interjecting—
Mr Burke: Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order. You have a number of members there who are interjecting out of their seats. I ask you to take the same action with them as you took with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. No. It is highly disorderly under House of RepresentativesPractice. You know who they were. The member for Goldstein was one of them. They just interjected out of their seats, which is highly disorderly. Under standing orders they must be kicked out, and you have to have the same level of responsibility that you took against the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That decision is up to the person in the chair. That is me. Is there anything else on the point of order?
Mr Burke: I will wait to hear how you rule on it, but it is highly disorderly. Practice is stronger on very few issues than on members interjecting out of their seats, and that member and a number of his colleagues were not only interjecting out of their seats, but were interjecting while they were standing along there like some football mob. They were just shouting out and treating the parliament no differently from the behaviour we were complaining about from people in the public gallery. You will set the standards of this House, Deputy Speaker. You will set the standards on how you rule on this issue and whether the same rules you put on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition apply to your colleagues on that side.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:51): Order! Order! Order! The member for Mitchell will resume his seat. I will make a statement. During the MPI, members will be aware, I have shown a great degree of leniency over the last time that I have been in the chair with things that could be considered disorderly. I did warn about the use of props and, as to why the bells were still ringing after the end of the quorum, I am not sure. I now call the member for Mitchell on a point of order.
Mr Hawke: To the point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business: he was not present in the chamber, did not see the events and, if he was present in the chamber, he would understand what this was about. The Deputy Speaker correctly warned members opposite that the use of props was not allowed in the chamber. It is a longstanding practice of this chamber. You correctly advised them that if—and you further warned them that—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Hawke: I am speaking to the point of order; I am allowed to do so. You further warned them that, if they again used props in this House, they would leave the chamber. We were here. This was the proper functioning of the chair of the House—absolutely proper functioning—and, further, you were lenient on the deputy leader of the opposition when she reflected on the chair as she voluntarily left the chamber. She was not removed from the chamber; she voluntarily left.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell—
Mr Hawke: You absolutely acted correctly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: I will just refer to a completely different point of order: I raised the issue. I came in here to raise the issue about the bells ringing outside. When I was on my feet, I raised a second point of order about the highly disorderly conduct of those opposite and I asked for your ruling on whether they would be ejected.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My ruling is they will not be ejected.
Debate interrupted.
MOTIONS
Dissent from Ruling
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:53): I move:
That your ruling be dissented from.
Mr Stephen Jones: I second the motion and reserve the right to speak.
Mr BURKE: No. I am speaking on the motion. I am sorry, Deputy Speaker, you have to at least know that, when someone moves dissent, they are allowed to make a speech. If you do not know that, how are you running the chamber? What level of chaos do we have in the chamber, if you do not even know that someone is allowed to speak to a dissent motion? It is a dissent motion. There are no points of order during a dissent motion.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Watson can speak to his motion. Thank you.
Mr BURKE: Thank you very much.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Mr Hawke interjecting—
The SPEAKER (15:53): The assistant minister will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business—I am not seeking to interrupt you but, if I could ask you to resume your seat. I did not see, obviously, all of the events that unfolded, but let me seek to find a remedy, if that is at all possible. My understanding is—and I think the Manager of Opposition Business is probably in the same position as me; I am not sure if he was watching everything that occurred, and I was just in a meeting. My understanding is that the Deputy Speaker asked the member for Sydney not to persistently use props and, in addition, there were members behind using props.
I have addressed this matter many times before. The rules for question time and the use of props are—the practice is very clear, let me say that. It is not allowed under the Practice. I have taken a practical attitude when I see a prop, I ask for it to be removed.
When it comes to speeches, the Practice does make clear that there is more latitude to illustrate a point—there is no doubt about that. For members behind holding up props, that is highly disorderly. Members interjecting outside their seats is highly disorderly—that is very clear in the Practice. It is certainly not part of the standing orders but it is very clear in the practice.
What I would say to the House is that clearly the Deputy Speaker was absolutely seeking to ensure that the debate be conducted in a way where props were not improperly used. For those members sitting behind the member for Sydney holding up props, that was highly disorderly. The reason the Deputy Speaker, ultimately, took the action he did was that, clearly, he could not see a resolution. That is without me having seen everything that has happened.
What I would like to do is just suggest a way forward that is pragmatic, given that the House has important business to conduct, and we could spend a lot of time discussing all of this in an unproductive way. Clearly, if members are asked to resume their seats, they should resume their seats. Warnings are always an important feature of the debate, but what I would suggest is that, in the interests of moving things along, that the member for Sydney just resume her speech. If there is any use of props, this calm demeanour will evaporate very quickly, and I would like to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to—
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:58): On that basis, I withdraw the motion that I moved.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Schools
Consideration resumed.
The SPEAKER (15:58): In terms of where we are up to in the—
A government member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: It is all right. We have got very good people here who can keep the time—that is not the issue. The issue is where we had got to with the next speaker. The current speaker—the member for Mitchell will just resume his seat for a second. Was the member for Mitchell speaking in the debate?
Mr Hawke: Yes.
The SPEAKER: You are? So the member for Mitchell—and I have had the indication from the member for Sydney—can complete his speech. At which point, the member for Sydney will come back for the allotted time that is there. I now call the member for Mitchell.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:59): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was a heated matter. In leaving the chamber, the member for Sydney directly reflected on the chair in an unacceptable way, challenging the whole authority of the chair and I would ask her to withdraw that. It goes to the confidence of the Second Deputy Speaker system. It was maybe said in anger.
Ms Macklin: We're trying to find a compromise.
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is not helping.
Mr HAWKE: It would be appropriate if that was withdrawn, because the Speaker should be honoured at all times.
Ms Plibersek: Just to assist you and to move business along, as you have attempted to do, I am happy to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Sydney and I call the member for Mitchell in continuation, if he wishes to continue.
Mr HAWKE: I will resume talking about the debate on education, because these are the debates that the Australian public want us to be talking about—important matters such as education funding in Australia. I again reiterate my central point that, in this debate, the Australian government—the Turnbull coalition government that has been elected to govern Australia—is continuing the trend of Commonwealth governments in this country and state governments from 1987 and 1988 to this year, to increase Commonwealth and state funding for education. During that period we have seen that Commonwealth and state spending since 1987-88 to 2011-12 has actually increased by 100 per cent. When you total state and Commonwealth funding in Australia spent on education just in the last 25 or 30 years, it has increased 100 per cent. So we are spending a record amount of money on education.
So, of course, it is a valuable question to ask why we are facing a situation where we are seeing poorer results in international rankings. Australia has slipped up to 14 places compared to other countries. That is why this government has specific responses to the problems that we are seeing—not just in funding but in other matters in education that require key attention. That is what the experts are saying. They are talking about things like teacher quality; they are talking about effective classrooms; and they are talking about improving STEM. You will see in the policies that the Australian government is bringing forward that they are built on a strong evidence base, ensuring that we have directed strategies that will improve learning outcomes for all Australian students regardless of their school and background.
While funding is absolutely important and central, it is important to remember that, when you have a government in chaos, like the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, who run around negotiating with states money that they do not have—that they have to borrow, that they have no intention of living up to—that it is up to the next government that is elected to office to come forward and realistically deal with the funding mess that was left to us by a Labor government that promised the world without any intention of ever actually funding those increases in education.
Our goals for future reform include boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance—and the Prime Minister today spoke powerfully in question time about the need to boost literacy, numeracy and STEM. Sometimes members opposite scoff at these things, but these are core and central to the problems that we are facing in education. Our goals include improving the quality of teaching and school leadership; preparing our students for a globalised world; and focusing on what is most important within the education system.
The Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes plan that the government outlined earlier this year has more than a dozen initiatives: a back to basics focus on literacy and numeracy—and, again, we do not apologise for focusing on literacy and numeracy in our education system, as it is indeed central to this government's philosophy; more qualified teachers in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects; ensuring students complete a maths or science subject before they graduate; and setting minimum literacy and numeracy standards for year 12s. Through the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes policy, I and the government know that the answer will be in highly skilled maths and science teachers implementing teaching strategies that have been proven to work.
We are often criticised by the party opposite for not doing things in STEM. But in December 2015—not this year but over a year ago—we announced $64.6 million under the education and training portfolio as part of a national innovation and science agenda. This included expansion of the University of Adelaide's CSER digital technologies teacher program, with $6.9 million over four years to expand their unique online learning program. We have seen $8 million over four years to provide disadvantaged areas with access to specialist ICT teachers—and this was announced on 21 January this year; $4 million over two years for a pool of digital literacy school grants, expected to fund over 100 projects; and STEM partnerships with schools all around the country.
It does not stack up that all we need to do in our education system is simply spend more money. We must look at what we are doing. We must look at the quality of what we are doing. It is this government that will focus on greater quality outcomes, improving literacy and numeracy in our education system and making sure that the money that we do spend is wisely spent on the programs to lift education results.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:04): The problem with the member for Mitchell's proposition that Labor is just all about money and it is not about reform is that every piece of evidence tells you the exact opposite. If you have a look at the COAG National Education Reform Agreement, you see that it goes through four pages of the reforms that we wanted from states and territories. And who was it that ripped up this reform agenda? None other than the first Liberal education minister under the Abbott government, Christopher Pyne, who said, 'We want to treat the states as adults; we don't want to do the things that are in the agreement,' including improving the preparation of teacher graduates; improving the quality of induction into the profession; enhancing teacher performance and professional development; strengthening the early years of education; extending the Australian curriculum reform; strengthening school leadership; and giving principals greater authority to make decisions.
All of these things were already in the agreements that we had signed with the states, and they were destroyed by the first education minister of the Liberal Abbott government. And now they are wandering around saying, 'If only we had an agenda to reform teaching and learning. Wouldn't it be fantastic if someone had put some thought into this?' The work was done on an appropriate level of funding, and they refused to fund our schools appropriately. The work was done on a reform agenda that would deliver what we know matters, which is the quality of teaching in the classroom.
The flip-flops are manifest. In 2012 we had the Liberals saying, 'I give a Gonski,' and in 2013, 'Gonski has become Conski,' and, also in 2013, on a unity ticket with Labor, 'Not a dollar difference. You can vote Labor or Liberal; it will make no difference to your school.' But, the minute they get into government, $30 billion is cut from education. Years 5 and 6 needs based funding for schools—exactly what every Australian parent thought the Liberal government was going to deliver under Tony Abbott—was cut by $4 billion. In those two years alone, $4 billion was cut from schools. We now have an education minister who is off to meet the state education ministers on 16 December to tell them that they should do more with less; that they should teach better in our schools with a $30 billion cut on the books—with, on average, $3 million cut from every school in Australia. And he is now saying, 'Oh, and, by the way, we would like a reform agenda.' Seriously; if only someone had thought about this some time! It really beggars belief.
This government has been a mess when it comes to school education. It gives no certainty to teachers, no certainty to principals and no certainty to parents and, worst of all, lets down our children by denying them the sort of individual attention that a decently funded school allows. It says money does not matter. Only a government that wants to cut $30 billion would say that money does not matter. Only a government that wants to set state against state, system against system, school against school and child against child would say funding does not matter. Of course reform matters, but you have to have the dollars to pay for that reform. I will tell you who else thinks that is the case. The Liberal Party and the National Party in New South Wales are prepared to stand up and say, 'Yes, funding does make a difference.' The Nationals education minister in New South Wales knows what decently funded schools in remote areas mean for Australian students. He knows that these maths and science results prove that country kids are missing out—and they should not be. That is why National Party members should support needs based funding for our schools.
Those opposite say we do not have the money to fund this—but we can find $50 billion for big business tax cuts. Those opposite say, 'It's just spreading money around.' We actually spend less than the OECD average educating our children. Those opposite say that it is much better to go for tax cuts and that they are really a driver of productivity. The OECD does not agree, economists do not agree and I will tell you who else does not agree—parents, who will be voting at the next election on whether you are going to properly fund their schools.
Education ministers across the country will be meeting on 16 December and they will be sending a very strong message back to the government to say, 'Money does matter. Yes, we are prepared to reform our school systems because we care about the results our children achieve. We care about kids who are missing out.' What are those opposite going to do?
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:09): I was 19 years old when I finished my teaching degree and went off to teach in country Queensland. In fact, I know how long 19 years is because 19 years ago today I finished my last day of teaching. The reason I give that as an example is that it takes a long time to change an education system—nearly 20 years, especially when you are changing a fundamental funding model, which is what Labor put into place and what the Australian people thought they were getting when they voted for the Abbott government back in 2013. I could use some props to illustrate it but perhaps will not in the current climate. The Australian people thought there was a unity ticket on Gonski.
We heard the member for Mitchell saying we are spending record amounts on funding education. I just want to put a fact out there. Nineteen years ago, when I left teaching, there were fewer children in our schools. We are a growing country. Every year, there are more schoolkids in our schools. Lo and behold, that means we need more teachers in our schools and so our budget increases. So it is a misdirection to say that we are spending record amounts on education, because it is not the Gonski model. The Gonski model was all about focusing on kids with low socioeconomic status, Indigenous students and people who live in rural and remote areas. I stress that to the Nats because you have been sold a pup. The Nats way back under Whitlam, in the seventies, understood that funding going into the bush schools can make a significant difference. Adrian Piccoli in the New South Wales parliament understood what this delivered for the bush, either for Indigenous kids or in rural and remote areas. Education funding does cost a lot, but, as Gonski and his expert panel illustrated, this is actually an economic reform. It is not just a group of teachers getting around saying, 'We need to do this;' this is actually an economic model. Why? As the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study report and many other reports show, we need to perform better. How do you do that? You invest in schools.
I was waiting for the member for Mitchell in his interrupted 10-minute speech to give some examples from the schools in his electorate as to why the Gonski money is not needed. In fact, I am waiting for anyone opposite to give me concrete examples from their schools as to why the Gonski money is not doing good things in their schools. I can tell you: all 50-odd schools that I am associated with in Moreton, either on the border or inside the electorate, can give me concrete examples of how they are using the Gonski money. I spoke to Dr Greg Nelson from Sherwood State School this morning because there was a school assembly there and he wanted to have a yarn to me about Gonski funding. This is a high-performing school. He said that the school pumps the funding into targeted writing projects, especially for boys. They can finesse it that much at a school level. In science and maths, they are putting money to target boys' writing, something that the member for Lalor, if she was here, would appreciate as a school teacher as well. At Corinda State School, the principal indicated that they are supporting teachers by ensuring that they have ongoing refinement of instructional design and delivery. School communities know how to spend this money and school communities know how to get results. But the government have ripped $30 billion out of this program, when you gave a solemn promise to the people of Australia that there was a unity ticket.
We know it will take time to move the ship of education in a different, better direction, but we need to do it for economic reasons. Do you think the schools in Singapore are sitting around saying, 'You don't need to work hard'? Do you think the schools in Vietnam or China or Taiwan—our neighbours, whom we are competing with—are saying, 'You don't need to invest in education'? This is about improving productivity. This is about improving the economic chances for my grandchildren. This is why the Gonski promise should be honoured, because it will result in better outcomes for the economy down the track. We know that. Gonski, remember, was a banker. He was someone who understood productivity, not someone who was an educational expert, but by the end of it, when he looked at it, he understood that that is where we should be investing our money. I hope that those opposite remember that, particularly the Nationals, rather than betraying the bush, which is what you are doing by backing away from Gonski funding.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:14): It is great to rise to speak on this MPI today. Good education is crucial to the personal development of Australian children and to our progress as a country. In my local electorate I have introduced the Petrie Shield to recognise the good work that students in my schools are doing right throughout the Petrie electorate. It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton speak, a member whom I respect, as I know he is a former educator. When he said that there was a unity ticket at the 2013 election in relation to Gonski funding, he is absolutely right. I ran in that election; I remember it well. We made a solemn commitment to fund Gonski for the forward estimates for four more years, which we have done, so we are 100 per cent on a unity ticket. The member for Mitchell is 100 per cent right when he said that funding has doubled over the last decade. He said it is a hundred per cent increase. From 2013, when we took office, through to 2023, ten years from now, funding doubles; it increases 100 per cent. It goes from something like $12 billion a year to something like $25 billion a year.
I believe that the member for Sydney has misrepresented the government in this MPI today when she talks about, 'The government's failure to properly fund Australian schools'. The member for Sydney went on to say, 'It's not just all about funding,' but that is not what the MPI topic says, and that is not what she just finished her debate with. All she wanted to do was talk about funding. There is no dispute in relation to needs based funding. The government 100 per cent supports needs based funding, and I have seen the impact of that in schools in my electorate. The member for Sydney said the principals need more say in schools. The results in The Australian today are not great for the overall nation, but in Queensland we are doing quite well, and principals have a big say in their schools. The members opposite from Queensland would know that in Queensland we have many independent public schools that the Newman government set up—and that we have encouraged—where principals have a say, which makes a big difference in their schools.
We are doing a lot. The coalition will have a record increase in funding to $16 billion this year, and it goes up to something like $20 billion in 2020. We know that funding continually goes up, so I say to those opposite: every time they mention the words 'cutting funding', they are misleading the public. They are misleading people in their own electorates. I do not know how they can stand there and look at themselves and say, 'Oh, they're cutting funding,' when funding doubles over the next ten years. Give me a break.
Ms Lamb: Yeah, that's Gonski. They're doing well because of Gonski funding.
Mr Perrett: Have you read your budget papers from 2014?
Mr HOWARTH: It is going up every single year, Member for Longman, and schools in your electorate—and in the member for Moreton's electorate—will be better off for it. I know that in my own electorate, schools are particularly benefiting. I have spoken to the principals, and they have said to me it is great to see the extra funding. Schools like Bounty Boulevard State School, Mango Hill State School, Redcliffe State High School and Aspley State High School have had massive increases in education funding under the coalition. The principal at Aspley State High School, Jacquita Miller, is doing a wonderful job down there.
So I would beg to differ; I would say that school funding is continuing to go up. We know that we took to the last election a plan for growth. It is not just about more funding; we have to make sure that funding is sustainable in the long term. When the member for Sydney talks about a $50 billion tax cut, she does not look at the increased revenue—cutting company tax to make us competitive around the world will bring in extra income tax that will enable us to go into the future. The member for Sydney slurred the government when she said we do not care about kids. Guess what, member for Sydney? I have three children of my own, and the member for Mitchell has one and another one on the way. We do care about kids. I thought that was a disgraceful slur.
I would also say that we are improving STEM. There has been record investment in STEM. We will continue to do that. I have full confidence that the education minister, the honourable Simon Birmingham, will get this right. The opposition should work together with us, rather than be political on this issue, to ensure that our kids have a bright future. (Time expired)
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:19): Before the 2013 election, the Liberals talked about their unity ticket with Labor on school funding. They went to great lengths to endorse our policy and pledged to match our funding commitments. In government, they have done nothing but cut funding for our schools. Everything this government say about schools must be taken in the context of their $30 billion worth of cuts to schools and their failure to commit to the full Gonski funding. Those opposite are willing to stand here and play politics with the futures of students in my electorate and across the country. Parents, teachers and students deserve better than being used as a political football by this government. The Liberals have tried every trick in the book to distract attention away from their devastating cuts to schools, with every dollar the Liberals cut from schools robbing a child of the opportunity to reach their full potential. Instead of hiding behind the usual Liberal Party blame game, the minister should stand in this place and be honest with families on the Central Coast and across the country about the realities of their unfair policies—that the Liberals are cutting, on average, $3 million from individual schools.
Schools on the coast cannot afford these cuts. Local parents know that cutting $3 million from every school on the coast would be devastating. It would take teachers from classrooms, books from library shelves, software from computers, and dedicated extra support services from students who need it most. The impact of these cuts is very real. The funding would be enough to employ 192 extra teachers every year for the next decade in the Dobell electorate alone. For our students, these cuts will lock in inequality and uncertainty. In the electorate of Dobell around 62 per cent of people of working age did not complete high school. For a young person on the Central Coast who finds themselves without the support they need to finish school, what does the future hold, with a stubbornly high youth unemployment rate sitting just under 17 per cent? We, as local members, have a responsibility to reduce disadvantage, not make it worse; to invest in education, not cut funding; and to support all students towards a better future, not leave them behind.
Just last week this message was driven home to me at my old primary school, St Cecilia's Primary School, in Wyong. The principal, Yvette Owens, told me that I was always welcome at her school, because as a principal, an educator and a mother, she believes girls need to know that women from their school, their suburb, their region can do anything. I was lucky. I had great teachers and great support. My mum is a primary school teacher and my dad taught engineering at TAFE. Great teachers make a difference.
Mr Helyard, my year 12 chemistry teacher inspired me and furthered my love of chemistry. He entering me and fellow students into the NSW Schools Titration Competition. While many people in this place may not be familiar with this competition—it is a set of acid-base titrations to determine the unknown concentration of a weak acid—we need make sure that girls are given every opportunity to be involved in STEM subjects and exposed to a world that for too long was not open to them.
Only through proper education funding can we ensure that schools have properly equipped laboratories to allow as many students as possible to be involved in the sciences and have experienced teachers to nurture intellectual curiosity. Whether it is the Grattan report or the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study report, one thing is clear: the government needs to do better. Australia is lagging behind other nations, with government funding for schools lower than the OECD average. Our children cannot do better if we don't given them a chance. Australia's results will improve only if the federal government properly funds our schools. If the Liberals continue to rip money out of schools, every child in every school will be robbed of the opportunity to reach their full potential.
We need to be removing the obstacles and barriers—the social determinants of education—that make it difficult for students to get a quality education. The modest amount of extra funding that had started to flow in the first year of Labor's plan to fund our schools properly was starting to work. With needs based funding students get more individual attention—talented students get the opportunities to make the most of their gifts, and students who may need more help get the support they need to catch up. There should be a focus on every child's needs and more individual attention for students. We need experienced and passionate teachers in every school— (Time expired)
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:24): The Turnbull coalition government is a government of innovation and enterprise, of supporting the individual and setting people up to be set for their future. Investing in education is one of the best ways to do this as it equips students to be as prepared as they can be for whatever path they choose to take. Programs like the National Innovation and Science Agenda and increased funding to the science, technology, engineering and maths sectors demonstrate the government's commitment to maintaining a relevant and adaptable funding focus for Australian schools. The government has a long record of supporting school funding. Indeed, school funding has been increasing for decades.
This debate cannot be about funding levels, as the figures prove simply that this is not the problem. Australia has the fifth-highest level of education spending in the OECD and it is quite clear that the problem is not the amount of funding; it is the use of the funding and the quality of our institutions and educators. It is a well-established fact that to solve a problem you cannot simply throw more money at it. It is also acknowledged that while needs-based funding is an important aspect of how education is funded, Labor's claim that they introduced needs-based funding with Gonski is false—it is misleading and it is an over-simplification of an answer that does not solve the question. Commonwealth needs-based funding has been in existence since the 1970s and the states have needs-based funding also. This does not address the problem that was raised in the media this morning.
Unfortunately, Labor's corrupted funding model has meant that we are six years behind and have spent a lot for little gain in this direction. I am proud to be a part of a government that has recently committed an additional $1.2 billion over four years and is working to link further funding to reforms that will not only be needs-based, but, more importantly, outcomes-based. These reforms focus on minimum literacy and numeracy standards for school-leavers and ensure our teachers are properly trained, prepared and proficient in fundamental areas before they set foot in a school. I must add that the Minister for Education and Training is doing a tremendous job in bringing about these reforms.
The education and schooling system is not a one-size-fits-all system. The federal budget committed an additional $118.2 million over two years for additional support for school students with a disability. I was pleased to speak to all the schools in my electorate, via letter, shortly after the election to inform them that the funding guaranteed by the coalition government would be delivered. I have four special development schools in my electorate—Frankston SDS, Mornington SDS, Naranga School and the Nepean School—and I am thrilled that they are not forgotten when it comes to education funding. I am also thrilled to commit to local schools through my Dunkley Shield, which I deliver to all schools across Dunkley, recognising the student in each of those schools who has performed excellently and to high standards.
This is an area where we must have cooperation with the state and territory governments. Education is a shared responsibility, but these reforms can eventuate only with the financial effort of the states and territories. I note that the Victorian Minister for Education, the Hon. James Merlino MLA, last week introduced ATAR entry standards. The federal government has this as a measure under our teacher education ministerial advisory reforms. This is a coalition idea. So, Labor talks but never delivers.
The federal government is indeed providing a record $73.6 billion for school education over the budget and forward estimates. We inherited 27 different complex and inconsistent funding arrangements across Australia that have left us with inequitable outcomes. This is why education reform is so important—not only the way funding is distributed but also how it is implemented and what conditions it is linked to. The proposal of those opposite to extend the existing arrangements for in excess of 10 years would entrench and exacerbate the inequities, at the expense of our children, including my own little daughter.
We have to move on from debating funding levels and instead focus on how the funding is spent. We in the Turnbull coalition government have been making terrific progress in ensuring this. I commend the Turnbull coalition government on its investment in the future of our young people. They are our future and we must support them.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:29): This debate is on a matter of national importance and it is close to my heart. I have three kids in school. My oldest, my son Oscar, is mad into chemistry. In fact, he was trying to get me to help him with some titration the other day. I am now going to draw on the member for Dobell for some expertise in that space.
I know from experience, and I see in my community, that schools are at the heart of community life and the way in which school education shapes the lives and opportunities of young people. The proper funding of schools is essential because school education builds on the foundation of early childhood education, and in so doing it is the great determinant of full social and economic participation in Australia. It should be the mechanism for delivering equal opportunity and for reducing inequality but it has not been. That is why the former Labor government pioneered a new approach to school funding, a model that was based on evidence and rigorous analysis through the work of the Gonski review panel, a model that would see increased school funding and funding allocated according to need. That is important, because the task of properly funding schools is both a matter of how much and how. This government, sadly, is failing on both fronts.
Labor's historic needs-based funding reforms are based on the recognition that certain schools and certain students need more funding. Dr Carmen Lawrence, one of my predecessors and a member of the Gonski review panel, explored the connection between education and inequality—the way in which poor education leads to lower outcomes in terms of employment and other general measures of wellbeing and the way that children from disadvantaged backgrounds perform less well at school.
In 2009, the OECD noted that the correlation between a student's socioeconomic background and their educational attainment was stronger than in other comparable nations, and that is a shame. The fact is that Australia is becoming more unequal, less egalitarian, and this is reflected in our education system. As Dr Lawrence has pointed out:
As economic inequality has risen, so has educational inequality; each feeds off the other in a cycle of ever-decreasing social mobility. It’s no accident that the most unequal developed nations spend less on education, and have the most segregated education systems and the poorest educational results.
It is a vicious circle. It should not be. It does not need to be. That is the driving imperative behind needs-based funding. It can take us closer to the point where education delivers both a real equality of opportunity, which is far from the case now, and, as a consequence, it can reverse the trend of rising inequality.
But the Abbott-Turnbull government is undermining and winding back that work and those reforms, and it is felt sharply in my state of Western Australia. Western Australia receives the lowest average federal funds per school, at $694,000, and the lowest funding as a percentage of the per-school Gonski funding benchmark. That inadequacy is compounded by the approach of the WA Barnett government. Analysis released in September—which I encourage all members to go and look at, because it is based on the federal government's own My School data—shows that between 2009 and 2014 the WA government slashed funding to public schools by 10.6 per cent and failed to pass on Gonski funding. Funding to Catholic schools rose eight per cent and for independent schools it was 12 per cent. Whereas enrolments in public schools across that period between 2009 and 2015 grew by 22 per cent, as Western Australia grew, full-time equivalent staff only increased by 14 per cent. It is public schools that do the lion's share of work in this area.
Next week I will attend the graduation ceremony at Aubin Grove Primary School. It is the largest in Western Australia. It has 900 students. Though it has only been open for six years, this week Aubin Grove was recognised as the WA primary school of the year and its principal, Frank Pansini, was named as the WA principal of the year. I congratulate Aubin Grove.
I also acknowledge and pay tribute to Port School, whose graduation I will attend in the following week. Port School's entire focus is on kids trying to finish high school against a background of profound disadvantage, including homelessness, substance abuse and family trauma.
All these public schools need greater and better funding. That is what Labor's needs-based funding reforms were created to achieve. That is the only way to ensure we provide equality of opportunity and reduce inequality, especially for those who face the greatest disadvantage, and that is precisely why this government is failing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Before I call the next member, I wish to make a brief statement that some of the members on the Speaker's Panel have made. So I can properly represent my constituents, and advocate for my community, I will continue to exercise my deliberative vote. To that end, it is my intention to leave the chair before any division takes place. I thank the House. That statement has been made by other members on the Speaker's Panel as well.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (16:35): Before I begin my speech I wanted to ensure—just in case the member for Fremantle was not aware—that, indeed, there have been 16 new schools built in Western Australia since 2014. It is a well-known fact that Western Australian teachers are the highest paid in the land. So I think the Barnett government is doing a sterling job in terms of educating the people of Western Australia.
Turning to this ridiculous MPI, given that the Turnbull government is spending more money on Australian schools than ever before, the substance of this MPI really is an untruth. It is an irrefutable fact that the Turnbull government is spending more money on schools than at any time during this nation's history. We are focused on ensuring our young people are equipped with the skills they need to go out into the global jobs market—a competitive, ever-changing jobs market—and win jobs on their own merit. The Turnbull government is facilitating this through innovative programs that aim to encourage young people to access a changing jobs market and encourage well-rounded and employable young people to go on to higher education and skilled training.
We have introduced the Youth Jobs PaTH Program, which is designed to make young people who have finished their training job-ready with internships and placements. This is part of a broad program from this government to properly fund our schools, fund our higher learning institutions, provide pathways for young people and get them job ready.
It is worth noting that we have fixed the shambolic VET FEE-HELP program—initiated by those members opposite—which blew out to an incredible $2.9 billion with student loans programs covered by the scheme increasing a whopping 792 per cent. I bet that was not in the speaking notes for those opposite. We are decluttering the process for Indigenous Australians to access federal programs to help them attend university. And speaking of university, the Turnbull government is currently investing $16 billion in university funding.
There has never been a government more committed to properly funding Australian schools. But it is not just about the billions of taxpayer dollars flowing towards them; we are also switching the focus onto greater efficiency and onto achieving a greater bang for our buck. Despite what the member for Sydney and her colleagues have said we already have needs-based funding, with funds already flowing towards those schools that need it the most. The issue is that the funding model this government inherited from those opposite is broken and flawed, and we are not seeing the expected return on our investment that we should.
We are changing the focus from raw funding to a focus on teacher quality and on effective classrooms, and there is also a focus on effective curriculum. Regrettably, we have heard today in the media that we are lagging behind places like Kazakhstan and Slovenia in terms of our science, technology, engineering and mathematics rates. This is deeply disturbing. We need to change the conversation around this issue towards a more constructive one, focusing on how best to spend the hard-earned taxpayer dollars, not necessarily increasing funding.
This is especially alarming for me, as often in my electorate many of the best jobs require a firm understanding of these subjects. Just last month, I visited Geraldton Grammar School and opened their new STEM building, providing four general learning areas, two science laboratories, two staff areas, two offices and a store room. This will help equip young people in Geraldton and the surrounding region with the all-important STEM skills needed as our economy transitions to a more innovative and mature, skills-based economy.
Those opposite introduced this matter of public importance, and I think we all know that it is blatantly a falsehood. How can we be underfunding schools if they are seeing more money than ever? We should ask ourselves that. By that logic, schools were also underfunded under those opposite. Yet what did they do about it? Where was their responsibility? Where was their accountability?
This government is delivering a strong, holistic package aimed at providing support for schools and training right around the country. But most importantly, this government is delivering for regional and remote Australia, and providing needs-based funding to the schools that need it the most. I am particularly pleased to note that students in rural, regional and remote Australia have never had better access to higher education—something that those opposite did not care about and did nothing about during those six long, dark years when they were running the show. But thanks to this government, another $152 million has been invested in the regional students' access to education package. This package will help more kids from my electorate in the bush to gain access to tertiary education, and it is thanks to us.
The SPEAKER: The discussion is now concluded.
MOTIONS
Cox, Mrs Jo
Report from Federation Chamber
Order of the day returned from the Federation Chamber; certified copy presented.
Ordered that the order of the day be considered immediately.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents;
(2) express its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox’s family, colleagues, and to all who knew her;
(3) pay tribute to Mrs Cox’s extraordinary contribution to public life; and
(4) convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:42): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 10 of 2016—Report, 30 November 2016.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr GOODENOUGH: by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Report 10 of 2016.
The committee's report examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. Eight new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns and the committee has also concluded its consideration of a number of matters, two of which I will speak on today.
However, before I do so, I would like to take this opportunity to speak a little about the role of the committee and its statutory mandate.
The committee is one of three parliamentary committees established or administered by the federal parliament specifically tasked to scrutinise legislation against specified principles. Legislative scrutiny committees undertake technical assessments of bills and legislation against scrutiny criteria or, in the case of this committee, established international human rights norms. It is a different role to other joint, House and Senate committees which focus on policy merits.
The role of committee members has been and is to ensure that committee reports are legally and technically credible, as well as consistent with past practice. However, scrutiny committee members are not and have never been bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports and, like all parliamentarians, are free to otherwise engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook.
In performing its function the committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. The committee is served by an external legal adviser to the committee, Dr Aruna Sathanapally, and secretariat staff. Clearly, parliamentary committees such as this one have an important role to play in informing parliamentarians about the human rights implications of legislation and ensuring better understanding of human rights more broadly.
Two of the concluded entries in today's report are strong examples of positive engagement with the committee and its mandate. In the committee's previous consideration of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016, the committee sought advice from the Minister for Social Services as to the compatibility of the bill with the right to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of age relating to ceasing a mobility allowance for people aged over 65. The information provided by the minister indicated that there is a range of programs in place, including transitional arrangements, to assist in providing appropriate ongoing support even after the mobility allowance is discontinued under the bill. The committee therefore concluded, in light of this information, that ceasing the mobility allowance is likely to be compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of age.
In respect of the Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions 2016, which provide that decisions to terminate the employment of an ongoing APS employee for breach of the code of conduct must be published in the gazette, the committee sought further advice from the commissioner in relation to the human rights compatibility of this measure with the right to privacy. In his response, the commissioner noted that the committee raised valid questions about whether the limitation on the right to privacy is a reasonable or proportionate measure, and has undertaken to review the publication of termination decisions in light of these concerns.
I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's work. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 10 of 2016 to the chamber.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
BILLS
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (16:47): I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. The government is committed to removing restrictive and redundant regulation to enable Australian businesses to get on with the job of growing our economy, employing Australians and contributing to our communities. This bill is another step in that direction and will ensure that independent sources of news, current affairs and similar programming continue to be available to all Australians, particularly those in regional areas. These reforms will allow media businesses to gain the scale necessary to compete in an increasingly fragmented and global media environment while ensuring that Australians continue to have access to a diversity of sources of news and information.
Support for the removal of the 75 per cent audience reach rule is universal. This is an antiquated regulation which restricts commercial television broadcasters from optimising the scale of their operations and does nothing in a practical sense to support media diversity. The shadow minister, in her contribution, was critical of the government's rationale for removing the two-out-of-three rule. In particular, she argued that the existence of the internet does not really matter for media diversity and that of the top 10 news websites in Australia, seven of them are owned by traditional media companies. As usual, Labor does not tell the whole story. For instance, Mr Speaker, if you look at the Nielsen data on digital consumption habits for July this year, you will see that there were 28 news and information websites with an audience of more than one million unique visitors per month. Of these, 14—or half—were not owned by traditional Australian media companies. The fact is that the internet has brought us to an age where there is more diversity and choice in news and media than at any time in human history.
Of course, Labor misses the most important point, which is that these reforms are vital to ensure the ongoing viability of Australian media companies. The greatest threat to media diversity in Australia comes from not passing these reforms and seeing the failure of one or more Australian traditional media companies. If that occurs we will have the Labor Party to thank for it.
The member for Greenway also made much of her view that this bill represents only piecemeal reform and that it is not comprehensive. What is Labor's solution? They want government to do even less. They want to split the bill to pass some of it and ditch the rest of it. It is difficult to understand how doing less is somehow more comprehensive, but that is Labor policy for you.
There has been some commentary about delays to this important reform. In light of this, it is important to set out some facts. The first iteration of this bill was introduced on 2 March 2016. The very next day, on 3 March 2016, the bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee for an inquiry with a long reporting date at the opposition's insistence. As members may be aware, Senate standing orders prevent the Senate progressing legislation that is before one of its committees. On 5 May 2016 the committee's report was tabled, recommending that the bill be passed. The opposition reserved its position. Four days later, on 9 May 2016, the parliament was dissolved ahead of the federal election. On 1 September 2016, during the first sitting week of the new parliament, this bill was reintroduced. Despite it being the same bill and having had a comprehensive Senate inquiry conducted into it just a few months before, the opposition again insisted that the bill be referred for another Senate inquiry. This inquiry reported on 7 November 2016, and again recommended that the bill be passed. Mr Speaker, you really do need a world-class capacity for hypocrisy to on the one hand systematically use every possible parliamentary device to slow the progress of a bill, and to on the other hand stand up in the debate on the bill and criticise the government for the slow progress of the bill. You really do need a world-class capacity for hypocrisy, but happily it seems the shadow minister is well-equipped with that capacity.
The government has always made clear the importance and urgency of the reforms contained in this bill. What is absolutely clear is that the delays to this bill's passage at every stage have been as a result of the actions of the Australian Labor Party. If the opposition had any understanding of the media industry and any regard for the future of Australian content and Australian jobs, they would have given support to this bill and it would have passed in March. That we are now in November and still seeking to secure this bill's passage is entirely a function of the actions of the opposition. As a result of the opposition's decision to make itself irrelevant, the government is engaged in discussions with crossbench senators, with a view to securing passage of these important reforms through the parliament. The government will continue to engage constructively with the Senate.
To conclude, this bill is about striking a balance. Media regulations need to ensure that our domestic media companies have the capacity to invest in news production and quality journalism and compete with international media players. None of us will benefit if major Australian media companies go out of the business because of outdated rules. Media regulations must also ensure that appropriate protections remain in place to safeguard media diversity and ensure that all Australians have access to a range of views and opinions on major issues of the day. The government believes that this bill strikes the balance, allowing media businesses to operate more flexibly in the market and continue to provide high quality news and entertainment services to Australians, particularly those in regional areas. I call on all members to support the bill.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
[The House divided. [16:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:03): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit “Schedules 1 and 2”, substitute “Schedule 1”.
(2) Schedule 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 5 (line 14), omit the Schedule.
It is possible for this parliament to rise and be able to say that we have put through something that is a positive result for regional broadcasters—I am talking about the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule. This amendment encapsulates Labor's well-articulated position on this issue. We certainly support repeal of these provisions; we recommended this when in government. Not a single speaker who has spoken on this bill—very few from the other side have contributed to the second reading debate—has disputed the fact that the 75 per cent reach rule should go. The fact that we have the word 'reform' in this bill and we are still dealing with the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule simply indicates what a farce this entire bill is. In fact, you could have put through this provision in one of those many statute stocktakes or red-tape repeal days, and it would have gone through with, probably, very little debate. I note that the few members opposite—including the minister who did the summing up—who actually bothered to contribute to the second reading debate probably needed some updated speaking notes, because they seemed quite unaware that on Monday the Minister for Communications and the Arts did one of many backflips to adopt Labor's position on this bill. An article in The Australiansays that the Turnbull government is now trying 'to win industry support and deliver genuine reform of decades-old ownership and control laws'—I stress 'genuine reform'. Ipso facto, there is nothing genuine about any reform in this bill. The article goes on:
Free-to-air network television licence fees are also expected to be addressed in conjunction with the media reform bill as Communications Minister Mitch Fifield adopts a rejigged approach amid resistance to the current proposal.
What has Labor been advocating since the election on this bill? We have been advocating that a holistic approach be taken on this issue. I am happy to help. Imitation certainly is one of the better forms of flattery, so I am happy to assist the minister here. He has thrown in the towel. This is a minister who has thrown in the towel, and what do you expect, when you get commentary in The Australian—The Australian!—awarding you the title of most ineffective politician in Australia and likening you to Homer Simpson. What do you expect from this kind of minister? The minister has thrown in the towel on this matter. Minister Fifield 'conceded the government is unlikely to mobilise the necessary support this year.' The article continues:
Labor and Seven West Media oppose the reforms while Nine Entertainment wants to see the bill deferred until licence fee cuts are tackled.
That really does not correlate with what we heard the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, saying a short time earlier, when he was trying to indicate that somehow there was broad support for this. I note the headline in The West Australian from last week—again, maybe some updated speaking notes would have been appropriate for those opposite—'Media law reforms put on the backburner'. The article says:
A proposed overhaul of media ownership laws has been shelved until next year as the Federal Government battles to woo crossbench support.
Here is a minister who refuses to be pragmatic for the benefit of regional communities. We have the now Prime Minister, formerly the communications minister, indicating on some occasions that he was open to making sure that at least the 75 per cent reach rule was repealed, but this current minister is being obstinate and clearly he does not understand his brief. The article goes on:
Senator Fifield maintained that he would not split the package into two Bills so the Government could chalk up a win on the abolition of the reach rule.
What kind of a minister would not want to go into the new year with a bipartisan position on something that everyone recognises needs to go. The minister at the table, as we just saw in his summing up, is totally unaware of the latest evidence that has come in today, of all days, from the regulator—the ACMA communications report was tabled today. These people who take the 'because of the internet' argument are simply putting this blanket argument that we do not need cross-media rules any more, everything is hunky-dory. They should have a look at the latest statistics. I quote from the ACMA communications report— (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:08): I am pleased to speak on the amendments moved by the shadow minister, the member for Greenway, and to indicate that the government will be opposing them. The effect of the amendments would be to remove the second schedule of the bill, which is the schedule which gives effect to the government's policy intention to remove the two-out-of-three rule. Of course that forms one of the key limbs of the integrated package of policy measures in this bill, with the other key limb being the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule.
It does seem that Labor is rather conflicted as to what their approach is in relation to legislation in this area. On the one hand we have the shadow minister in her contribution to the debate earlier today criticising this as piecemeal reform. The Labor Party is proposing with the amendments the House is presently considering the removal of one very substantial component of this integrated package of reforms. On the one hand she says it is piecemeal; on the other hand her plan is to make it even more piecemeal. This is not a logical approach; it is not an approach that the government is prepared to agree to. What we have in the bill before the House is an integrated package of reforms in the regulation of media in this country.
Let me remind the House that much of the legislative framework governing broadcast media in this country was developed at a time when there were only three principal media platforms—newspapers, TV and radio. It was well before smartphones, well before social media, well before streaming services. One key element of a legislative framework which was developed in a different time was the two-out-of-three rule, and that rule, which continues to have effect on the statute books today, prevents a person from controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers in any commercial radio licence area. That is a rule that needs to be analysed and assessed in terms of its impact today on Australian media companies, employing Australians, with Australian investors—important Australian businesses. You have one set of businesses which are subject to this restrictive and prescriptive set of rules but at the same time you have other unregulated platforms owned by businesses all around the world, freely available to Australian consumers. Of course the increase in media diversity is a good thing, the increase in choice is a good thing, the increase in the options available to all Australian media consumers, thanks to the extraordinary development of the internet, is a good thing. But the parliament of Australia needs to be cognisant of the economic impact of fundamental technological transformation, and in turn fundamental economic translation, on Australian businesses. The reality is that from a consumer perspective online media is no longer viewed as something distinct from more traditional media platforms. Audiences in Australia and overseas now use multiple sources.
I do want to remind the House that changes to this rule would have a material impact only in capital city markets, and here I exclude Darwin and Hobart, and in a limited number of larger regional licence areas where for the most part sources of news and information are multiple and widespread and the maintenance of diversity is not generally an issue. In most regional and remote markets the removal of the two-out-of-three rule would have minimal impact. I also remind the House that media transitions would still be subject to general competition laws as administered by the ACCC.
This amendment moved by the shadow minister is not one that the government will support. It is ill thought through and it would undermine what is a comprehensive package of reforms.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:14): We have been advised that if this legislation is passed one entity could own all of the media in Australia. I ask the minister whether that is correct.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:14): If I understand the member for Kennedy's question, he is asking me if the measures in this bill were to pass would that allow one entity to own all media outlets in Australia. The answer is no, for a host of reasons. First of all, the existing competition law provisions would prevail, and there will continue to be other safeguards. I believe I am right in saying that the four-out-of-five rule would continue to apply.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Just before I call the minister, can I ask the member for Kennedy to speak and at the end we will get the minister to respond if wishes to respond.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:15): We were told this when the parliament deregulated the milk industry—that there are protections and there is the ACCC. The milk price to farmers was slashed from 60c to 40c because there was a monopoly. We were told this in the sugar industry, where the price that we get for by-products has been reduced to nothing and we cannot live with the price we are getting. We were told this in the tobacco industry, where you had two or three players. We have no tobacco industry in Australia now. We were given assurances that the ACCC would protect us all. I am very familiar with Mr Sims at the ACCC. They have very limited resources, and I do not think that they could take on the might of Rupert Murdoch, nor do I think they could take on the might of a Gina Rinehart.
We live in a country now where it is available to the rich and powerful to take over all the media outlets in this country. When I was young, that was one of the hallmarks of a communist regime—all the media outlets were owned by a single entity. In that case, it was the government. We could say, 'Well, it wasn't a very democratic government.' Well, there is going to be no democracy here at all. It will be 'He who has got the biggest chequebook can decide what you think in this country.' Obviously, the minister missed out a bit on his education because, if he had read Nineteen Eighty-Four or Brave New World, he would be looking into the gun barrel of the sort of society which he is creating.
When this was proposed, it was when I first came into this place, there were six members of parliament that were going to cross the floor on it. One of them was Joe Hockey and one of them was Christopher Pyne. That was in the media. These men had principle and they were not prepared to allow a monopoly in the media in Australia. Obviously, they have modified their opinions in the years since. Whether or not there is a corrupting influence in this place, I do not know. All I know is that they have changed their positions. It was said that three National Party members would have crossed the floor. I do not know if that was ever the case, but, most certainly, I would have crossed the floor on it.
This is a historic moment because control of the media—control of what people think in this country—can now reside in the hands of one person. The Liberals think they are very clever because the two contenders are very positive towards the Liberal Party. But my experience is that it has a funny way of turning around and biting you when you think you are going to do something for your own benefit. I profoundly believe that it is for your benefit. Is it for the benefit of the country that every media outlet in this country is owned by a single entity? I hate to say this, but the minister's name will go down in infamy in the history of this country. Billy Hughes decided that we would have conscription, and an extra 100,000 Australians died. In this case, the minister is putting the muzzle on free speech in this country because there is no way that you can get a licence to operate a television venue in Australia. That is not the real world. The ACCC will not give me a television licence; they are not authorised to. Are we going to open up a newspaper and compete against Rupert Murdoch? Is that what the minister is saying? I wish him well if he opens up the Betoota Advocate on the outskirts of Sydney, because that might be our best hope. I am going to go and talk to my mates there. It might be the best hope that we have of getting our point of view across.
These people think they are very clever with their industrial legislation. They took to the Australian people the proposition that we abolish the Arbitration Commission. Even though the newspapers and the media in Australia were almost unanimous in support of this proposition, they got annihilated. They have never said, 'We want to sell the assets.' It was only the LNP that was stupid enough to say that and get themselves annihilated, but the other mob over here— (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:20): First of all, can I expand on the answer I gave previously and correct a small misstatement I made. The rule that I was referring to is known as the minimum voices rule or the 5/4 rule. That is a rule, which is in the legislation now and will continue, that there must be at least five independent media voices in metropolitan commercial radio licences areas and at least four in regional commercial radio licence areas. Just to explain, there is a rule today, and that rule will be maintained regardless of the passage of the bill before the House this afternoon. That rule requires that there must be at least five independent media voices in metropolitan commercial radio licence areas and at least four in regional commercial radio licence areas. That is defined in media 'voices', but the reference area that is used is the metropolitan commercial radio licence area, or the regional commercial radio licence area. That determines the geographic area in which the rule applies. There must be at least five independent voices in a metropolitan commercial radio licence area and four in a regional area. Of course, a 'voice' can be radio or television.
The next rule that applies today, and will continue to apply—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): On a point of order, Member for Kennedy?
Mr Katter: In answer to my question, he has said—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It—
Mr Katter: It is a genuine point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen to your point of order.
Mr Katter: From his answer to my question 'Does it apply to television and newspapers?' I am not clear at all, and I do not think anyone else here is clear. Does it apply to television and newspapers?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy may have an opportunity to speak again at another time.
Mr FLETCHER: Let me expand upon the explanation of how the minimum-voices rule works. Step 1: you go to a commercial radio licence area, either in a metropolitan area or a regional area. Step 2: you ask yourself: in that area, are there are at least five independent voices? An independent voice can be a television station, a radio station or a newspaper. There must be at least five in a metropolitan area. There must be at least four in a regional area. That is the rule that applies today. That rule will continue to apply should this bill pass into law. That is the first law which will continue and will continue to be an important determinant and safeguard of media diversity.
Mr Katter interjecting—
Mr FLETCHER: The criterion is 'independent'. That is to say, if two of them are owned by the same owner, that does not count as independent.
The next rule that will continue to apply is the one-to-a-market rule, which is that a person, either in his or her own right or as a director of a company, must not exercise control over more than one commercial television broadcasting licence in a licence area. The third rule which applies today and will continue to apply is the two-to-a-market rule. That is the rule that a person, either in his or her own right or as a director of a company, must not control more than two commercial radio broadcasting licences in the same licence area. I go back to the explanation of the five-four rule.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, Member for Kennedy?
Mr Katter: I crave the indulgence of the chair here. Can one entity own all of the television—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy does not have the call. This is not a debate between the two members. I ask that you resume your seat. There will be an opportunity to get up. This is not a debate. It is not question time.
Mr FLETCHER: The short answer is no. I am happy to repeat that, for clarity. The answer is no.
The point that I make is that there are a series of rules which apply to deliver an outcome of media diversity, and those rules will continue: the five-four rule, otherwise known as the minimum-voices rule; the one-to-a-market rule; and the two-to-a-market rule. I have just run through each of those. Under this bill, two provisions, two existing rules as part of the regulatory regime, will be removed—the 75 per cent rule and the two-out-of-three rule. (Time expired)
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:25): There is absolutely nothing integrated about this bill. If you wanted any evidence of that, you get it from the minister himself. The minister himself has realised that there is nothing integrated about this. It is not just me saying it. Do not even take my word for it. Take the word of an important stakeholder like Channel 7 for example. They said:
… what we would like to see is a comprehensive package of changes so that we can understand the full implications of regulatory change for our business, for our industry and for consumers more generally.
They went on:
This bill on its own does not address that. It may be of use to one or two players for one or two deals, but it does not do anything for our entire industry.
If the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, were so concerned about ensuring business structures are capable going forward from tomorrow, he would be supporting the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule, which is essentially a piece of housekeeping.
I urge the regional MPs on that side—two of them came onto the speaking list at the very last minute, but that is about it from their side—to think very carefully about what their regional affiliates are going to think if they vote against this. Their regional affiliates are expecting to have at least something by the end of the year. I have no truck with this rubbish about Labor standing in the way. These people have had more than three years. We know that Prime Minister Turnbull, when he was communications minister, got rolled, because then-Prime Minister Abbott said, 'We're not going to have any changes unless the entire industry agrees with one another.' So all he came up with were these two changes, one of which Labor has consistently said we would be happy to support and would have done in government. Labor has been entirely consistent on this position. Those regional members who might be listening to this should think very, very carefully about whether they are going to go back to their regional affiliates when parliament rises and what they are going to say to those regional affiliates, who are expecting this change to go through.
Before I was interrupted, I was going through some of the figures that the ACMA itself has released today. The minister at the table likes to run the 'because internet' argument. Here are some facts. Despite the prevalence of internet and the ability to get news, current affairs and any other information from a variety of sources, the regulator's own report, tabled in this place today, says:
… broadcast television remains the main source of news for adult Australians …
It goes on:
Despite this decline in print subscriptions and the availability of other online news sources, broadcast television remains the main source of news … Television also had the highest weekly news reach with 65 per cent, ahead of radio with 40 per cent and print with 38 per cent.
This is reflected in the monthly digital ratings for news, where the online platforms of print newspapers or television broadcasters record the largest audiences in the current and global news sub-category.
It also confirms, in a table, what we have been saying all along—that, although we have the rise of the internet and the rise of these online provisions, seven out of the 10 top news sites are still old media, on different platforms: same voices, different platforms. The ACMA report affirms that today. Today this evidence has come out. Those opposite might like to think this is no big deal to the Australian public. Well, I have seen one public poll taken on this, by Essential Media. Sixty-one per cent of Australians surveyed do not support repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. Again, regional members might like to think about this: 61 per cent of Australians do not support repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. It is a shame the member for Kennedy has gone, because he was very astute in highlighting the deficiencies you get when you start to relegate this sector to general competition law.
The New Zealand Commerce Commission has recently considered some of these issues, and they recognised the deficiencies of it—as pointed out in the dissenting report to the Senate review:
Competition law is of questionable efficacy as a tool for achieving social policy objectives as contained in the Broadcasting Services Act …
Those opposite should know that the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act clearly demonstrate that the BSA is not a piece of industry policy legislation. It is in fact one that has as its objects what would be better described as pieces of social objectives. And a pertinent point to note is: whilst we have these media guidelines and whilst they are being reviewed and we have another set of draft media guidelines, it is a fact that this does little to assist parliament in understanding what mergers would be blocked under competition law and whether general competition law would require adequate safeguards for diversity in the event of the removal of the two-out-of-three rule. (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:30): It hardly needs to be said, but regional members on this side of the House would know full well that the quality of advice from the member for Greenway about what serves the interests of regional Australians is poor indeed, because the reality that underpins the reforms in the legislation before the House this afternoon is that the three regional television broadcasters, PRIME Media Group, Southern Cross Austereo and the WIN network, strongly support this bill, and they do this because of concerns about their continuing economic viability under the present arrangements and, with that, the capacity to provide continued employment in regional Australia. I can tell this House that there is one side of this House which has a strong track record on protecting the economic interests of regional and remote Australia, and it is not the Labor side of the House.
A critical reason for this legislation being before the House this afternoon is precisely to protect and advance the economic interests of regional Australia, including the regional broadcasters who are a strong employment presence and a strong community presence in regional Australia, and it is important that that strong presence be maintained. Let me refer the House to the report of the Senate committee which has looked at this legislation, which observes at paragraph 2.36:
The regional television broadcasters (Prime Media Group, Southern Cross Austereo and the WIN Network) … strongly support repealing the two control and ownership rules.
And the shadow minister engaged in a world-class piece of selective quotation and selective referencing of third-party groups, because she had one media organisation that she referred to, and she did not give a balanced picture.
Let us have a look at what the Senate report had to say at paragraph 2.38 on the ripper suggestion we have got from Labor this afternoon, that these two provisions should be split. What did the Senate committee conclude about this, Mr Deputy Speaker? You may be interested to know. Here is what the Senate committee concluded:
Prime Media Group, Southern Cross Austereo, the WIN Network, Ten Network and Fairfax argued that the repeal of the 2 out of 3 rule should occur at the same time as the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule.
So it turns out that, despite the highly misleading statements by the shadow minister, there is extensive industry support for the integrated package of reforms that the coalition is putting forward to the House this afternoon.
For example, what was said to the Senate committee by a witness, Ms Annabelle Herd, from Ten Network Holdings? She had this to say:
The point about not splitting these two issues is: why would you split them? I certainly have not heard an argument from anybody about what the two-out-of-three rule is actually doing right now to protect diversity.
So there is an integrated package of measures that is before the House in this bill this afternoon. It is a package of measures, as the Senate committee report demonstrates comprehensively, which is widely supported by an extensive range of industry players. It is motivated—our urgency here is motivated—by a desire to preserve the viability of businesses which are vital to serving regional Australia.
On the Labor side of the House, what we have seen is indolence and obstructionism, when it comes to this package of measures, because of their evident indifference to the economic impact of this on regional Australia. This side of the House is committed to regional Australia. That is why we have put the bill forward in the form that we have. That is why we say very clearly to the House this afternoon: do not be confused; do not be misled by this ill-conceived stunt, in these amendments that are being put forward by the Labor Party this afternoon. The only game that is being played here is obstructionism. The only game that is being played here is delay. The Labor Party is prepared to frankly make hostages of vital regional businesses rather than engaging with what is a critical economic reform that is strongly supported by the three regional broadcasters and a wide range of other stakeholders in the sector.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (17:35): I can say: every single Labor Party member loves to get a lecture from the foreman from Frenchs Forest on what is in the interests of people in regional Australia! He would not know what regional Australia was if he went there in his Mercedes-Benz.
Frankly, the government has had an opportunity today to prove beyond doubt that they are neither lazy nor indolent. The shadow minister has put a reasonable proposition before them. Let me go through the proposition that we have put before the House today, because there are four propositions which the government puts forward as their proposals for media reform in this country. The first is that we repeal the 75 per cent reach rule, the second is that we repeal the two-out-of-three rule, the third is that we insert within the legislation beefed-up local content provisions and the fourth is that we amend the licence fees arrangement. We are willing to give the government three out of four of these proposals. We are willing to give the government time. They can go and convene a meeting with George Christensen if they really need to work out what their policy proposition is on this! We are willing to give the government time, but they have it within their gift to make the changes necessary to get some real reform through. And we could do it before the end of the week.
If we look at the objections to accepting the amendment put forward by the shadow minister, they fall into two or three categories. The first is that this is all interlinked. It is like some delicate house of cards—if you remove one of the proposals from the package everything else is going to fall to bits. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr Burke: Or the government might fall to bits.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: The government might fall to bits. The fragile consensus, which is the prime ministership of Malcolm Turnbull, might fall to bits. But the reforms will still go through. We say that it is simply not true that the 75 per cent is contingent upon every other reform. I ask you to consider this: we accept, and we have accepted for years, that it does not make sense any more that, when a major television broadcaster can stream their content to 100 per cent of the Australian population—and, in fact, 100 per cent of the world population that has access to an internet signal—we persist with a 75 per cent reach rule. We are willing to give that to the government, to the Australian people, today. That can pass through the parliament today.
We have already voted up the reforms in relation to the licence fees. And when it comes to beefing up the local content provisions, we are willing to support those, as well. But, frankly, the government has not made out the case. They rely on the evidence from the Senate committee—the Senate committee which they opposed; the one that they argued against—which at best is perverse on the question of the two-out-of-three rule. It is simply not true that they are all interlinked.
Then we have the minister stand before us today and say, 'If you pass the two-out-of-three rule, you have nothing to worry about because nothing is going to change. Nothing is going to change if you pass through the two-out-of-three rule.' Well, I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if nothing is going to change why the haste? Grab the three out of the four propositions that we are offering the government to get some real reform through and you will have the support of every member of the Labor opposition.
It is very unfortunate thing that we are seeing a pattern here. We offered the government a compromise when it comes to the backpacker tax. Would they even pick up the phone? No, they would not.
Ms Rowland: They didn't pick up the phone for this, either.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I asked the shadow minister if she had received a phone call from the minister in relation to some compromise on this bill, and the answer was: no. The minister is too lazy to even pick up the phone.
So we have a pattern emerging here: lazy, indolent, unwilling to compromise. We can have reform today if they only grasp the nettle.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:40): I will tell you what I want media reform of: I do not want to have to see this weekend's Good Weekend with George Christensen on the front! You delivered that. That is media reform we can all believe in! There he is in his singlet and that tattoo. I tell you—
Mr Burke: And the whip!
Mr HUSIC: And the whip. It is just so, so terrible.
So here we are in a situation where Labor, as you have heard from a number of speakers, has extended a number of opportunities to be able to work with the government on genuine media reform. We have extended the olive branch in that way. What have we got in response? In response, we have a deal which has been stitched up not through broad consultation or genuinely involving stakeholders, and a wide range of them. It is just a deal. It is a cheap, quick fix. It does not do as both the member for Greenway and the member for Whitlam have outlined—that is, we want to see independence, better media standards, improvement in terms of local content, the provision of regional service and the support for that content, and support for jobs. We are saying that we are prepared to work on all of these fronts.
The other thing is, too, when you consider the number of regional members that sit on this side of the House I find it quite surprising to be told by that side of the House that they have a monopoly on being able to speak up for regional communities. We had a broad number of our members talk about this legislation and talk about its importance to their regions. All we have had is obstinacy from that side. We have had nothing but stonewalling. There has been no preparedness whatsoever to genuinely engage. It has been a hallmark of the discussions around media reform in this place. There has been none of that. All there has been is a desire to force this through. This is another example of quantity above quality—they chalk up a win and they claim that they can go out and say, 'We've got this legislation through.' But they have not actually come up with anything that will generate a longer term benefit. There is no genuine media reform into the longer term.
The other thing that has surprised me through the course of the debate is how many people on that side have been saying, 'How can we provide for diversity in this market given how small the marker is?' Diversity has been a hallmark of this market for years. With a population base that was way lower, it managed to survive. Obviously, there is a very heavy reliance by those opposite on the fact that the internet has transformed things. Yes, it has. But it has also opened up opportunities, too. And those players have been seizing on that, both the traditional and the new and emerging ones.
So the fact of the matter is: we are not interested in just having an exercise of chalking up wins. We want to see a legislative outcome that delivers a real and genuine outcome—and one that will actually, as the member for Greenway and shadow minister rightly points out—that will be sustainable into the future so we are not having to come back here in the autumn sitting to try and correct, change, fix up, amend, or whatever, this rushed-through package. Certainly, I think the government has an opportunity to actually take this into account, make the changes now and get this right the first time.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
The House divided. [17:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (17:53): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Superannuation (Excess Transfer Balance Tax) Imposition Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Bill 2016
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Media Ownership
The SPEAKER (17:55): The member for Kennedy briefly on indulgence.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:55): I want to give just a brief apology to the minister because I was given wrong information, but I will only water it down a little tiny bit. You can only own one television station in the city areas. But, as far as I can see, one person can own all of the media in Australia, except he can only own one television station in the major capital cities. So I apologise, but only a little bit.
BILLS
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
BILLS
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2)
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered at the next sitting.
Senate’s requested amendments—
Senate Schedule Amdts - Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2)
Schedule of the requests by the Senate for amendments
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 15), omit "15%", substitute "10.5%".
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (table item 1), omit "15%", substitute "10.5%".
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:57): This has been a matter that has been considered by the House for quite some time. It has been considered by two governments—both the Labor government and this government—since 2013. It was Labor that first referred the matter of how to introduce equity crowd funding into Australia to the Corporation and Markets Advisory Committee for it to consider. Equity crowd funding is a method by which start-ups or small businesses are able to raise capital over the internet. In return for that capital, people will get an equity stake in those start-ups and small businesses.
This had been a vexed issue. It is one that is fraught with problems because it does challenge and disrupt the way in which the Corporations Act will operate, particularly where you may have a number of investors that go over the 50 shareholder mark, which would normally require a number of other things to be met to ensure that that could proceed legally. As a result, CAMAC investigated a number of jurisdictions and looked at a number of places to see and observe the way in which equity crowd funding is managed. It was a very comprehensive report. We welcomed the report when it was finally brought down in May 2014 because it had, in a most comprehensive way, looked at the way that other jurisdictions had managed this and had determined a number of vehicles and mechanisms that could be used to do this.
Both sides of the House consulted with stakeholders about what CAMAC had proposed. We on this side had had some reservations about some of the things that were being put forward, and we believed that they were potentially going to be difficult to put forward in a way that would be easy to manage. We had said that we needed to see some changes, and we have advocated some through a discussion paper that Labor had put forward. So CAMAC brings down its report in May 2014, and we had a situation where it had taken up until December 2015 for the government to respond. They issued a number of discussion papers. They had said, for instance, that there were three options that they were looking at: what CAMAC put forward; what New Zealand put forward; and the do-nothing option which, frankly, was ridiculous as no-one was proposing that we do nothing. But we certainly thought that what happened in New Zealand was probably far too liberalised for our circumstances, and we thought that the CAMAC proposition was going to be difficult to put forward because, as I indicated a few moments ago, it was cumbersome. We believed a midway point needed to be reached.
The legislation that was suddenly prepared and put forward to the House in December 2015 was, as we had indicated at the time, done without genuine consultation with the opposition. We had had a very good discussion with then minister, Bruce Billson, but, as a result of the change in ministerial arrangements, he no longer had carriage for that legislation anymore and, when we suddenly had the legislation produced, we expressed our displeasure with that. To their credit, the Turnbull government had changed approach and had spoken with us about some of the amendments to the bill that had been put forward. Bear in mind that the bill that had been considered previously by this place, the 2015 bill, had been roundly criticised because it was still too cumbersome. It had been criticised because it was continuing to maintain a requirement that we have a situation where companies, small businesses or start-ups would be required to convert themselves into unlisted public companies.
We had expressed a number of concerns about that, not the least being that there would be a cost requirement triggered by that. Also—and I think it is a surprise that Labor representatives have to indicate this to their coalition opposition—why is it that government forces a requirement on companies or small businesses as to when they go public? That decision should be made by businesses when they are good and ready. When they are ready to go public, they should do it. They should not do it as a requirement to enable them to access equity crowdfunding. If private companies want to remain private and access equity funding, then they should do so, but they should not be compelled to convert into a public company.
Unfortunately, that provision still remains in this bill and, when this was considered by a Senate inquiry, a number of stakeholders indicated that putting this requirement in would limit, lower and prevent the number of small businesses that the coalition envisages will use this funding platform, or that start-ups would not do it. In fact, some have said so publicly. There have been people who have said publicly that to go through the process of becoming an unlisted public company for the purpose of accessing this funding regime would be ridiculous, so they are saying that they will not use it. So why would we do this?
I understand from the Treasurer's second reading speech, and from comments—and I am not betraying any confidences here—that the government is contemplating a further change down the track to determine whether or not they would be able to introduce a system by which privately-held companies could access equity crowdfunding. That is a good thing, but my concern is: why would we do two things—introduce and support this legislation now with a view to amending it down the track, pending whatever Treasury recommends to the government should be done in this area? I think that is unwieldy. I do not think that is a smart thing. I can say that, in times past, we have demonstrated our preparedness to work with the government in this area, and to be constructive and bipartisan on it. We have said we are willing to do this. For instance, we had reservations at the conclusion of the last parliamentary term about some aspects of the government's changes to the taxation arrangements for angel investment and some of the venture capital changes that they wanted to make, but we did not hold that up. We said, 'Let's just get the bills through and see how it works'. It will be interesting to see the take-up of that.
But in this area, with this space now, it does not make sense to put forward a bill that you know you are going to have to change anyway, largely because, I think, deep in the hearts and minds of the government, they know that this system will be unwieldy. I think this will create a problem because we are going to have two systems in place instead of just getting one system up and running. I believe there are some stakeholders who support this bill simply because of fatigue; that is, because it has taken so long—from 2013 to 2016—and we do not even have a regulatory framework in place. So some people just want to see the bill introduced. Frankly, I do not agree with that proposition. You need to get this done right the first time, and there is a way in which this can be done.
There will be those opposite who say, for example, that you cannot have a situation where privately-held companies are able to access crowdfunding and that that is good for investors, because it denies those investors some protections that help inform investors better to make better decisions and keep a watchful or close eye on the scale of investments that is proposed through this type of framework. I do not necessarily agree with that. I think there are ways in which you can better inform investors that would be aligned with the expectations that would be placed on some of these start-up or early stage innovation companies that would be placed on them by venture capital firms or angel investors. It would be way better for those small enterprises, those start-ups, to get accustomed to and acquainted with the information requirements of venture capital firms early on, such as delivering a business plan, reporting quarterly, being able to answer the questions of investors in what has been done previously or what is currently the case, particularly within the start-up ecosystem. Those are good things.
They will make sure that those companies longer term prosper, survive and grow. Just because you have a company secretary or a registered place of work does not necessarily guarantee that you will be running in tiptop shape. It does not necessarily mean that your investors are any better informed. In fact, having a registered place of work was not the requirement of Steve Jobs or Wozniak in setting up Apple in a garage, or Dell or any of the other firms that did not have a registered place and worked out of a home, as some start-ups would often do. There are better ways to get those protections in place.
I find it ironic and passing strange that a government that was worried about what investor protections would be maintained, if we did not have this mechanism of creating these unlisted public companies, can, on one side of their mouth, talk about what this does to investors and, on the other side of their mouth, talk about how this legislation that we are debating can allow a proposition where investor rights are actually watered down.
This bill will see retail investors put in tens of thousands of dollars and be told, 'You've only got two days to change your mind.' It used to be five; it is now going down to two. So, on the one hand, they are worried about investor protections and, on the other hand, they actually advocate a bill—and this is one of our big criticisms of this bill—that will water down rights. I have had big disagreements, mind you, with the sector over this. There are elements of the sector that want what the government is putting forward. The government is being responsive to some of those views. But, to be honest, to be completely frank, you do not need to do that with this bill. You do not need to water down these investor protections to achieve what is sought.
The reason that elements of the sector—not everyone; elements—want the cooling-off period to go from five days to two days is that they are worried about rival enterprises gaming the system against other businesses. So what happens is rival enterprises would invest, with no intention of seeing through the investment, and pull that investment at the last minute and render useless the actual crowdfunding campaign that is being undertaken by a start-up or a small business. Because there are measures that say that, if you do not complete a crowdfunding round, you do not get a certain number of other measures that are provided for under this bill, that is a big problem. I get that; I totally understand that. And I understand why the government would be responsive to that. But there are other ways to do that.
There are other ways to clamp down on that. ASIC, with enough guidance, could keep a close eye on those investors that do just that—pull out their funding all of a sudden without good reason purely, because this is a disruptive mechanism against other businesses. But you cannot do that under this bill. And I do not know if arrangements have been put in place by the government to be able to identify investors on an individual basis under this bill, under the regulations or under any other measures that are being set up. That is a problem as well.
Instead of contracting the protections that are available to investors, as a mechanism to deal with a genuine concern about gaming, there should be measures to crack down on that type of campaign gaming, and you should crack down hard on people who effectively are willingly, or wilfully, seeking to disrupt other campaigns purely because they want to disrupt a competitor. You should crack down on the people who behave badly, not on the mum-and-dad investors, particularly new investors who, for the first time, will be making an investment of a substantial size, and telling them, 'You've only got two days to change your mind.' That is not right, and I do not think that is smart in an environment where there is much more focus on investor protection, particularly for retail. I am not talking about sophisticated investors; they can look after themselves. They are on incomes that are higher than $250,000; they can wear the losses. Smaller retail investors should not be denied those rights. I think that is a problem too.
The other thing that is a problem is that, for a government that says that it is big on cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burdens, it is going to maintain some burdens in this bill in a way that it does not seem to care about. For example, under this bill, there will still be a situation where start-ups and small enterprises will have to field inquiries from a broad range of potential investors. Instead of allowing streamlined ways to manage those inquiries—a lot of which will be genuine inquiries from new investors—the government is saying that these start-ups and small enterprises should still field those calls from people who may not actually go ahead and invest on the platform. How is a start-up supposed to have a sophisticated investor relations framework to do that? These are small businesses. Why would you compel those start-ups to field that individually? That is what this bill actually envisages: that a lot of these start-ups, not the platform, not the intermediary—from my read of it; and I am happy to be corrected, if I am wrong but it looks like it is an impression that is within the sector as well—are going to have the responsibility of responding to each individual inquiry.
I do not think that is a smart move either. The platforms should be empowered to answer on behalf of those start-ups and small enterprises, obviously, with the approval of the start-up or the SME to provide—they are ultimately going to be responsible for claims made during a period where somebody is contemplating an investment and where that answer actually positively influences an investment decision they like to be taken into.
There are some big concerns. I know you want to rush it now, Assistant Minister, but you have taken your sweet time up until this point.
Mr Laundy: When did you get glasses?
Mr HUSIC: I think—I left my contacts behind. It is killing me; I hate using glasses. For the sake of brevity or as an aside—levity, I should say, not brevity.
Mr Laundy: Brevity is what I am after.
Mr HUSIC: That is right: you want brevity; you ain't getting it—not on this. While I do appreciate that you have been a lot more open in recent times and you have accepted some Labor propositions, we moved amendments to increase the assets and turnover cap that were contained in this bill. What you had originally was the government saying, 'You can only access with asset and turnover caps of five mill.'
The last time this bill was considered, we recommended via an amendment that it go up to $10 million. You have now increased it to $25 million. So it is now open to a broader range of companies—and that is a good thing. If it forms an alternate platform for people to be able to access capital, that is a good thing. By the way, the government has never acknowledged that this is as a result of the amendments that Labor put forward. I am not heartbroken about it. I think we can live. But it is interesting, Assistant Minister, that the last time you stepped forward, the government said that this was a great bill and that it was reflective of broad consultation and broad agreement, and we then put it to a Senate inquiry process and you saw that agreement unravel and you saw people indicating in very forceful terms how bad that framework was. You made the amendments, which is a good thing, but I think you should take this a step further.
I certainly recognise how wretchedly difficult and risky this is for a government. Changing the Corporations Law in this way, particularly where public companies have been central to the operation of the Corporations Law, is difficult. But guess what? That is what disruption is about. In this age, where everyone talks about digital disruption, that is what this is going to do. It requires us to think differently. You have set up and you promote regulatory sandboxes as being oversighted by ASIC and you say, 'This is a good thing,' but you are not prepared to actually create a safe harbour within this legislation to allow private companies to work.
We had suggested previously to the government a way to overcome this issue. We appreciate that this is a significant hurdle. This is not a political issue per se within government; this is about risk management—and I totally get that. But you could easily sidestep this, in that, once a company, a small business or a start-up elects to use an intermediary, a crowdfunding platform, the usual expectations triggered under the Corporations Act are suspended and are replaced by another set of expectations. We put that forward by way of an amendment the last time, and it has not been picked up this time. Apparently, it is too hard. It is not; it could be done.
Why we signalled our preparedness to work in a bipartisan way with the government on this was to say, 'We're not going to play games on this issue; we understand the risks that are involved, but there is a way around it.' Frankly, we as an opposition are not prepared to countenance this; we think a smarter way to do it is to get this right the first time. This does smack a bit of the government just trying to chalk up a win. They just want to get this legislation through and chalk up a win and have the halo effect of a win and then next year come along and say, 'Now it is time to fix it'—which is just crazy. It is going to take ages to get this framework up anyway. I reckon you have at least a six-month lead time to get this done. So why do it that way?
We got caught out through the way in which some of the previous orders of the day had been managed and we did not get a chance to circulate the second reading amendment that we are intending to move, where we basically indicate that, while not declining to give the bill a second reading, we are calling on the government to present on the first day of the autumn sitting of the House legislation that contains a genuine and comprehensive framework for the introduction of equity crowdfunding that, firstly, can actually be used effectively by both unlisted public companies and privately held firms; secondly, provides improved protections for retail investors, stronger than those currently proposed by the government; and, thirdly, avoids placing a heavy regulatory or investor relations burden on start-up enterprises and small businesses.
We are not comfortable, and we are going to put on the public record that we are not comfortable, with the watering-down of the protections from five to two days, and we think that you need to avoid placing a heavy regulatory or investor relations burden on start-up enterprises and small businesses. We think that there is a better way that this can be managed and that it should be done properly the first time. As soon as I get my colleague to countersign the amendment, we will be on our way. We certainly think that the amendment needs to be considered by the government because, as I said earlier, we are going to be coming back anyway to fix this.
I understand that the Treasurer is very energetically pressing the case for Treasury to consider this very quickly and thoroughly—and I take the Treasury representatives who briefed us on this at their word that this happening—and the Treasurer mentioned it in his second reading speech. Once Treasury gets its advice to government, and this is going to be changed. So get it right the first time and do not deny the ability for a new stream of funding to support early stage innovation companies or small businesses. And, again, do not compel companies or firms as to when they go public. As a Labor representative, I am here saying that it is not the role of government to force the arm of small businesses as to when they make the decision to go public—because, as you well know, once they make that decision, it is hard to wind it back. It does take time to wind it back, and the conditions and circumstances in which that occurs are completely different.
I have indicated that we are going to move a second reading amendment, which will be seconded by the member for Eden-Monaro, and we are seeking that that be considered as part of this process. I repeat: we are very prepared to work with the government on this. We have a demonstrated record of bipartisanship in trying to support this early. There was a moment when that broke as a result of the government rushing through legislation without consulting genuinely with us. They have attempted to do that, albeit they had already made up their minds and they were communicating a decision that had been made, rather than actually entertaining a proposition that they would alter the most fundamental objection that we have on this in terms of the way in which it is being closed up.
We do believe this needs to be referred to a Senate inquiry to determine whether or not the changes contained in this bill will allow the system to be used in a much broader way, which we are concerned is the case. We also want to test whether or not it is wise for us to water down investor protections, as envisaged by this bill, as opposed to another regulatory response that could alleviate the concerns that have been expressed by some that campaign gaming will be used in a disruptive and wilful way against small enterprises, start-ups, small businesses and the like. There has to be another way to fix that. Again, if there is any way that we can lighten the burden on small enterprises and start-ups so that they do not have to have very complex or complicated investor relations management regimes, that would be good too.
Again, we are just as keen as the government to see an equity crowdfunding platform or framework in place. We referred to CAMAC the actual investigation or inquiry in the first place. We supported the government in progressing this further, even though after some great work by CAMAC, which is acknowledged by those opposite, they then, insanely, tried to shut down and abolish CAMAC, which plays a vital role in advising governments in complicated areas like this. Anyhow, we think that it still has a role to play, as evidenced by its equity crowdfunding investigation. Having said that, we are committed to working with the government, we do not want to play games on this and we hope that the government will play ball. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the Australian Government is required to present on the first day of the Autumn sitting of the House legislation that contains a genuine and comprehensive framework for the introduction of equity crowdfunding to Australia, that:
(1) can be used effectively by both unlisted public companies and privately held firms;
(2) provides improved protections for retail investors, stronger than those currently proposed by the Government; and
(3) avoids placing a heavy regulatory or investor relations burden on startup enterprises and small businesses.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Mike Kelly: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Chifley has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:24): I start by saying, in response to the previous speaker, that there is no limit to what somebody can achieve if they do not mind who takes the credit. So we do not need the constant references to who has done what at different points and thinking that is a necessary part of this debate, when, hopefully, we are all trying to improve the state of the country and the regulation that surrounds enabling businesses of the 21st century to excel. We should not be focused on trying to grab a credit; we should be focused on trying to do the right thing by the country.
When it comes down to it, this bill is enormously important because it fits straight into the objectives of the election of the Turnbull Liberal-National coalition government, which is committed to creating the jobs and growth potential of the future by backing the intellectual capital of every Australian. That is the objective, that is the purpose and that is what it seeks to deliver. I congratulate the minister and the assistant minister for their work in bringing this forward, because it is a very important part of the future economy to build the 21st century of Australia. By placing the economy at the centre of its policy agenda, the government is ensuring that we can continue to be a successful country by securing our sources of growth for the next 25 years and beyond. This bill, the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, is another part of the government's pro-growth agenda, intended to help transition the Australian economy into one that is more diversified, broader based and resilient, particularly in dealing with the opportunities that are presented to us by technology as a method of reforming business models to create economic opportunity and remove the barriers to people wanting to set up new businesses. That is what we should want and aspire to. This bill is intended to make way for the types of capital funding that are most relevant to the 21st century—funding that allows pioneering Australians to kickstart their ideas into enterprise opportunities and take that intellectual capital, commercialise it, take it to market, test the market and grow Australia.
Any measure which boosts investor confidence is a good thing for all of us. As we become increasingly reliant on service based exports, it is crucial that we promote productivity gains in our existing service industries as well as back new enterprises to innovate and take advantage of our ambitious trade agenda. That is what this bill seeks to do. This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to facilitate crowdsourced 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.
Crowdsourced equity funding is a groundbreaking model. It allows entrepreneurs to access capital from a large number of investors from all around the world—and something that is very close to the heart of the Turnbull government is attracting foreign investment to build this country's future. It is managed through an online platform, where each investor typically contributes a small amount of money in return for an equity stake in the enterprise. According to a recent report by Massolutions, the crowdsourced industry is set to account for more funding than venture capital this year. That is a very welcome trend because it removes the costs and barriers for investment but, equally, opens up the opportunities for those with brilliant ideas to take them to market. In 2010, the relatively small crowdfunding market saw an overall investment of approximately US$900 million. Last year, we saw over $34 billion crowdfunded. That is an extraordinary growth in a relatively short period of time and comes from so many people, who may not have huge amounts of capital to invest but might want to secure and take risk in exactly the way that we should want to. This is the animal spirit of the market working. The World Bank estimated that crowdfunding would reach $90 billion by 2020, but, if the current growth continues, it is more likely to reach $90 billion by next year.
The crowdfunding industry is also beginning to diversify across several types of funding models, including rewards, donations, equity as well as lending. In the United States, some venture capital firms have already begun integrating equity crowdfunding as a component of their investment strategy. Isn't it an exciting thing to have an environment where anybody can buy into the future of building a business where they have confidence in the idea, the people, the skills and the strategy, and are able to go on and invest not just in their own future but in creating the jobs of the 21st century. We have seen the success of this investment model in agriculture, civic projects, science and technology, film, and real estate. In Australia, however, crowdfunding has been limited by the regulatory impediments in the Corporations Act, which impose an excessive compliance cost for start-ups and other small businesses.
This bill addresses these obstacles by establishing a legislative framework for crowdsourced equity funding that addresses the regulatory impediments identified in the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee's report. The proposed framework will allow public companies to issue equity through crowdsourcing with reduced disclosure compared to what is required under full public equity fundraising activity. 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.
Crucially, crowdsourced funding will promote competition among lenders. Existing funding options for small businesses, including bank debt products, will need to adapt and increase their attractiveness and competitiveness, and I think that is a particularly exciting thing because, while we hear a lot of things from the opposition about the banks, it is competition that drives them to perform and prove better. That is what we should seek to achieve, and that is part of what this bill seeks to achieve. The crowdsourced equity funding regime set out in this bill will allow eligible companies to fundraise up to $5 million per year from the crowd. This will act as a springboard for entrepreneurs, ensuring their good ideas are able to find some clear air to compete for commercial success and enrich those people who seek to invest.
The time spent on regulatory compliance is time our small business men and women could be using to collaborate and to refine their business model. This bill will allow crowdfunded companies to offer equity securities to retail investors with lower disclosure than required at present. A full disclosure document requirement can be costly and time-consuming to prepare and is one of many hurdles which prevent enterprising Australians from getting their ideas to market. While reduced disclosure can be unnerving, the framework will ensure that investors have access to the key facts about the company, its structures and the fundraising. Investors will be able to interact directly with the company to ask questions relating to an offer. The government has consulted widely with small business and investors to ensure the balance is right between investor exposure and cumbersome regulatory compliance.
This bill will help foster innovative economic activity and unlock new sources of funding to ensure good ideas are able to be commercialised. The economic environment in this coming century will be more collaborative than ever, and that is a fundamentally exciting thing. Automation and the internet have provided opportunities to scale businesses like never before. This bill harnesses the changing environment and gives our entrepreneurs access to a whole new group of investors to share in their success. Most importantly, when small business succeeds, so does our great country. It is not the role of government to pick winners; it is the government's responsibility to foster the right economic environment for entrepreneurial spirit to be fully unleashed. By removing unnecessary regulatory barriers, we are backing the intellectual capital of Australians and their ideas.
I note the previous speaker has raised a number of issues around different proposals and amendments that they might seek to propose in the future. One of the great challenges, when you are dealing with regulation around different types of technology and how that operates within a market environment, is that the market is constantly changing, and that innovation and ideas continue to come through to shape its direction. So, while it is easy to say that we should just hold off until we can get it perfectly right, that completely dismisses and misunderstands the environment that we are in. There is constant change, and there will need to be a review of different pieces of law in the future. That is not a sign of the current law particularly failing or the government getting anything wrong, but quite the opposite; a recognition of a government that is nimble, agile—innovative, some might say—that responds to and recognises the changing market environment that this economy should be seeking to embrace, and so should our laws be respectful and mindful of that.
The need to create a proper regulatory environment for crowdfunding in this country comes up regularly when I speak to the investors and small business people in my great electorate of Goldstein. In Goldstein there are many people who want to come up with new ideas, test them in the marketplace, challenge the status quo, be disruptive—I say 'be disruptive' in the most exciting way possible—find new ways to do more with less, and disrupt existing large market players, particularly as avenues to secure new capital, because they want to invest in their ideas, they want to go out and sell their ideas to the world and they want the economic opportunity for people to come along and back them. That is what we are doing with this bill. We are backing the people who want to invest in the future of this country. We are the ones who are backing the intellectual capital of this great nation, and we are the ones who are going to create the economic environment for the 21st century. That is why this bill should be supported, and that is why we should continue to back Australia's future. I highly recommend the bill to the House.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (18:36): Labor has long recognised the importance of early stage innovation to drive economic growth in Australia, and Australia's start-ups have already proven their potential here and abroad. Some were even born in my electorate of Burt, such as Spookfish. During the federal election campaign the then shadow minister for digital and start-ups, Ed Husic, and I met with the fantastic team at Business Station in Gosnells, including the chairman, David Duncanson; the CEO, Kim Charles; the general manager, Mark South; and a Mr Mike von Bertouch, director and founder of Spookfish. Spookfish is an integrated suite of state-of-the-art technologies enabling the capture, processing, archiving and delivery of geospatial imagery and data over truly vast areas. Spookfish began with a single, radical idea to bring the real world to life with outstanding next-generation imagery. It started as a local small business and now is providing its advanced satellite imagery information to the world.
We need to encourage the growth of successful start-ups like this, especially considering that the majority of jobs that will be created over the next decade are going to come from companies that do not even exist yet. That is why it is important have policies in place that will help grow as many of these new start-up businesses as possible. They need policies to help remove some of the barriers to that growth, and particularly being able to access capital. Australia has always been an importer of capital. So, unlocking new sources of capital, especially domestically, is very important for start-ups. While traditional sources of funding for early-stage innovation and start-ups traditionally has come from venture capital and angel investors, equity crowdfunding has emerged as an alternative way of raising capital. For small companies, access to capital that does not involve the time, costs and regulatory burdens of a full IPO is desirable, providing, though, that the appropriate consumer protections are in place.
In the case of equity crowdfunding, the internet would become a platform for start-ups and other small businesses to raise funds in return for an equity stake in those businesses. As I think has already been described, the origins of this bill start with a decision taken by a Labor government, where the work was commenced under the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, otherwise known as CAMAC, which was tasked to advise on an appropriate framework to allow equity crowdfunding in Australia. If I may just stick to this point about CAMAC, because I think it is worth highlighting. The work that CAMAC did here is vitally important, because corporate regulation in Australia, as it is around world, is very complex, highly complicated and very detailed. We have been blessed in this nation, as part of the formation of a national corporate regulator, to have the body CAMAC. Unfortunately, as part of the disastrous 2014 budget handed down by this government, CAMAC was abolished. They somehow managed to get some agreement from the states and territories that the abolition of this body would be a good idea. That, I think, has been to the great detriment ever since of the development of good corporate regulatory policy and future law in Australia. I see that as indeed being a very sad fate for that body. However, fortunately, at about the same time—in fact in the same budget that CAMAC was abolished—the Abbott government decided to pick up that committee's recommendations, and this is what has led to this bill here today.
Despite the claims of promoting innovation and agility, though, it has taken another one and a half years for the Turnbull government to finally introduced legislation, in 2015, to enable this. And, of course, we have had to wait for nearly a whole year to see the revised version of this legislation. The government was rightly criticised for proposing a framework that would be too unwieldy and lock out many start-ups and small businesses from accessing crowdfunding. They have now introduced this bill, which amends not only the Corporations Act but also the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.
As the amendments suggest, we remain very open to working with the government to ensure that we can develop a viable equity crowdfunding framework. We also note of course that some of the areas Labor believed needed amendment in the original draft have been made to this bill. But we remain concerned about the requirement to convert to an unlisted public company without further tailored alternative regulation or that it is too onerous on business to present crowd-sourced funding as a realistic option for equity funding for start-ups.
Some start-up founders have looked at this issue of switching to being a public company and, for them, they could not avail themselves of that opportunity. They see it as unthinkable and unworkable. We are concerned by this and we are also concerned by moves to water down protections for mum and dad investors—for instance, the production of a five-day to a two-day period for withdrawal from such an investment. But, in addition to start-ups, this legislation appears to provide a new equity raising opportunity for speculative mining exploration companies, if they choose to go down the route of becoming a public company, or if they are no-liability company, as many of the speculative mining companies are, they can convert to becoming a public company. This would not be the traditional option taken by these entities, but it appears to provide a new route for them for raising equity. I know that many of these speculative mining companies in Western Australia are finding it very difficult to raise capital, so this could be a good thing. But it strikes me as possibly being an unintended consequence or result of the legislation. It does not seem to have been addressed in any of the literature I have read in respect of it. If this is not the intended result, I believe that needs addressing. If it was intended, then consideration should also be given to whether the scope of the legislation should be expanded to deal specifically with no-liability companies.
It is at this point that it is quite concerning in the context of the exposure that retail investors may have to quite a speculative investment, though that is the nature of the start-up. I think the government should address that issue. Further, how confident is the government that self-certification that an investor is a sophisticated investor will be a sufficient consumer protection, or is it contemplating some other safeguards that will sit along with the online investment model that it is proposing? We definitely need to see some detail around that.
This legislation creates certain exceptions from regulations applying to non-listed public companies but not to others. It needs a whole new regime really, because just proposing to get rid of the holding of AGMs for a number of years actually leaves investors exposed to not getting the regular updates and information they need from the company they have invested in. And let's face it, these are businesses and companies that are in the start-up phase and things may or may not go well, but investors should be kept up-to-date to see exactly how they are responding. If these are companies that are looking at or already have angel investors or venture capital in them, their reporting obligations to those equity investors are going to be higher—not necessarily overly onerous but they are going to have regular reporting obligations. So, if you are going to be removing reporting obligations from the Corporations Act from applying and you are not going to be publishing annual reports then you need to not only say, 'You can put that information on your website,' but you need to provide the mechanisms to compel, to ensure, that notification is given to all of these new members holding equity in these companies. That is very important.
One way of looking at this would be to provide safe-harbours to ensure that the existing obligations are met by these sorts of corporations when they are going through this start-up crowd-sourced funding. Or, given the concern around making these companies become public companies, we could instead provide additional regulation for private companies that avail themselves of this model of funding so that it will apply only to them. It creates a specialist regime, almost like the small business regime for companies that are small businesses but also seek to use crowd-sourced funding. That would provide the added advantage of being very clear about the obligations that are going to apply to these companies, because they are not in a position to comply with overly onerous regulation or particularly complex regulation when it is not clear what they now have to do to avail themselves of crowd-sourced funding. We do want to make this easy. We want to make sure it works and we want to make sure that, as well as consumer protection, it is done in a way that these companies can avail themselves of the opportunity of crowd-sourced equity funding.
The other thing that I do want to see the government address is what would happen if these companies, down the track, revert back to private company status. If they see that private company status is a concern then we need protections to ensure that, if the company moves back to private company status, new investors receive full disclosure continuing under that new status.
When I mention consumer protections, the critical part of this bill is that most of the disclosure obligations are going to be contained in draft regulations, which we have not seen. We have seen the old regulations from the old bill but we need to see the updated proposed regulations with this bill to properly understand what those disclosure obligations are. If we are prepared to have retail investors in this mode—which, admittedly, are at capped amounts and with some restriction—we need to ask the question, what is going to be the arbitrage in disclosure obligations under this model as opposed to under a listed model and, even if the type of protection is different, does the object of the protection still exist? These questions are critical to understanding the true impact and efficacy of investor protections, so it is vital that we get that right and understand it.
If I can illustrate the point that I am trying to make: there are pages of amendments that are going to be made to the Corporations Act and the ASIC legislation under this bill. Understandably, it is complex; it amends many different provisions, it inserts new parts into the Corporations Act and the explanatory memorandum is actually about three times longer. To really understand that, the Corporations Act is the legislation it is proposing to amend. It is not the simplest piece of legislation in the world. For those that are really interested in this, it is a lot shorter than the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Corporations Act and the ASIC Act are vital pieces of legislation to the regulation of companies in Australia, but they are not simple. This could be done more simply to make sure that start-ups can avail themselves of the great opportunity that is crowd-sourced equity funding, but we need to make sure that we get it right. That is why the Treasurer should respond to the queries that I and other Labor members have raised in respect to this legislation. It clearly demonstrates why we proposed that this legislation be reviewed via a Senate inquiry.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (18:47): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak today in support of the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016. This bill is important for the future opportunities of small businesses and start-ups in our economy because one of the issues that they face every single day is how to raise funds to grow their businesses. That is the main policy rationale around which this legislation is built. It is built around the idea of supporting, promoting and facilitating innovation in the Australian economy, particularly for our small firms and start-ups, because it is true that these firms and these start-ups, as we have seen over many years, can become the large businesses in our country.
Innovation, by its very nature, is highly dependent on access to adequate levels of finance. It is so important for these small businesses. When I speak to businesses around my electorate of Forde—businesses like Supapeg, Merino Country, Technical Fabric Solutions, Beovista and VAC Group—I can have a discussion with them for a long period of time about the capital requirements to grow and develop their businesses. There are many more businesses such as these in my electorate, and in electorates right around the country.
It is these discussions, and evidence from many other sources, that show that inadequate access to finance is the biggest impediment to innovation for small and medium enterprises. The Australia Council of Learned Academies' 2012 survey—which was also conducted by the ABS—Securing Australia's future: Australia's comparative advantage, showed that 43 per cent of small firms and 20 per cent of medium-sized firms identified funding as the biggest impediment to innovation. This contrasted with only 12½ per cent of large firms that noted funding was a constraint.
However, for firms that were focused on innovation and developing new ideas, these constraints are even more acute. I have had many an occasion when I have had people come to visit me in my office seeking assistance with an idea and how to find money to develop it and take it to the next stage. This is where we see this bill helping companies in that early stage of development. Some 66 per cent of small firms consider financing to be the biggest impediment. That is where this bill seeks to create the framework to allow these businesses to raise funds through crowd-sourced equity funding.
It is not that crowd-sourced equity funding is such a new idea. A couple of centuries ago, books were actually funded through crowd-sourced equity funding, through potential readers of the books providing funding to the authors to produce the book. They would then receive the books when they were published. But what we see today is the facilitation of crowd-sourced equity funding on a global scale as a result of technology.
Many of the funding platforms that we see today have only been around for about 10 years or so, but with this bill we want to provide a legislative framework for this to work in Australia—we have seen it work overseas—for our small to medium business sector. The bill is focused on establishing a framework to facilitate crowd-sourced equity funding for small, unlisted public companies; to provide new public companies that are eligible to crowdfund with temporary relief from the reporting and governance requirements that would normally apply; and to enable the minister to provide certain financial market clearing and settlement facility operators who are exempt from specific parts of the Australian market licence with an opportunity to participate.
This bill has been subject to an enormous amount of consultation over the past few years, as other speakers have outlined. It follows on from the bill that was introduced into the House about 12 months ago that lapsed with the election. There have been a number of changes in this bill from the bill that was previously in this House. A couple of those are very important for medium sized businesses. Eligible companies will be able to raise up to $5 million per year under this legislation, but their turnover threshold has also increased, to $25 million. That is important because it provides access to this funding for a much broader range of companies. Some of those that I mentioned earlier will benefit from this increased turnover threshold.
Public companies will be eligible to use crowd-sourced equity funding, as will unlisted or private companies, and they have a period where they can move to become public companies. It gives the opportunity for retail investors now to take part in supporting our small to medium business sector. It gives them the opportunity to invest up to $10,000 per company per 12-month period, with a cooling-off period of 48 hours after making an investment.
The bill also sets out the role of intermediaries in the crowdfunding market, ensuring that they take a quality assurance role, to ensure that there are the necessary protections in place for these retail investors.
This bill and the framework that it provides create tremendous opportunities for businesses in the electorate of Forde but also for small to medium businesses right around our country. If we can create the opportunities for this alternative avenue of funding for our small to medium business sector, it will also create an alternative avenue of finance so they are not always relying on the banks to raise that finance and capital. I commend the bill to the House as it was presented in its original form.
Debate adjourned.
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 16), after "productively", insert ", without distinction between interests of building industry participants, and".
(2) Clause 3, page 3 (line 11), after "industry", add ", including by encouraging youth employment with an emphasis on engaging apprentices".
(3) Clause 4, page 4 (lines 5 to 7), omit "The ABC Commissioner, inspectors and Federal Safety Officers are given powers to obtain information. The ABC Commissioner can demand information by giving a person an examination notice.", substitute "The ABC Commissioner, inspectors and Federal Safety Officers may obtain information. An examination notice, issued by a nominated AAT presidential member on application by the ABC Commissioner, may require a person to give information.".
(4) Clause 5, page 4 (before line 23), before the definition of ABC Commissioner, insert:
AAT presidential member means a person who is a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
(5) Clause 5, page 4 (line 28) to page 5 (line 5), omit the definition of assistant.
(6) Clause 5, page 9 (line 10), omit "or an assistant".
(7) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 26), after the definition of full‑time Commissioner, insert:
funding entity has the meaning given by subsection 34(2C).
(8) Clause 5, page 11 (after line 11), after the definition of lockout, insert:
nominated AAT presidential member means an AAT presidential member in respect of whom a nomination is in force under section 61A to issue examination notices under Part 2 of Chapter 7.
(9) Clause 5, page 12 (after line 4), after the definition of protected person, insert:
quarter means a period of 3 months beginning on 1 July, 1 October, 1 January or 1 April.
(10) Clause 5, page 12 (after line 29), after the definition of WHS Accreditation Scheme, insert:
Working Group means the Security of Payments Working Group established by section 32A.
(11) Clause 7, page 16 (lines 1 to 4), subclause (4), omit subclause (4).
(12) Clause 16, page 20 (line 11), before "The ABC Commissioner", insert "(1)".
(13) Clause 16, page 20 (before line 12), before paragraph (a), insert:
(aa) promoting the main object of this Act (see section 3);
(14) Clause 16, page 20 (after line 20), after paragraph (b), insert:
(ba) ensuringbuilding employers and building contractors comply with their obligations under this Act, designated building laws and the Building Code;
(15) Clause 16, page 21 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) In performing the functions referred to in subsection (1), the ABC Commissioner mustensure that the policies and procedures adopted and resources allocated for protecting and enforcing rights and obligations arising under this Act, designated building laws and the Building Code are, to the greatest extent practicable having regard to industry conditions based on complaints received by the ABC Commissioner, applied in a reasonable and proportionate manner to each of the categories of building industry participants.
(16) Clause 16, page 21 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the ABC Commissioner must perform his or her functions in relation to the following provisions of the FW Act:
(a) Chapter 2, including (but not limited to) in relation to wages and entitlements;
(b) Part 3‑1 (general protections, including protection of freedom of association and prohibitions on coercion), including (but not limited to):
(i) section 351 (discrimination); and
(ii) sections 357 to 359 (sham arrangements);
(c) Part 3‑3 (industrial action), including (but not limited to):
(i) section 474 (payments not to be made relating to certain periods of industrial action); and
(ii) section 475 (accepting or seeking payments relating to periods of industrial action);
(d) Part 3‑4 (right of entry).
(17) Clause 19, page 22 (line 6), after "an inspector", insert "who is an employee of the Commission".
(18) Clause 19, page 22 (line 7), after "acting SES employee", insert "who is an employee of the Commission".
(19) Clause 19, page 22 (line 8), after "an SES employee)", insert "who is an employee of the Commission and".
(20) Clause 19, page 22 (lines 10 and 11), omit "section 61 (ABC Commissioner may give examination notice)", substitute "section 61B or 61F or subsection 61E(3) or (4) (examination notices)".
(21) Heading to clause 20, page 22 (line 27), omit the heading, substitute:
20 Quarterly and annual reports
(22) Clause 20, page 22 (before line 28), before subclause (1), insert:
(1A) As soon as practicable after the end of each quarter of each financial year, the ABC Commissioner must prepare and give to the Minister a report on the performance of the ABC Commissioner's functions and the exercise of the ABC Commissioner's powers during that quarter.
(23) Clause 20, page 22 (line 30), omit "the operations of the ABC Commissioner", substitute "the performance of the ABC Commissioner's functions and the exercise of the ABC Commissioner's powers".
(24) Clause 20, page 22 (after line 30), at the end of subclause (1), add:
Note: See also section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains extra rules about annual reports.
(25) Clause 20, page 22 (line 31) to page 23 (line 14), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:
(2) A report under subsection (1A) or (1) must include:
(a) details of:
(i) the number, and type, of matters that were investigated by the ABC Commissioner during the quarter or year (as the case requires); and
(ii) the cost, during that quarter or year, of each such investigation; and
(b) details of assistance and advice provided during that quarter or year to building industry participants; and
(c) details of the extent to which the Building Code was complied with during that quarter or year.
Note: See also section 107, which restricts the disclosure of personal information in a report.
(3) The report must also include:
(a) details of directions given by the Minister during that quarter or year under section 17 or 18; and
(b) details of delegations by the ABC Commissioner under section 19 during that quarter or year.
(26) Clause 20, page 23 (line 7), omit "year.", substitute "year; and".
(27) Clause 20, page 23 (after line 7), at the end of subclause (2) (before the note), add:
(d) details of:
(i) the number, and type, of matters that were investigated by the ABC Commissioner during that quarter or year in relation to building employers; and
(ii) the cost, during that quarter or year, of each such investigation; and
(e) details of the following, both in total and in relation to each category of building industry participant:
(i) the number of proceedings commenced in accordance with this Act in that quarter or year;
(ii) the cost, during that quarter or year, of those proceedings (including legal expenses); and
(f) details of the number, and total cost, of such proceedings finalised in that quarter or year; and
(g) details of the legal expenses incurred during that quarter or year as a result of enforcement action undertaken by the ABC Commissioner; and
(h) details of industry conditions, during that quarter or year, based on complaints received by the ABC Commissioner during that quarter or year; and
(i) details of activities that the ABC Commissioner has undertaken during that quarter or year to monitor the compliance of products used in building work with relevant Australian standards published by, or on behalf of, Standards Australia; and
(j) details of the number, and type, of matters for which examination notices were issued under this Act.
(28) Clause 21, page 23 (line 31), omit "character.", substitute "character; and".
(29) Clause 21, page 23 (after line 31), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; and (c) will uphold the APS Values set out in section 10 of the Public Service Act 1999, including by performing his or her functions in an apolitical manner and acting impartially and professionally.
(30) Clause 28, page 25 (line 29), omit "incapacity.", substitute "incapacity; or".
(31) Clause 28, page 25 (after line 29), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; or (c) if the Commissioner fails to perform his or her functions with impartiality as between all categories of building industry participants.
(32) Page 28 (after line 9), at the end of Chapter 2, add:
Part 4—Security of Payments Working Group
32A Security of Payments Working Group
(1) The Security of Payments Working Group is established by this section.
(2) The functions of the Working Group are the following:
(a) monitoring the impact of the activities of the Commission on the conduct and practices of building industry participants in relation to their compliance with laws (security of payment laws) of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories that relate to the security of payments that are due to persons in relation to building work;
(b) making recommendations to the ABC Commissioner about policies, procedures or programs that could be implemented to improve compliance by building industry participantswith security of payment laws;
(c) making recommendations to the Ministerabout any matter that the Minister requests the Working Group to consider;
(d) any other functions conferred on the Working Group by the rules.
32B Membership of Working Group
(1) The Working Group consists of the following members:
(a) the ABC Commissioner;
(b) at least one member who has experience or background in employee representation in the building industry;
(c) at least one member who has experience or background in employer representation in the building industry;
(d) at least one member who has experience or background in contractor representation in the building industry;
(e) any other members (if any) appointed under section 32C.
(2) The rules may specify entities that must be represented on the Working Group.
32C Appointment of members
(1) A member of the Working Group (other than the ABC Commissioner) is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.
Note: A member of the Working Group is eligible for reappointment (see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).
(2) A member appointed by the Minister holds office on a part‑time basis.
(3) A member appointed by the Minister holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 3 years.
32D Chair
(1) The Minister must appoint a member (other than the ABC Commissioner) to be the Chair of the Working Group.
(2) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a member (other than the ABC Commissioner) to act as the Chair:
(a) during a vacancy in the office of Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or
(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair:
(i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or
(ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.
Note: See sections 20 and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
32E Remuneration
(1) A member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister is not entitled to be paid remuneration or allowances.
(2) A member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister is entitled to be reimbursed reasonable expenses that he or she incurs in performing functions as a member.
32F Resignation of members
(1) A member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister may resign his or her appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.
(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.
32G Termination of appointment
The Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister:
(a) for misbehaviour; or
(b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity; or
(c) if the member:
(i) becomes bankrupt; or
(ii) takes steps to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) compounds with one or more of his or her creditors; or
(iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of one or more of his or her creditors; or
(d) if the member is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months.
32H Other terms and conditions
A member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.
32J Meetings
(1) The Chair must convene:
(a) such meetings of the Working Group as are, in his or her opinion, necessary for the performance of its functions; and
(b) at least 4 meetings of the Working Group in each financial year.
(2) The procedures to be followed at a meeting of the Working Group are to be determined by the Chair.
32K Annual report
The Chair must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on:
(a) the membership of the Working Group during the financial year; and
(b) the operations of the Working Group during the financial year.
(33) Clause 34, page 29 (lines 17 to 19), omit subclause (2), substitute:
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister:
(a) must issue one or more documents under that subsection in relation to procurement matters relating to building work; and
(b) may issue one or more documents under that subsection in relation to work health and safety matters relating to building work.
Note: A single document may contain the entire Building Code (including the matters referred to in paragraph (2) (a) and, if applicable, paragraph (2) (b)).
(2A) Without limiting subsection (1) or paragraph (2) (a),a document issued under subsection (1) relating to procurement matters must require a funding entity to ensure that the preferred tenderer for building work provides the following information:
(a) the extent to which domestically sourced and manufactured building materials will be used to undertake the building work;
(b) whether the building materials to be used to undertake the building work comply with relevant Australian standards published by, or on behalf of, Standards Australia;
(c) the preferred tenderer's assessment of the whole‑of‑life costs of the project to which the building work relates;
(d) the impact on jobs of the project to which the building work relates;
(e) whether the project to which the building work relates will contribute to skills growth.
(2B) Without limiting subsection (1) or paragraph (2) (a),a document issued under subsection (1) relating to procurement matters must require a funding entity to require building industry participants to only use products in building work that comply with relevant Australian standards published by, or on behalf of, Standards Australia.
(2C) Each of the following is a funding entity:
(a) a non‑corporate Commonwealth entity (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013);
(b) a corporate Commonwealth entity (within the meaning of that Act) that is directed by the Minister administering that Act to comply with the Building Code.
(34 ) Clause 34, page 29 (after line 19), after subclause (2), insert:
(2D) Without limiting subsection (1), the Building Code must include provisions ensuring that no person is employed to undertake building work unless:
(a) the position is first advertised in Australia; and
(b) the advertising was targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents (within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958) would be likely to be informed about the position; and
(c) any skills or experience requirements set out in the advertising were appropriate to the position; and
(d) the employer demonstrates that no Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is suitable for the job.
(35) Clause 34, page 29 (before line 20), before subsection (3), insert:
(2E) If a document issued under subsection (1) includes requirements in relation to the content of building enterprise agreements, a building industry participant may, before 29 November 2018, submit expressions of interest, tender for and be awarded building work funded (whether directly or indirectly) by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority even if a building enterprise agreement, made before the document is issued, that covers the building industry participant does not comply with any one or more of the requirements.
Note: However, a building enterprise agreement, made after the document is issued, that covers a building industry participant must comply with the requirements if the building industry participant is to tender for building work.
(36) Clause 38, page 32 (after line 22), after paragraph (c), insert:
(ca) auditing compliance with National Construction Code performance requirements in relation to building materials;
(37) Clause 60, page 47 (lines 5 to 9), omit "The ABC Commissioner may require a person to give information, produce documents or answer questions relating to an investigation of a suspected contravention of this Act or a designated building law by a building industry participant. The Commissioner does this by giving a person an examination notice.", substitute "A person may be required under an examination notice issued under Part 2 to give information, produce documents or answer questions relating to an investigation of a suspected contravention of this Act or a designated building law by a building industry participant. The notice is issued, on application by the ABC Commissioner, by a nominated AAT presidential member.".
(38) Clause 61, page 48 (line 3) to page 49 (line 18), omit the clause, substitute:
61A Minister may nominate AAT presidential members to issue examination notices
(1) The Minister may, by writing, nominate an AAT presidential member to issue examination notices under this Part.
(2) The Minister may nominate an AAT presidential member who is a Judge to issue examination notices under this Part only if the Judge has consented, by writing, to the nomination.
(3) A nomination ceases to have effect if:
(a) the nominated AAT presidential member ceases to be an AAT presidential member; or
(b) the Minister, by writing, withdraws the nomination.
(4) A nominated AAT presidential member has, in performing a function of or connected with issuing an examination notice under this Part, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court.
61B ABC Commissioner may apply to nominated AAT presidential member for examination notice
General requirements
(1) The ABC Commissioner may apply, in writing, to a nominated AAT presidential member for the issue of an examination notice referred to in subsection (2) if the ABC Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that a person:
(a) has information or documents relevant to an investigation by an inspector into a suspected contravention, by a building industry participant, of this Act or a designated building law; or
(b) is capable of giving evidence that is relevant to such an investigation.
(2) The examination notice may require the person:
(a) to give information to the ABC Commissioner; or
(b) to produce documents to the ABC Commissioner; or
(c) to attend before the ABC Commissioner and answer questions relevant to the investigation.
Form and content of application
(3) An application for an examination notice must:
(a) if a form is prescribed by the regulations—be in that form; and
(b) include any information prescribed by the regulations.
(4) An application for an examination notice must not relate to more than one person, but may relate to more than one investigation.
Application must be accompanied by affidavit
(5) An application for an examination notice must be accompanied by an affidavit by the ABC Commissioner including the following:
(a) the name of the person to whom the application relates;
(b) details of the investigation (or investigations) to which the application relates;
(c) the grounds on which the ABC Commissioner believes the person has information or documents, or is capable of giving evidence, relevant to the investigation (or investigations) referred to in paragraph (b);
(d) details of other methods used to attempt to obtain the information, documents or evidence;
(e) the number (if any) of previous applications for an examination notice that the ABC Commissioner has made in relation to the person in respect of the investigation (or investigations) referred to in paragraph (b);
(f) information about whether the ABC Commissioner has made, or expects to make, any other applications for an examination notice in relation to the investigation (or investigations) referred to in paragraph (b) and, if so, the persons to whom those applications relate.
Further information
(6) A nominated AAT presidential member to whom an application for an examination notice is made may request the ABC Commissioner to give the presidential member further information in relation to the application.
(7) If a request for further information is made under subsection (6), the ABC Commissioner must give the further information in writing as soon as practicable after receiving the request.
61C Issue of examination notice
(1) A nominated AAT presidential member to whom an application for an examination notice has been made must issue the examination notice if the presidential member is satisfied of the following:
(a) that an inspector has commenced the investigation (or investigations) to which the application relates;
(b) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person to whom the application relates has information or documents, or is capable of giving evidence, relevant to the investigation (or investigations);
(c) that any other method of obtaining the information, documents or evidence:
(i) has been attempted and has been unsuccessful; or
(ii) is not appropriate;
(d) that the information, documents or evidence would be likely to be of assistance in the investigation (or investigations);
(e) that, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be appropriate to issue the examination notice;
(f) any other matter prescribed by the regulations.
(2) A nominated AAT presidential member must not issue an examination notice except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).
(3) An examination notice must not be issued in relation to more than one person, but may be issued in relation to more than one investigation.
(4) If:
(a) an application for an examination notice is made in relation to more than one investigation; and
(b) the nominated AAT presidential member to whom the application is made is not satisfied of the matters referred to in subsection (1) in relation to each of those investigations;
the nominated AAT presidential member must issue the examination notice in relation to the investigation (or investigations) in relation to which the nominated AAT presidential member is satisfied of the matters referred to in subsection (1).
61D Form and content of examination notice
An examination notice must:
(a) if a form is prescribed by the regulations—be in that form; and
(b) if the notice requires a person to give information under paragraph 61B(2) (a) to the ABC Commissioner—specify the time by which, and the manner and form in which, the information is to be given; and
(c) if the notice requires a person to produce documents under paragraph 61B(2) (b) to the ABC Commissioner—specify the time by which, and the manner in which, the documents are to be produced; and
(d) if the notice requires a person to attend before the ABC Commissioner to answer questions relevant to an investigation—specify the time and place for the attendance; and
(e) be signed by the nominated AAT presidential member who issued it; and
(f) include any other information prescribed by the regulations.
Note: See also sections 62 (offence for failing to comply with examination notice), 79 (power to keep records or documents), 102 (self‑incrimination) and 103 (protection from liability).
61E ABC Commissioner may give examination notice to person in relation to whom it is issued and vary time for compliance
ABC Commissioner may give examination notice to person in relation to whom it is issued
(1) If a nominated AAT presidential member issues an examination notice, the ABC Commissioner may give the notice to the person in relation to whom it is issued.
(2) If an examination notice is not given to the person in relation to whom it is issued within 3 months after the day on which it was issued, the notice ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
ABC Commissioner may vary time for compliance with examination notice
(3) If:
(a) the ABC Commissioner gives an examination notice to a person under subsection (1); and
(b) the time specified in the notice under paragraph 61D(b), (c) or (d) is not at least 14 days after the notice is given to the person;
the ABC Commissioner must, at the same time as the examination notice is given to the person, also give notice to the person of a time later than the time specified in the notice.
(4) The ABC Commissioner may, at any time after giving an examination notice to the person in relation to whom it is issued, give notice to the person of a time later than the time:
(a) specified in the notice under paragraph 61D(b), (c) or (d); or
(b) notified under subsection (3).
(5) A later time notified under subsection (3) or (4) must be at least 14 days after the examination notice is given to the person.
(6) If the person is notified of a later time under subsection (3) or (4), the examination notice has effect as if the later time (or the latest of those times) were the time specified in the examination notice.
61F Conduct of examination etc.
Application of section
(1) This section applies if a person is required by an examination notice to attend before the ABC Commissioner to answer questions relevant to an investigation.
ABC Commissioner to conduct examination
(2) The ABC Commissioner must conduct the examination of the person.
Representation by lawyer
(3) The person may, if he or she so chooses, be represented at the examination by a lawyer of the person's choice.
Oath or affirmation
(4) The ABC Commissioner may require the information or answers given by the person at the examination to be verified by, or given on, oath or affirmation, and either orally or in writing. For that purpose, the ABC Commissioner may administer the oath or affirmation.
(5) The oath or affirmation is an oath or affirmation that information or answers are, or will be, true.
ABC Commissioner must not require person to give certain undertakings
(6) The ABC Commissioner must not require the person to undertake:
(a) not to disclose information or answers given at the examination; or
(b) not to discuss matters relating to the examination with any other person.
(39) Clause 62, page 49 (line 20), before "A person", insert "(1)".
(40) Clause 62, page 49 (after line 30), at the end of the clause (before the penalty), insert:
Note: A court may impose a maximum penalty of 30 penalty units instead of, or in addition to, a term of imprisonment. A body corporate that is convicted of an offence may be fined up to 5 times that maximum penalty (see subsections 4B(2) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1914).
(41) Clause 62, page 49 (after line 31), at the end of the clause (after the penalty), add:
(2) This Part does not require a person to give information, produce a document or answer questions if to do so would disclose information that:
(a) is the subject of legal professional privilege; or
(b) would be protected by public interest immunity.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(42) Clause 62, page 49 (line 28), omit "subsection 61(5)", substitute "subsection 61F(4)".
(43) Clause 64, page 50 (lines 17 to 25), omit the clause, substitute:
64 ABC Commissioner must notify Commonwealth Ombudsman of issue of examination notice
(1) As soon as practicable after an examination notice has been issued, the ABC Commissioner must:
(a) notify the Commonwealth Ombudsman that the examination notice has been issued; and
(b) give the Commonwealth Ombudsman a copy of:
(i) the examination notice; and
(ii) the affidavit that accompanied the application for the examination notice; and
(iii) any other information in relation to the examination notice that was given to the nominated AAT presidential member who issued the notice.
(2) If notice under subsection 61E(3) or (4) is given to a person, the ABC Commissioner must notify the Commonwealth Ombudsman as soon as practicable after giving notice.
(44) Clause 65, page 51 (line 16), omit "and any assistant", substitute "and any person assisting the ABC Commissioner".
(45) Clause 65, page 51 (lines 27 to 31), omit subclause (6), substitute:
(6) As soon as practicable after the end of each quarter of each financial year, the Commonwealth Ombudsman must prepare and present to the Parliament a report about examinations conducted during that quarter. The report must include the results of reviews conducted under this section during that quarter.
(46) Clause 106, page 87 (line 23), omit "(annual reports)", substitute "(quarterly and annual reports)".
(47) Clause 107, page 88 (line 26), omit "(annual reports)", substitute "(quarterly and annual reports)".
(48) Clause 119, page 97 (after line 6), after the clause, insert:
119A Review of operation of this Act
(1) Before the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review into the operation of this Act.
(2) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1).
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.
(49) Clause 120, page 97 (before line 30), before paragraph (4) (a), insert:
(aa) matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed by the regulations; or
(ab) matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act; or
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (18:56): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The amendments will give effect to a number of changes that will ensure the impartiality of the ABCC and the commissioner of the Building and Construction Commission. They will make changes relating to establishing the burden of proof for the work health and safety exception, consistent with the Fair Work Act. The amended bill will require the ABCC to outline, in its annual report, details of activity taken against employers and require that a report be provided quarterly to the minister. It will establish a security-of-payment working group to oversee the functions of the commissioner. It will retain the current legislative provision where a compulsory examination notice can only be issued by a nominated presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It will apply a judicial review under the AD(JR) Act to administrative decisions made under the bill. And, up until 29 November 2018, it will allow building industry participants whose enterprise agreements are not Building Code compliant to tender for and be awarded Commonwealth-funded building contracts.
This Building and Construction Commission bill is a vital economic reform, as honourable members have heard earlier today in the House. It is a vital economic reform to restore the rule of law to the construction sector, which employs over a million Australians and involves 300,000 small businesses. It is eight per cent of GDP. This has been a hard-fought reform which the opposition have resisted for many, many years. We have secured the support of the Senate, subject to the amendments—moved by the crossbench—that have been described and have been returned to the House from the Senate. I thank the Senate for its consideration of the bill. I thank the crossbench for their contribution to the debate and their contribution to the amendments. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (18:59): I rise on behalf of the opposition to reflect on the amendments that have been moved in the Senate. The fact is that this bill is nothing like the bill that was put to the Australian people in the double dissolution election. This is a fundamentally different bill. It would have been easier for the government just to amend the title of the Fair Work building commission and just call it the ABCC, because the very significant amendments that were moved and accepted in the Senate have altered, fundamentally, this regulator, and I will go to some of those, if I may.
Firstly, the government backflipped on the reverse onus on workers to raise health and safety matters. They backflipped on judicial review. They backflipped on the oversight required for coercive powers to be used. And indeed they backflipped to some extent on retrospectivity for the industry in relation to how the Building Code will apply.
Of course this does not go to the Building Code. The instrument that has yet to be issued by the minister will lie on the table in the Senate, and Labor will be seeking to disallow that instrument because that instrument fundamentally changes the working conditions of construction workers. It is, in many respects, Work Choices coming into the building industry. And that is why we will be opposing it.
But, as for the regulator, of course the biggest furphy in this debate was that this was about fighting crime. This is a civil regulator. It is not a crime-fighting agency. If there is crime in the building industry, or the banking industry or any industry, we would want crime-fighting agencies to deal with those issues. This is a civil regulator.
We cannot support the bill, amended or otherwise, because it fundamentally offends the values of Labor. It removes entitlements: the right to silence and the right to have a lawyer. There are fundamental issues that are still of concern to Labor. But the subtext of this debate—the real motive of this government—has always been about cutting the conditions of employment of construction workers in this country.
There are now two sets of employment conditions in the construction sector. There are those conditions that apply to enterprise agreements that were entered into prior to the introduction of this bill, and there will be a new set of conditions of employment for any subsequent enterprise agreement entered into by employers and their workforce and unions. Mark my words: this will create instability and uncertainty in the construction sector. There will be two sets of rules for different employers.
Also, I have been made aware that many employers feel very let down by the Prime Minister conceding on these amendments. In fact, those companies who have yet to enter into agreements with the union are very disappointed that the Prime Minister and the government backslid and backflipped their way to this result. And, for that reason, this bill is of such a different character from the bill that was put before the Australian people during the double dissolution election.
Whatever we might say of the Prime Minister's predecessor, Tony Abbott, there is no way that Tony Abbott would have actually supported—
The SPEAKER: The member will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Indeed, Mr Speaker. The member for Warringah would have never acceded to these concessions. And, by the way, while I am at it, neither would have the former minister for employment, Senator Abetz. They would not have accepted these concessions.
The reality is: the reason why the government backflipped on these matters and changed, fundamentally, the character of the bill—and, indeed, the character of the regulator—is because this has always been about one job, and that is the Prime Minister's job. He has to pass something through the Senate. And, as a result, he has caved in on one matter after the other. We watched it last night, and we watched it this morning. In relation to—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will resume his seat. His time has expired.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: In relation—
The SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: If I may finish, Mr Speaker?
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (19:04): Thanks very much, Mr Speaker.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: Well, I'm up now. The issue here—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: I move:
That the motion be put.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 2), omit the heading.
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 3 to 6), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 2, item 14, page 13 (line 8), omit ", other than regulation 7.13,".
(4) Schedule 2, page 13 (after line 14), after item 14, insert:
14A Continuation of nomination of AAT presidential members
(1) This item applies to a person if, immediately before the transition time, an instrument is in force under section 44 of the old Act nominating the person to issue examination notices under Division 3 of Part 1 of Chapter 7 of the old Act.
(2) The instrument has effect, after the transition time, as if it were an instrument made by the Minister under section 61A of the new Act nominating the person to issue examination notices under Part 2 of Chapter 7 of the new Act.
14B Preserving regulations relating to examination notices
Regulations made by the Governor‑General for the purposes of a provision of the old Act referred to in column 1 of the table that are in force immediately before the transition time continue in force after that time as if the regulations were rules made by the Minister for the purposes of the provision of the new Act referred to in column 2 of the table.
Preserving regulations relating to examination notices |
||
Item |
Column 1 Old Act |
Column 2 New Act |
1 |
Subsection 45(3) |
Subsection 61B(3) |
2 |
Paragraph 47(1) (g) |
Paragraph 61C(1) (f) |
3 |
Paragraphs 48(a) and (f) |
Paragraphs 61D(a) and (f) |
The SPEAKER (19:05): I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (19:05): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
We just heard from the honourable member opposite in a remarkable speech of five minutes in which the bill was so compromised and innocuous, at one point, that it was almost a triumph for the Labor Party, to then, within a few seconds, being one of the most horrific tramplings on industrial rights ever known to mankind. What we have seen here is the disorientation, the bitterness and the disappointment of honourable members opposite that their campaign to resist the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission for so many years has finally come to an end. It has come to an end. The ABCC is back. The rule of law is back. The bullying and the thuggery will come to an end. A million Australians who work in the construction and building sector know that their rights to be governed by the same laws that apply to all Australians will be supported.
What this does is: it improves the productivity of an industry and the integrity of an industry that represents eight per cent of our GDP, employs, as I said a moment ago, a million Australians and engages the efforts of 300,000 small businesses. This is a step to defend the rule of law, but it is also a vital economic reform. This reform and the registered organisations bill were equally bitterly resisted by the Labor Party in their determination to support not the two million members of trade unions but union bosses—whose misappropriations, fraud, bullying and thuggery had become so notorious that justice cried out for something to be done. The only barrier was the Labor Party. The political wing of the union movement has stood for years in the way of the reform of the union movement. It has stood in the way of defending the members of those unions. What we have seen from the Senate is a process that has resulted in amendments that have enabled us to restore that rule of law to the building and construction sector.
I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (19:08): Can I firstly make it very clear here: we oppose the bill because there are still major flaws with it. But what we are discussing and debating in this place now are the amendments. These amendments reflect the concessions made by the Prime Minister and this government where they backflipped and conceded on so many matters that this regulator is nothing like the regulator that would have occurred if the original bill had been supported by the parliament, but it was not.
There were, of course, other amendments that were accepted by the government, including amendments that were moved by the opposition. Firstly, they have accepted the 457 amendment—something that they voted against, but I understand they have allowed it to form part of this legislation. We do support some restrictions on providing opportunities for local workers to be employed in the construction industry first. We do know that there are thousands and thousands of construction workers—many of whom are coming out of the mining sector as the construction phase ends—looking for work on construction sites in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, and regional Australia. That protection, which was enclosed within the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill on Monday, was moved yesterday in the Senate to amend this bill. The government, of course, voted against that amendment, but I understand that they have not insisted on opposing it. It now forms part of this proposed piece of legislation.
Whilst we cannot support the bill in toto, we do accept the shift of onus so that it is no longer the case that an ordinary worker has to establish whether they have acted reasonably on a health and safety matter, and that if they cannot establish that then they can be fined in the order of $30,000. We are happy that the government has conceded on that. It was completely unreasonable to expect construction workers to be treated in an entirely different way than other workers in this country. In fact, that is not relating to union officials. I am talking about ordinary construction workers who raise health and safety matters in one of the most risky and dangerous industries in Australia. It is a difficult area of work in many cases. As we know, it has the second highest fatalities in any sector in this country.
We do know that on the last occasion when the ABCC was in place we watched the incidence of fatalities increase. We are fearful that that would happen again. Of course, we will keep an eye on that. That would be a dreadful thing to happen if it were to happen—that we would be seeing an increase in the incidence of fatalities. We have seen too many people die in the building industry. Recently, a German backpacker—a young woman 20 years old—fell to her death in Perth. Two Irish backpackers were completely crushed when a concrete slab fell on them because the workers had not been designated a lunch area. We have seen tragedy after tragedy. We saw two deaths on the Adelaide hospital site where two experienced workers were killed. Clearly, there were some unsafe practices on that site. We see too many Australians not come home because they are in dangerous workplaces. I say to the government that this is the most serious of matters: the increase in the incidence of fatalities on the last occasion that the ABCC was in place. That is a very significant issue.
I would also like to go to the question of the housing prices. The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that through this reform we are going to see a decline in housing prices because there will be some cost reductions. I have to say this again—and I have said it before: this regulator does not apply to the residential construction sector. This regulator does not apply to that, but the government has made it clear that a key performance indicator is seeing the fall in prices of houses. That has been an argument put forward by the Prime Minister and the government. Don't hold your breath if you expect that to happen. But, again, if it fails to happen, this bill is a failure and this regulator is a failure, because it is that argument and other arguments that the Prime Minister has contended would happen if we actually introduced this regulator.
So, Mr Speaker, we do not want to see an increase in the incidence of fatalities in the building industry like we did the last time the ABCC was introduced. We do not want to see house prices rise unreasonably, but the Prime Minister has assured us that there will be falls in house prices as a result of this regulator. Well, let us wait and see whether that happens. The reality is this: this bill is a fraud bill because—(Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a veiw to substituting the following words:
“Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the Australian Government is required to present on the first day of the Autumn sitting of the House legislation that contains a genuine and comprehensive framework for the introduction of equity crowdfunding to Australia, that:
(1)can be used effectively by both unlisted public companies and privately held firms;
(2)provides improved protections for retail investors, stronger than those currently proposed by the Government; and
(3)avoids placing a heavy regulatory or investor relations burden on startup enterprises and small businesses.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) (19:14):The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (19:14): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on an issue that is actually important for our economy and will be helpful to the Australian economy, which is crowdsourced funding for start-ups, unlike the bill we were just considering, which is going to reinstitute a body that, when it was last in force, presided over a situation where productivity growth was weak and safety outcomes were poor.
But I come back to the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-Sourced Funding) Bill 2016, which we are discussing at the moment. This is a very important question, that of: how do you allow crowd-sourced funding to happen in this country? We have what I would describe as a nascent start-up sector that is desperately looking for ways to increase the amount of capital that they can attract to their start-ups so that they can grow quickly. We want to support high-growth start-ups in this country. We want to have a very strong and robust start-up sector. That is why it is so important to get crowd-sourced equity funding right. The member for Chifley has been an absolute driver of the movement to open up crowdsourced equity funding in this country, and it is really important to acknowledge his work—that we got out well in front of the government, frankly—in relation to crowd-sourced equity funding through the discussion paper that he produced and his work in continuing to tenaciously pursue the reforms that will allow crowd-sourced equity funding to be a major force for capital raising for start-ups in this country.
We often talk about the benefits in relation to jobs that are created by high-growth start-ups. These are firms that will, in situations in which they succeed, grow new jobs for Australian people, and that is another reason, of course, why it is so important that we make sure the settings are right, so we can have a good, strong start-up sector here in Australia. I think there is an important point about opening up ownership of capital to more and more people. As Australia becomes less equal—as we move towards greater inequality; the situation that we are in now, where inequality is at its highest levels in 70 years—it is often tempting to focus in on income inequality, on the differences between the incomes for people at the very bottom of the income distribution compared with those at the very top of the income distribution. But we should also think about wealth inequality and the inequality of ownership of assets. That is a really important question for this parliament, because, as inequality grows and as asset ownership becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of smaller and smaller proportions of Australians, inequality and fairness is a massive challenge for this country.
It is for this reason that I am a supporter of, for example, employee share ownership. I want to see more employee share ownership in this country. I think employee share ownership can be a force for good not only for the reasons that have been traditionally articulated but also because the more that employees have access to ownership of shares, the more you see more availability for ownership of capital for more people and for more working people. That is important and it is important for a range of reasons.
Of course, with employee share ownership, you need to be careful to have the settings right. You certainly do not want situations, for example, where there is some sort of perverse incentive for management to prefer paying out dividends to reinvestment of capital in the business for the purpose of productivity-enhancing improvements whether it is capital deepening through equipment or through plant, or whether it is investment in the skills and talents of people, of human capital. You certainly do not want that. I think that the principle, that employees should own shares in their businesses, is an important one not only because it gives them that immediate direct incentive to have a bit of skin in the game—to have that incentive to make sure that they make a capital gain from the ownership of those shares—but also because of the broader question of opening up ownership of assets to more and more people in this country.
For the same reason, I think it is really important, when we talk about crowd-sourced equity funding, that we do acknowledge that we are talking about allowing smaller investors to have a real stake—to have some real ownership—over what could be potentially very high growth new businesses. That is one reason why I think we should be very clear that when we are supporting crowd-sourced equity funding we are not only supporting the business itself but also supporting the capacity of more people to own assets in this country and to potentially make asset ownership more democratic, to open it up to more people and to more people of lesser means than possibly people who have traditionally been angel investors.
I am a big supporter of the work that the member for Chifley and others have done to promote crowd-sourced equity funding in this country for that reason, and, as I said, I am also a very big supporter for the usually expressed reason, which is that start-ups need access to capital. We do still have a need for more capital in this country to go towards high-growth start-ups. It is something that Labor acknowledged in the policy that we took to the last federal election. You will be aware, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, that our policy included substantial tax offsets for angel investors—in fact, more generous tax offsets for angel investors than the coalition's policy taken to the last election.
We also were very cognisant of the importance of attracting capital to this country through venture capital, and I have certainly had the benefit, in my capacity as one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Innovation Enterprise in the last term—and I see my fellow co-chair, the member for Banks, is also in the chamber, and I know he is an enthusiastic supporter of attracting more venture capital to this country. I have certainly had the benefit of meeting with and working with the Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Ltd, AVCAL, which is a really strong peak group advocating for better frameworks in this country to promote investment in Australian firms and to promote venture capital being able to flourish in Australia. That is something that I am very passionate about.
Part of the mix—obviously not the only part of the mix, and not even necessarily the main part of the mix—for finding more capital to be invested into Australian start-ups is dealing with crowd-sourced equity funding. I am very pleased that this movement, that the member for Chifley has been such an agitator for and so tenacious about, is continuing to take hold here in our parliament. Equally, I am concerned about the bill. I appreciate that there have been some amendments made since the last time I was in a position to speak to related legislation. I appreciate that there has been a substantial increase in the turnover cap from $5 million to $25 million. I strongly welcome that increase in the turnover cap to allow broader access to crowd-sourced equity funding. But I am very concerned, particularly about this issue of not being in a position yet to extend crowd-sourced equity funding to proprietary limited firm companies.
This is not a straightforward question, but when we talk about a situation where an early-stage start-up has incorporated, they are going to have incorporated as a proprietary limited company. That is what they will have done—why would you incorporate as a nonlisted public company if you did not have to? Of course you would not, because of the additional costs and the additional compliance burdens that rightly apply to public companies compared with those that apply to proprietary limited companies. If you were starting a business, you would incorporate as a proprietary limited company, and to have access to this scheme that the coalition is contending for in this House tonight you would have to do something that you would not otherwise do, which is to become a nonlisted public company. You would take on all of the additional compliance burdens that come along with that—things like reporting and annual general meetings. And for what? It would be only to get access to this scheme.
I think that most people would agree that it is not ideal to say to people that, as a cost of gaining access to this capital, you have to take on additional costs and compliance burdens that you would not otherwise take on and that would not add sufficient value to make it worth it if it were not for getting access to that crowd-sourced equity funding regime. I think most people would agree that this is a problem, and I am certain that the Treasurer agrees that it is a problem because in his press statement and in public statements that he has made he has said that the government will look at extending this regime to proprietary limited companies early next year. Well, why not get it right the first time?
This government has taken such a long time to work on this bill. We have extended the hand of bipartisanship and we have worked through it, but the government has now been in office since September 2013 and we are still not in a position where they have been able to pass crowd-sourced equity funding laws. It took them a very long time to even be in a position to table a bill in the House, let alone a bill that would be acceptable across the parliament and across the community. Given that, why are we rushing this now at the last minute?
There are other issues with it as well. There is a glaringly obvious piece of work that needs to be done that the government intends to do soon. Let's just get the bill right. We have made it very clear to the government, through the second reading amendment that the member for Chifley has moved today, that we want to see a piece of legislation that can be passed and that does not then lead to another version of the legislation having to be passed in five minutes time. In other words, the sector should not have a bill passed in November 2016 and then another bill passed in February 2017—that gives them two different sets of goalposts. Why move the goalposts? Why not just take a comprehensive piece of legislation to the parliament and say, 'Here's what's going to happen. Don't change it a few months later. This is what we've actually done'? All it would take is for the government to work on extending the provisions of its regime to proprietary limited companies—which it has already said it wants to do—making sure that that is done appropriately.
As I said, it is not a completely straightforward matter. It is not a matter of just chucking in an amendment. There are issues that need to be dealt with, but let's just deal with them. The government has the full resources of the Treasury and the nation's bureaucracy at its fingertips. It has a great sector full of amazing people—start-up founders, venture capitalists, angel investors, universities. There are great, phenomenal people engaged in the high-growth start-up sector in this country. Why not work with them over the next few months and get what we actually want to get, and not this half-baked, 'here is most of it but there is another bit to come later' version of the bill that we are debating tonight?
I have said that we have a couple of other concerns about the bill. Those are addressed in the second reading amendment. For example, we are concerned about the protections available for retail investors. I am a very big and strong advocate for opening up the ownership of capital to more people. But, at the same time, there is a difference in the amount of knowledge and skill that a small retail investor might have compared with the amount that a big institutional investor might have, so we do need to make sure that we have appropriate safeguards in place to avoid people being ripped off and exploited.
We also need to make sure that any legislation in this space avoids too much of a burden in relation to regulation or investor relations disclosure. You have to strike the right balance, so we want retail investor protection. We want smaller investors to have access to the opportunities that this sort of regime would provide. We want these start-ups to have the crowd-sourced equity funding framework in their mix of possible places to obtain capital, and we want regulation to be right. We want it to be done well. All of these things are eminently doable. They are completely within the skill, the wit and the knowledge of the people in this place and of the people who work with us outside of this place. We can do it.
To have this situation where we say, 'Here's 90 per cent of what we're going to do, and we'll do the other bit later,' is not particularly satisfactory. One of the key frustrations of all the people that I talk to in business is a lack of certainty. They get really frustrated when we continually change the goalposts on them. We are now flagging that we are going to change the goalposts early next year. Given it has been signalled that the legislation will be amended so that people in proprietary limited firms will not need to transform their firms into nonlisted public companies to access this funding, what I suspect will happen is that those people who are tossing up whether to access crowd-sourced equity funding will probably sit back and wait a couple of months so that they can get the money without having to take on the additional costs and the additional compliance burden. That would be the rational thing to do. Given that, why not get this right? We can absolutely get this right. There is no reason not to get it right. It is a very odd proposition to say, 'Here's my bill. It's pretty good. We're going to fix it later.' That is kind of weird. While I am very enthusiastic about the crowd-sourced equity funding framework and I am very enthusiastic about getting a bill done properly, I do support the second reading amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (19:29): In the 30 seconds I have remaining, I want to celebrate the Turnbull government's strong innovation agenda. The Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016 enables unlisted public companies with less than $25 million in assets and annual turnover to facilitate crowd-sourced equity funding. In contrast to Labor, which did nothing in this space, we are getting on with the job of supporting small businesses. Now we hear from Labor that they want to delay this bill. We will not delay this bill. We are reaching out to businesses, giving them every opportunity to grow and create jobs in this great nation.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) (19:29): Given that it has gone 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Western Australian State Election
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (19:30): If I may, I would like to start my adjournment speech by quickly wishing my sister, Rebecca Morris, a very happy birthday. Rebecca and I were born in the same hospital—the Kwinana Maternity Hospital in Calista. I was born some 14 years after Rebecca and she was always able to, and continues to, remind me that she carried me as an infant out of that same hospital. Happy birthday, Rebecca. I love you and cannot wait to see you at home in Shoalwater for Christmas, along with Robyn and Billy.
The result of a federal election can steer the nation in a new direction, and the outcome of a state election can be just as crucial. Western Australia is one state crying out for change and a new direction and, with a state poll due in about 100 days time on 11 March, the time has most certainly come. For Western Australia it has been a long time coming. The two terms of the Liberal-National government of Colin Barnett will have stretched out to 8½ years by the time the ballots are finally cast in March 2017, and what a long 8½ years it has been—far too long for the people of Brand, hit hard by a deeply flawed government.
Colin Barnett came to power insulated from the global financial crisis by the biggest mining and resources construction boom in Western Australian history. Multi-billion-dollar projects in the state's resource-rich north with lead times stretching back years were just peaking or coming to fruition, showering the state with well-paid jobs and sending an avalanche of revenue into state coffers. It was enough to make even a dysfunctional leader look almost capable, but now that is not enough to wallpaper over the ravine-like cracks in the WA Liberal state government wall of incompetence. We have had Troy Buswell, an heir apparent, who has come and gone not once but twice, and we all know why. The now member for Pearce and former Attorney-General and Treasurer of WA, and another heir apparent to the current Premier, saw the writing on this cracked wall years ago and took off to Canberra with what I would think was unseemly haste. We have seen the former WA leader of the Nationals, Brendon Grylls, duck off for a nap on the back bench after a couple of years. That great agrarian socialist, Grylls, is back—he has trimmed his beard, dusted off the office RM Williams and taken up the leadership again. He is here, ready to serve and prop up another Barnett Liberal government.
Western Australians will not be misled. The end of the boom inevitably exposed the truth. Colin Barnett and the WA Liberal-National government have been hopeless at managing this state's economy. WA now has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Money has been stripped from schools and hospitals; education assistants, doctors and nurses have lost their jobs. Factories are closing, and shops are up for lease. In Brand, in new suburbs like Baldivis and Wellard that sprang up during the boom, hundreds of young families are now feeling the pinch. Jobs are lost and hours are cut back, mortgage payments are missed and homes are being repossessed. 'For sale' signs are going up, and house prices, sadly, are going down. Despite enjoying the highest per capita revenue of any government in the land, Colin Barnett has somehow managed to turn WA into a financial basket case.
Eight-and-a-half years ago the WA Liberal-Nationals inherited debt of just $3.5 billion and a $2 billion budget surplus from the Labor state government. Today, state debt has spiralled towards $40 billion, and there is a $4 billion budget deficit. The Western Australian opposition leader, Mark McGowan, once observed that it was like Colin Barnett had won lotto but had still gone broke. In Brand, the pain is palpable. The people of Brand are paying the price for a government that blew the boom and has failed to plan for the future. There was no plan to diversify the economy or encourage new industries or jobs. But on 11 March the people of WA, and the people of Brand, have a choice to take Western Australia in a new direction.
And Brand is indeed fortunate—if there is a change of government, as I expect there will be, our electorate will be home to both the Premier and Deputy Premier of our great state. Mark McGowan, the opposition leader, has his state electorate in Rockingham and deputy leader, Roger Cook, will hold the seat of Kwinana. Brand is also home to the member for Warnbro, Paul Papalia, who will no doubt form part of a McGowan Labor cabinet. The election will also see a new electorate emerge in Brand, courtesy of the incredible growth of Baldivis. Labor's candidate for Baldivis is father-of-four Reece Whitby, who is well known in WA as a longtime respected television reporter. I look forward to campaigning with Reece over the summer.
Together, these Labor candidates and the very talented Labor team offer formidable energy, experience and determination to repair the damage of these wasted years. Most importantly, Mark McGowan and WA Labor have an extensive and substantial positive plan for the future prosperity of Western Australia. To change the hapless, hopeless, visionless Barnett government, Western Australians must vote Labor, and they must elect Mark McGowan as the next Labor Premier of Western Australia. (Time expired)
Maranoa Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (19:35): Today marks a very important day for the people of Maranoa, and particularly those who have been impacted by the inland rail and the corridor from Goondiwindi to Toowoomba. I was proud today to stand with Minister Chester, the infrastructure minister, to announce a project review group to ensure that those affected communities, those landholders, get the opportunity to have transparency in this process to ensure that we get the right corridor from Goondiwindi through to Toowoomba. This is an important project—a nation-building project—that took the leadership of infrastructure minister Darren Chester to bring it together, to ensure we give confidence and transparency to a very important process.
We are able to announce that the chair of that project group will be Mr Bruce Wilson AM. Mr Wilson is a former director-general of the Queensland transport department under both Labor and LNP governments, so there is bipartisanship in terms of this prominent Australian who can come and give credence to this process to ensure that every person's voice is heard in a proper and transparent manner. Three days after being elected, I met with affected landholders in the Millmerran area in particular and across the floodplains into Brookstead, that go into the seat of my good and neighbour, John McVeigh. Those landholders felt they were not being listened to by ARTC, and I really have to congratulate Minister Chester and his department for coming on this journey with me and allowing me to convince him that those people's voices need to be heard—because they, in their own words, are all for inland rail. They see the importance of this nation that inland rail will bring, but it has to be done in a way that all corridors are explored.
We have announced today that there will be three corridors: the existing corridor, which is Inglewood to Millmerran; the Karara-Leyburn option; and a West Warwick option. All three will be looked at with respect to how we will proceed from Goondiwindi to Toowoomba.
The terms of reference are quite important in this to give confidence to the community about what we are doing to ensure that they understand that this government is ensuring that their voices will be heard in an open, transparent way. We are going to review the current investigation work undertaken to date on all the routes, provide feedback on investigation findings, provide local knowledge about the proposed alignments and the likelihood of any detrimental impacts; seek out advice from local networks on information relevant to the ultimate alignment; and, finally, it will recommend and endorse an alignment, once the rigour and comparative analysis is complete. That is a comprehensive terms of reference that will give confidence to those affected communities.
I am proud to say that Minister Chester came with me on that journey. He ensured that the people of Maranoa, those affected in this significant build, will have their voices heard and that we actually bring them on this journey. This is a $22.5 billion benefit to the nation. This will build directly, and indirectly, $22.5 billion into our economy, getting freight from Melbourne to Brisbane within 24 hours, connecting us to global economies around the world, coupled with the trade agreements that we have been able to undertake in this last three years with China, South Korea and Japan. We are actually seeing that, coupled with the second range crossing—the $1.6 billion investment that this government is making in the connectivity of our producers to the rest of the world.
This is an understanding by our government—an understanding that we actually have to have the tools of the 21st century to ensure that we can put real wealth and create the jobs in rural and regional Australia that will in turn ensure that this nation's economy turns in the right direction.
My electorate alone of Maranoa contributes more to GDP per capita than Toowoomba, Townsville or the Gold Coast, because we have what the world wants, and our trade agreements that this government has achieved over the last three years ensure that we are creating real wealth in our local communities. That flows back into the small businesses in each of those communities. It builds the resilience in each of those towns to ensure that we keep the teachers, we keep the young families. That is what a federal government should do. Those are the economic levers that we should be pulling—investing in infrastructure, putting infrastructure around the people of our electorates to ensure the ones who are creating the wealth will continue to create the jobs, the jobs of the 21st century, and they will be in Maranoa.
Agriculture is the new paradigm. The reality is that we have what the world wants, and now the world is coming to get it. But we, as a federal government, are ensuring that we are giving the people the infrastructure to support that. I think that what Minister Chester has done today has shown that we have a federal government that are not only going to invest in infrastructure; we are going to listen and bring the community on that journey with us. I am proud to say that I am part of the great Turnbull-Joyce government. Thank you.
Community Legal Centres
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (19:40): On Friday, we, as a nation, stood together united as we said 'Not Now, Not Ever' to domestic violence. On Monday the Prime Minister stood in this place and talked about the importance of addressing the issue of domestic violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This then begs the question of why this government stands with such bravado in this place declaring that we need to address this critical issue whilst, at the same time, making cuts to frontline community legal centres—cuts to the very same services that vulnerable women rely on in their time of dire need.
Right now, community legal centres across Australia are facing 30 per cent cuts as of 1 July 2017 and, at a time, when the demand on these legal services is already under enormous pressure. Last year alone, 160,000 people were turned away from community legal centres across the nation.
In the Herbert electorate, one of the most notable community legal centres, the North Queensland Women's Legal Service is under significant pressure and strain. Since opening their offices 20 years ago, the NQ Women's Legal Service has serviced 21,000 women who have received approximately 75,000 legal services. NQ Women's Legal covers a large area across North Queensland, and their two legal practices are over 500 kilometres apart. This geographic reality means there are ongoing challenges and costs—such as strong governance, staff supervision and support, and the challenges around the coordination of resources and service delivery. The demand on their 1800 phone line also increased again last year: for every call that was answered, eight calls went unanswered.
It is clear that this service already faces some pretty tough challenges without the added burden of funding cuts. So what do these cuts mean? In reality, these cuts will create pretty dire circumstances for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. If this government were to slash 30 per cent of the NQ Women's Legal Service funding, this would result in up to 2,000 legal services being cut, based on the 6,000 legal services delivered last financial year alone. This will deliver a significant loss to the Herbert community with the potential results being significantly detrimental.
My community is not a wealthy Sydney community. We have unemployment over 10 per cent, youth unemployment over 16 per cent and one of the highest insolvency rates in the nation. What this government fails to understand is that we live in a community where vulnerable people need access to legal assistance, whether arising from domestic or family violence, a car accident or a property dispute. It is very clear that this government is out of touch and has no understanding of the needs of the people who earn less than a million dollars.
The Townsville Community Legal Service helped a couple in their seventies who gave their son a $200,000 loan, which the son used to construct a house and granny flat. Within a year of the granny flat's construction, the son told his parents that they had to vacate the granny flat and was abusive and intimidating to them. The Townsville Community Legal Service helped to recover a substantial amount from the son, once the property was sold, and provided further assistance regarding Centrelink income and asset test implications. Townsville Community Legal Service helped to reduce the risk of homelessness for this elderly couple, and they are now living in a retirement village.
This government has no idea of the vital services our community legal centres deliver, and why would they, as they have not consulted with these centres before making these cuts. How out of touch can a government be? If you ever needed a clearer case in point of how ineffective this government is at managing a budget or understanding simple economics, it is these cuts to community legal centres.
The Prime Minister might find it interesting to note that the Productivity Commission found that, for every dollar invested in community legal centres, $17 is returned to the community. With this sort of economic return on investment, it beggars believe that the government would even consider any funding cuts.
Once again, this government is failing the people of this nation. Once again the people of Australia can rely and depend on Labor to stand up and fight for them. Labor is the party of community legal centres and Labor will continue to fight for better funded legal services. I commend the work of Bill Shorten and shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in this area and the pledge that Labor took to the last election for $43 million in funding for frontline community legal services, to give them the resources they so desperately need.
The holiday season is the busiest time of the year for community legal centres. What these centres want and need in the lead-up to Christmas is some assurance and commitment from this government that they will not be cutting vital funding to these vital services. I am calling on the government to deliver action and not just empty words. My community is seeking confirmation from this government that they will commit to funding community legal centres into the future.
Kilmore East-Kinglake Class Action
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (19:45): Almost 12 months ago, a dreadful bushfire swept through the Great Ocean Road townships of Wye River and Separation Creek, destroying 116 homes. On that fateful Christmas Day, it was a miracle that no-one died. But many are still suffering, including a group of AAMI Insurance policyholders. The evidence shows that AAMI was deliberately under-quoting the cost of rebuilding their homes. After speaking out in this place and raising AAMI's conduct with the financial services minister, ASIC is now investigating. A number of claims have been resolved, but there is still more work to be done.
On 7 February 2009 there was a far more serious bushfire tragedy in Victoria. The Black Saturday bushfires claimed the lives of 119 people, injured more than 1,000 people, destroyed or damaged 1,727 homes and properties and caused an estimated $1 billion in damage. There were two class actions. A $300 million settlement for the Murrindindi-Marysville class action was approved in May last year and has been paid out. But the plaintiffs in the Kilmore East-Kinglake class action have not been so fortunate.
In what became the largest class action payout in Australian history, the defendants, including SP Ausnet and asset managers Utility Services Group, agreed to pay $494 million to the Kinglake plaintiffs represented by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. This was approved by the Victorian Supreme Court on 23 December 2014. Yet, almost two years on, hundreds of Black Saturday bushfire victims have not received one dollar, despite promises of a full distribution by the end of last year. This money continues to be held by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers on trust—but what about the trust that the thousands of Kinglake plaintiffs placed in this law firm to do the right thing?
Maurice Blackburn says the complexity of this case has delayed these payments. And, yet, while nothing has been paid to so many victims, Maurice Blackburn has received a reported $20 million in legal fees from the Marysville class action and $60 million in legal fees from the Kinglake class action. Survivor Denis Spooner has described these fees as obscene. It was revealed in the Victorian parliament in April this year that Maurice Blackburn equity partners also received $16 million in dividends. As the delay over distributing these proceeds continues, many survivors, including those who lost loved ones, have spoken out over the terrible way they have been treated by flaw firm they thought would protect their interests in this gruelling fight for justice. This is a clear case of justice delayed, justice denied.
There is growing evidence that this plaintiff law firm does not have the capacity or skill to manage such large-scale class action litigation. In a remarkable case of incompetence, it now appears the firm has mismanaged these settlement monies by creating a reported $20 million tax liability on interest earned from the proceeds. Rather than establish tax arrangements with the Australian Taxation Office which do not give rise to a tax bill, it appears Maurice Blackburn has set up a class action trust fund which is not exempt from being taxed. This $20 million tax bill is a kick in the guts for Black Saturday victims. There is no basis for Maurice Blackburn charging one more billable hour in the administration of this $494 million settlement. As Denis Spooner has said, 'There should be a limit to what they can make from other people's misery.'
Rather than threaten the ATO with legal action, Maurice Blackburn must own up to its mistake, take responsibility for paying this tax bill and urgently provide these bushfire victims the payout they were promised so long ago. Justice must be done and must be done urgently.
Dental Health
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (19:50): My father was a dentist and a very good dentist and my brother, Andrew Freelander, is also a very good dentist and is highly respected in his community. So this speech is partly for them. I might have been a dentist too but I think I must have seen the film Marathon Man a few too many times.
This government continues to disappoint community expectations on dental care, particularly for the young and the very old. We are also failing ourselves with our levels of sugar consumption. Sugar consumption is at world record highs. So are obesity rates, which, according to the WHO, more than doubled in the last 25 years. Worldwide that is about 500 million people. The WHO also estimates that 42 million children worldwide under the age of five are obese. In Australia, obesity costs the taxpayer over $5.3 billion a year. One in four Australian adults is now classified as obese. That is compared to one in 10 about 30 years ago.
Exponentially increasing sugar consumption is a major cause of obesity and high persisting rates of dental decay. Our annual dental services bill is now $9 billion, even if you do not include hospitalisation costs, and over 60, 000 Australians a year already fall back on emergency departments across the country to access emergency dental care. It is not uncommon for me to see children with dental abscesses, sometimes requiring hospitalisation for intravenous antibiotics.
Until about the mid-17th century in the United Kingdom, one way you could tell the poor from the rich was by looking at their teeth. Poorer folk could not afford sugar, so they had better teeth than the rich, who could. In the last 200 years, the positions have been reversed with better dental care. Poor dental health affects everything from life expectancy to incidence of coronary artery disease, stroke, self-esteem and the ability to find work. The recent ABS patient experiences in Australia survey shows that those in more disadvantaged areas are much more likely to make forced visits to the dentist or the local hospital for emergency dental care. Preventative dentistry is less of an option if you are even moderately poor. Most Australians still do not quite see why dental care is not just a fully integrated part of Medicare. Private expenditure on dental services is running at about $6 billion a year.
For those who think we are doing okay, here are some facts to change your mind. One in five people who needed to see a dental professional in the last 12 months decided not to do so because of cost. Six out of 10 children have tooth decay by 15 years of age. People living in regional and remote areas are far more likely to avoid seeking dental treatment because of cost. The Australian Dental Association says the poor oral health of Indigenous children, children living in remote areas and children with disabilities demands urgent targeted action. There is only a very limited safety net for those needing dental care. Waiting lists in dental hospitals are now measured in years and, unbelievably, there is still no fluoridation in many small towns, leading to much, much higher rates of dental decay. Pensioners, I am told, are often particularly poorly treated.
So what is this government's response? Rationing. On 23 April this year, my birthday, the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced that she would abandon the National Partnership Agreement on Adult Public Dental Services and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. The Turnbull government's intention is to go for wider coverage but with much less money being spent per head and with longer waiting lists. It is something the old Soviet Politburo could have dreamt up. People will be referred back to the public sector, where waiting lists are already in an unmanageable state. What a joke. Nationally, three million children will be forced onto longer and longer waiting lists. That will jeopardise the chances of improving dental health for life via early intervention. The whole scheme is as poorly explained as any we have seen in this portfolio—that alone is quite an achievement.
We are already struggling to cope with several generations of the dental disabled. This government appears not to understand the importance of dental care to those most disadvantaged. This is the 21st century and I believe this government has a very distorted priority if it cannot see the importance of providing adequate dental care. It is distressing to me to have to look into a child's mouth and be able to judge their parents' income. I know many children that I see have never seen a dentist and have terrible dental caries and dental abscesses which will affect their health and job prospects for the rest of their lives. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Surely our priorities are wrong and it is time for change.
Murray Electorate: Free Trade Agreement Seminar
Mr DRUM (Murray) (19:55): I take this opportunity in the adjournment debate to inform the electorate of Murray that next Wednesday we are going to be holding a free trade agreement seminar. It will be held in Shepparton and, to our delight, the Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, the Hon. Keith Pitt, will attend. The concept of having a free trade agreement seminar in Shepparton builds on the enormous number of businesses within the Goulburn Valley region that are exporting. There are also a huge cohort of businesses bringing a lot of farm machinery and equipment into Australia through their various trade arrangements with overseas companies. Businesses will be invited to attend to better equip them with the information that they will need to help them realise the benefits created by the Chinese, Japanese and Korean free trade agreements, including tariffs, grants and other assistance that is available. There are many opportunities within the Goulburn Valley for businesses to start up and for existing businesses to increase the amount of trade and the capacity that they have via various trade arrangements. This seminar will give them the chance to capitalise on those opportunities, certainly with the opening up of larger markets that are happening now throughout northern Asia. Some of the entrepreneurial talent within the Murray electorate is well placed to take advantage of these new free trade arrangements.
There are so many new ideas that are emanating now from around the globe and we will be inviting some government officials to Shepparton next week, including Michael Growder, Assistant Secretary, Free Trade Agreement Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Chuyang Liu, China Adviser, Austrade; Tim Carroll, State Director Victoria and Tasmania, Austrade; and Paul Henderson, who is the regional manager for AusIndustry. Their knowledge is aimed at stimulating growth and trying to continually drive the coalition government's agenda for growing the economy, creating jobs and opening up Australia to a much richer relationship with trade, both export and import. The Goulburn Valley is the home of many great companies that have long histories of trade. These include SPC, Campbell's soups, Kagome tomatoes, Murray Goulburn, Bega and Fonterra. Obviously, all of the dairy products coming out of the Goulburn Valley certainly create a large section of the industry. Unilever is a little less well known but has some of our biggest brands. Pactum-ACM is moving into Asia with long-life milk, and there are Heinz and a whole range of others.
So many opportunities exist, but there are also a whole raft of barriers that keep people from taking the plunge and creating these understandings and relationships with other countries, suppliers and potential purchasers in overseas destinations. This seminar is what we need to work through some of those issues, break down some of those barriers and, hopefully, give the people of the Goulburn Valley who are interested in developing an export business or looking at opportunities to import goods into the Goulburn Valley region the assistance to do so. At these seminars we are hoping to clear up a lot of those issues and assist the next wave of businesses that will move into this area.
It is a great opportunity to have the Hon. Keith Pitt with us next week. We are expecting a good crowd at the seminar, but it will also give me and Keith Pitt the opportunity to visit many of those larger businesses and employers around the Goulburn Valley, who are employing so many people but also doing great work with their trade. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
The Speaker: to move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 30 November 2016, namely: Parliament House Security Upgrade Works—Perimeter Security Enhancements.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Chancery Project Paris, France—Base Building Refurbishment, International Energy Agency Tenancy Fit-Out.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Embassy Project Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Headquarters Project.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Human Services, Geelong, Victoria.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation Project, Broadmeadows, Victoria.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project at Mitchell Avenue, Northam, Western Australia.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Seaward Village—Proposed upgrades to housing for Defence families at Seaward Village, Swanbourne, Western Australia.
Mr Joyce: to present a Bill for an Act to amend and repeal various Acts administered by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, and for related purposes.
Mr Morrison: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes.
Ms Ley: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, and for related purposes.
Mr D. J. Chester: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Airports Act 1996, and for related purposes.
Mr D. J. Chester: to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to transport security, and for related purposes.
Mr McCormack: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Act 2005, and for related purposes.
Mr Champion: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) warm bilateral relations between Australia and our close neighbour, Timor-Leste;
(b) maritime boundary dispute between Australia and Timor-Leste, which strains our bilateral relations; and
(c) ongoing compulsory conciliation proceedings between Australia and Timor-Leste, initiated by Timor-Leste, in the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding the maritime boundary dispute; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately enter into negotiations with Timor-Leste to settle our maritime boundary in fair and permanent terms.
Request for detailed information
DR FREELANDER: To ask the Speaker—
(1) When was the last general pay increase for staff in the (a) Department of Parliamentary Services, and (b) Department of the House of Representatives.
(2) When did the enterprise agreements for the (a) Department of Parliamentary Services, and (b) Department of the House of Representatives, reach their nominal expiry dates, and what are the key areas of disagreement between the parties to current bargaining.
(3) What long standing arrangements exist (ie, separate appropriations and legislation) to ensure that the Parliament remains independent of the Executive Government.
(4) Why do the parliamentary departments adhere to the current and highly restrictive bargaining principles devised by the Executive for the Australian Public Service when their employees are not public servants.
(5) Will he take steps to ensure that employment conditions for staff in the parliamentary departments are determined locally and that negotiations are not constrained by the views or priorities of the Executive.
Questions without notice: Additional answers
MR PORTER: During Question Time on 28 November 2016 you [the Hon. Tony Burke MP] asked the Prime Minister whether documents received by my office from the Office of the Western Australian State Solicitor would be tabled in the House of Representatives.
Correspondence relating to this request has been received today by Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis, from the Hon. Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney-General of Western Australia.
The correspondence indicates that the Western Australian Government considers the documents provided to me contain repetitions of material relating to the Bell litigation, which I was previously apprised of in my former role as Western Australian Attorney-General·and Treasurer.
The Western Australian Government asserts legal professional privilege over the documents, as well as claiming public interest immunity against their production in present and future legal proceedings.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Richmond Electorate: Feros Care
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:00): In my electorate of Richmond, Feros Care, a not-for-profit aged and community care organisation, has launched a 12-week trial program called the virtual seniors centre. This innovative program provides a suite of daily online activities, events and social programs that seniors can access and participate in without even having to leave their home.
Currently up to 35 participants aged between 70 and their late 90s are able to book into a range of interactive activities which include tai chi, discussion groups, celebrity guest speakers, politicians, karaoke, travel advice, online games, health talks, craft, art, and also music lessons. The booking is made via a simple app accessed through the use of participants' own devices or one supplied by Feros Care, including touch screens, computers and iPads. All the technology, training and support is provided. The aim is to strengthen and broaden people's social and community connections and prevent the issues of deterioration in mental and physical health that often arise from social isolation and loneliness.
I was really pleased to be invited as a guest interviewee at one of these sessions in October, which was 'virtually' attended by about 20 people. The interaction between me and the participants was great fun. It was very informative, with lots of interesting questions from and conversations with a whole range of people right throughout the region. The overriding theme of this program is 'Get Bold, Not Old', and the people that I spoke to certainly capture this wholeheartedly. There is scope to grow this program nationally, as it could benefit anyone who is housebound or feels isolated, not just seniors. The participants can in fact all be sitting in different towns or even in different states. The only requirement is internet connectivity.
In addition to the virtual seniors centre, Feros also run the program Better Health Care Connections—also known as eVillage—which uses telehealth environments to allow residents at their villages to have weekly virtual GP consultations and specialist appointments. This helps their health outcomes a great deal. Feros Care have a number of villages on the New South Wales North Coast: one at Byron Bay, one in Bangalow and one at Wommin Bay at Kingscliff.
They have also got another really great initiative which is called 'Wheel-I-Am'. It is an iPad mounted on a Segway base, which allows residents with health and mobility issues to take a tour of the Tweed Regional Museum's ANZAC exhibition with their fellow residents without even having to leave the village. They can see it all on the iPad.
These three very important initiatives have made a real difference to the lives of so many local seniors living within my region. I commend Feros Care for the wonderful work they have done with these three programs and I urge both the state and federal governments to continue funding these trials and supporting Feros Care in similar programs so they can continue to deliver these really good initiatives that have in fact shown great successes. They have been shown to improve the lives of so many senior Australians locally, and I call on the government to fund these trials. They are very important to our region.
Flynn Electorate: Backpackers
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (10:03): Today I would like to talk about backpackers but, more importantly, the workforce in rural areas of the country such as in my electorate of Flynn. This comes under quite a few headings. We need a workforce on a temporary basis, a casual basis and a seasonal basis, whether it be on farms and in tourism or, more permanently, in the health and aged-care areas. Backpackers fill a vital role in the bush, where we cannot get Australian workers.
Everyone's priority in this House, first and foremost, is to employ Australian workers, but sometimes in the bush we just cannot get the staff to fill these holes when we need them. The work does come under 'seasonal'. Cotton-picking comes on in the early part of the year in Central Queensland. Mango season is on now and we need mango pickers. Citrus is from April through to September. It is hard to get permanent people in those jobs because it is only part-time work; it is casual.
What backpackers do to fill this void—they do work seasonally, but in the lag time they do play an important role and the farmers play of important role. In that slack time, the women of the house or the farmers' wives will take the backpackers in and do cooking lessons and all those things that make it a family operation and the backpackers learn. Backpackers might never have seen a tractor before when they come to places like Biloela and Goovigen, and by the time they leave they can drive those great big machines. It is a learning process for them. They can take their skills back home, back to where they came from, and they know they have got the extra skills that they learnt while backpacking and working on farms in Central Queensland and across Australia.
They also play a vital role in aged care, where a lot of Aussies will not do that sort of work. Backpackers also pick up skills there that they take back with them. It is a real two-way thing, where farmers and aged-care facilities and the backpackers work together for a good outcome.
Flynn horticulture would not survive without them. We have some of the biggest mandarin plantations in the Southern Hemisphere. We have mandarins, limes, navel oranges, table grapes, blueberries— (Time expired)
Lalor Electorate: Multiculturalism
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:06): I rise this morning to talk about harmony and the threats to harmony in the community of Lalor. I attended a citizenship ceremony last weekend. One of the absolute pleasures of being a member of parliament is to attend those ceremonies where, in Lalor, 120 new citizens at a time are welcomed into the Australian family. It struck me there, looking at the multicultural, multifaith new members of our community, what a fabulous job we are doing in the city of Wyndham in the federal seat of Lalor in creating and building harmonious communities.
But it also took me back to a few meetings I have had. I met recently with leaders from our broad African community across Melbourne two weeks ago. I also attended a Victoria Police and local South Sudanese community forum last weekend. At both of these forums I listened, and what I heard was not new to me. What I heard was something that I have known of and lived many times while working in education, working with families newly arrived to this country and working with them as they settle and develop links to their local community. What I heard about was fear: fear that the actions of some criminal young people were tainting the South Sudanese community in my local area, tainting the whole community with the actions of a few. They are fearful that a stereotype, an American-style stereotype if you like, of their young people is permeating the community through the broad media.
As someone who has worked with young people and their families for almost three decades, I have seen this before. I have heard their stories, their wonder and their fears before. We hope that we have learnt from history, but unfortunately it feels like we are going to live again through the same patterns. I heard their fears, and I hope my reassurances that the system will not fail them, that their genuine efforts to build a new life, a happy life, in our community, will be fruitful.
Fear of others drives much of this well-worn path to division, alienation and fear, and overcoming these factors takes time. But it means that we, as members of our community, need to reach out. We need to get to know one another. Being part of a multicultural community, one of the pleasures is what you learn about the rest of the world. But the more you mix with people from different parts of the world, the more the notion is reinforced that what we have that is similar is much more than what we have that is different. We learn about one another's humanity. That is what we learn most: our common humanity, our pride in our children and our fears for the future. We have more in common than what we have that is different.
Fairfax Electorate
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (10:09): I am a big believer in the old style of politics—the town hall, the street corner, the doorknocks; I also believe in using new technology. Of course, being in Canberra you cannot doorknock your own constituents, so last night I did a Facebook post where I asked the people of Fairfax whether they would like me to raise anything in parliament in this final sitting for the year. I had over 60 responses, so let me quickly run through what some of my constituents, in an uncensored way, have asked me to put on the agenda, albeit in summary.
Jasmin believes we need to talk about improved quality of care for seniors in aged-care facilities. Megan says we should make people aware of the plight of unwanted animals. Peter believes we should treat all people, regardless of walk of life or circumstance, with greater respect. Stanley believes in closing Manus and Nauru; Karen agrees, and believes we need to do more to close the gap for our Indigenous population. Inger believes we need to keep Australia Day exactly as it is. Richard is concerned by the rising cost of living. Dale believes we need a men's homeless shelter in the electorate. Lori wants action on online gambling. Jason wants us to do more on narrowing the gap with our Indigenous citizens. Leitha wants Indigenous recognition in the Constitution.
Simon wants better integrated infrastructure; Frances, a better Bruce Highway; Connor, a more extensive rail network on the Sunshine Coast; and Kerry, integrated transport. Ben wants better rail services; Nathan, a hyperloop to Brisbane; Edith, better bus services on the coast; and Carly, better, safer Bruce Highway. Janice wants improved, integrated transport and communications infrastructure for the region. Adrian wants fast-track road, rail and airport upgrades. Michael wants an upgraded Bruce Highway. Julie wants to see the three tiers of government working more as a team to deliver better infrastructure. Vince wants fast rail links to Brisbane and airport upgrade. Robyn wants better public transport; Scott, Sunshine Coast light rail network; Merran, an upgraded motorway to Coolum; and Murray, fast rail to Brisbane. Ian wants fast rail also and Suzanne also wants fast rail. Bernice is all about the Bruce Highway and Sunshine Coast airport upgrade.
With only a few seconds to go, I will have to cut it there. It is only about halfway. As a relatively new MP in this place, can I stress how important it is for us to be listening to our constituents and how much I learn the more that I listen and the more that I listen and learn, the better I will be at representing the people of Fairfax.
Denison Electorate: Light Rail
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:12): Building light rail in Hobart would link communities, reduce road traffic congestion, ease the cost of living and help clean up the environment. And it could be easily achieved because the land corridor is there, the community want it and the media is on board. Indeed, a recent opinion poll put support for light rail at 62 per cent in Denison, and the Mercury seems keen to promote the venture. So the fact that Hobart still does not have light rail really does beggar belief. It is, I regret to say, yet another symbol of the long-running failure of governance in Tasmania, and of too many lazy and incompetent politicians.
Of course, it should never have come to this, especially when you consider that between 2010 and 2013, there were Labor power-sharing parliaments simultaneously in Canberra and Hobart. But did anything ever come of that? Of course not, even though Labor and Greens candidates promised light rail at the 2010 state election, a Greens Minister for Sustainable Transport was elected, and I pleaded with the state government repeatedly to ask the federal government for funding. More recently, the Liberal state government has at least pledged to reserve the land corridor and that is a good thing, at least as far as it goes. But even then, it is hard to detect much genuine interest in the project, which is unsurprising when you consider the bureaucracy and the Premier's key advisers are captive to road transport and happy to heavily subsidise the metro bus services.
Where to from here? Well, for a start, it will not be good enough to leave this until the next state election, when we run the risk of candidates, naively or wilfully, again promising light rail and again failing to deliver. Frankly, I see an opportunity, a big opportunity, for the current state government because this is a wonderful opportunity for the Premier, Will Hodgman, to stand up and show some vision and leadership, to deliver what Labor and the Greens didn't, and to finally build the mass transit system essential for significant urban growth and economic development. Indeed, if we are going to build the Hobart of tomorrow, then we need to show that sort of vision. Only then, along with projects like the university's move into the city and its visionary STEM project and the redevelopment of Macquarie Point, the largest brownfield site in any capital city in the country, will we genuinely be putting down the new foundations of one of the world's great cities.
In closing, I say: let's just build the thing and let's do it now while we have a Prime Minister who appreciates the value of rail and who is open-minded about finally restoring passenger rail in Hobart.
Barker Electorate: Almondco Australia
Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:15): I rise to speak on the success of a great Riverland business in my electorate of Barker. Founded as a growers' cooperative in 1944, Almondco Australia processes and markets almonds for more than 85 per cent of Australia's almond growers. Located in Renmark, Almondco has the largest and most modern almond processing facility in this great nation. As one of the most successful horticultural cooperatives in the nation, Almondco was recently announced as the winner of the Regional Exporter Award in the 54th Australian Export Awards. The Australian Export Awards is a national program that recognises and honours Australian companies engaged in international business who have achieved sustainable growth through innovation and commitment. The awards measure businesses against their peers based on the strength of their international growth, marketing and financial strategies. This year's 81 finalists represented the diversity of Australian businesses, ranging from family owned firms to large listed corporations. Nominees also included many emerging exporters in Australia's growing service sector. Together, these 81 finalists generated a whopping $12.3 billion in exports in the last financial year and they employed more than 34,500 Australians.
Businesses like these are driving Australia's successful transition to a post mining boom economy, with many accessing new markets and creating new local jobs with the help of our most recently established export trade deals. Almondco is a fantastic example, exporting to more than 35 countries, including the well-established markets of the United Kingdom, Western Europe, India, Japan, the Middle East and New Zealand. Almondco is also taking advantage of emerging markets in South-East Asia, Eastern Europe and China. Exports made up 47 per cent of Almondco's $260 million total revenue. The record sales help make Almondco Australia's most valuable horticultural export in the 2015 calendar year. This award adds yet another successful chapter in Almondco's success story, following hot on the heels of being inducted into the Hall of Fame at the South Australian Food Industry Program Awards in 2015. Almondco is just one of Barker's great success stories. It is a fantastic example of the contribution that the agricultural sector makes to our economy and yet another reason to be proud of a sector that is satisfying the globe's insatiable appetite for our clean, green produce from our pristine environment.
Robertson Electorate: Charities
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:18): The festive spirit shines through on the coast at Christmas. Coast Shelter is a not-for-profit charity which has been working to make a difference for the most vulnerable people in our community for more than 20 years. Their refuges, located across the Central Coast, provide homes and support for young people, men, women and families in crisis. At their Coast Community Centre in Gosford, Laurie, Shane, Charles and the team serve breakfast, lunch and dinner to almost 150 people each day in their restaurant. Shower and laundry facilities are available daily. Free legal advice from the Central Coast Community Legal Centre is provided on site. They give swags, sleeping bags and blankets to people sleeping rough and help provide for essentials such as medicines, food and fuel. This year, locals have donated close to $1 million to Coast Shelter, yet many people in need are still turned away. My office in Tuggerah is a collection point for Coast Shelter's Christmas appeal, and, for those who can, I encourage you to give generously. Donations of non-perishable food, clothing and children's toys will be given to those staying at Coast Shelter's refuges over Christmas.
The Samaritans will once again host their Christmas Lunch on the Coast, a community celebration at the Wyong Racecourse for those who are alone or in need on Christmas Day. The lunch will receive plenty of festive food, fun and entertainment, with Santa making a special visit with his bag full of presents. To help the Samaritans help others, look out for their stalls at local shopping centres. Let them wrap your Christmas gifts and help support their giving tree.
I look forward to joining the Toukley Neighbourhood Centre's Christmas feast on 16 December. Locals can help by donating items for their Christmas hampers and children's gifts. The Wyong Neighbourhood Centre is also seeking donations of non-perishable food and new toys for children as part of their annual appeal, and will be providing empty baskets to workplaces and businesses across the coast to be filled with donations. Of course, for those looking to give back to our community at Christmas, perhaps the greatest gift of all is time—your time. Volunteering Central Coast links people who care with people who need their help, and has been linking volunteers on the coast to those in need for 30 years. This is a comprehensive network of volunteer organisations and they would love to help you help others this Christmas.
To those who give so much to those who need it most: thank you. To those on the Central Coast who are so generous of spirit and so kind-hearted, it has been such a pleasure to begin to represent you. I know how much our community cares, how generous we are and how at Christmas, which is a very tough time for many people, we give so much to those in need. Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Durack Electorate: Sport
Ms PRICE (Durack) (10:21): I am very pleased to speak about the glue which plays a vital role in keeping regional and rural communities together, and what I am referring to is sport. 2016 will be looked upon as the year sporting hoodoos ended right around the world. The Western Bulldogs won their first AFL premiership in 62 years, Peel won the WAFL premiership, Leicester won the Premier League and the Chicago Cubs ended a 108-year drought in the MBL.
As well as the GNFL in Geraldton, I also sponsor the North Pilbara Football League and the Central Midlands Coastal Football League in the Wheatbelt. The NPFL had another good season with player participation up, and camaraderie amongst players and clubs continued to build momentum as was noted at their recent AGM. The Karratha Kats finished third on the ladder and, in a true story of adversity, defeated the Swans 82 points to 48 in Hedland for the 2016 NPFL premiership. Michael Smith had a birthday—did he what!—kicking six goals for the Kats, who kicked six goals to none in the last quarter to come from behind at three-quarter time and win the cup. The Karratha Falcons also came from third place to win the reserves premiership. As the regional WA Liberals know, regional and rural WA punches well above its weight when it comes to sport, particularly in AFL, with the Pilbara being home to the West Coast legend former ruckman Dean Cox. Congratulations to the NPFL board, led by President Greg Braithwaite, on a brilliant season.
Like the NPFL, the AGLIME Central Midlands Coastal Football League has also produced a long list of league footballers. West Coast forward pocket Mark LeCras, the most notable of the existing crop, hails from Cervantes in my electorate of Durack. Cervantes has been a powerhouse in the league, winning 15 of the last 18 premierships—a tremendous achievement by any regional sporting club. This year they defeated Lancelin Ledge Point by 83 points to 59 to add yet another cup to their ever-growing trophy cabinet. Dandaragan knocked off the Tiger Sharks by six points in the nail-biting grand final in the reserves. CMCFL president Steve Gilbert and his board have done another brilliant job in 2016, demonstrating just how hard our volunteers in regional and rural Australia work week in, week out.
In closing, I acknowledge and celebrate all the volunteers who contribute to sporting clubs in some way to ensure that sport remains alive and kicking in regional Australia.
Asbestos Related Diseases
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (10:24): Tomorrow the Parliamentary Group on Asbestos Related Disease will hold an informal reception here at Parliament House to remember those we have lost to asbestos related disease, those who still suffer from that disease, and their families and carers. I would like to take a moment to thank my friend the member for Perth, who spent most of his former career in the legal fraternity seeking justice for victims, and the parliamentary group for organising this event.
Australia has one of the highest global rates of asbestos related disease; in fact, we are second only to the United Kingdom. In 2014 we lost 641 Australians to this killer, taking the toll since the early eighties to 10,000. The people we have lost are mostly men aged between 70 and 90. They were the miners, the boilermakers, the power plant workers, the carpenters, the railway workers and the naval workers of the 1950s, sixties and seventies, when asbestos use was at its peak. Cancer experts say we can expect to lose another 25,000 people over the decades to come.
While the importation of asbestos is banned in Australia, there have been reports of suspected contamination of more than 50 building sites across the nation as a result of illegal asbestos imports from China. That was why Labor pushed to establish a Senate inquiry into the illegal importation of asbestos, enacting an election commitment to combat one of the most serious threats to occupational health and safety in Australia. The re-establishment of the inquiry into non-conforming building products will now include a specific focus on asbestos importation. This is vital. We need to ensure that a total ban on asbestos is legislated and enforced. The inquiry will receive submissions and contributions from a range of stakeholders, enabling the committee to make recommendations on the policing of our borders to keep Australians safe. We believe this inquiry should hear from employers, employer groups and unions but it should also hear from support organisations that represent the very people who have been deeply and personally affected by the tragic consequences of asbestos exposure.
Having just lost my own father to mesothelioma, this cause is very close to my heart. My father had worked hard all of his life down the mines at BHP and in building our home at Heddon Greta. He remained stoic and good-humoured to the end and we miss him dearly. Mesothelioma is a horrible disease. It causes a prolonged and terrible death, which I have witnessed firsthand in recent months. Those last few weeks for my father were particularly awful. He was taken from us prematurely. We have a sense of loss. But that loss is compounded by anger and bitterness that his death and the deaths of thousands like him were totally preventable. We must be vigilant. (Time expired)
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (10:28): I thought I would take the opportunity today to make a contribution to the working holiday-maker reform package, which has its roots in the lifting of the tax-free threshold in 2012 from $6,000 to $18,200. This almost immediately absolved most backpackers, who are often in Australia for six months or so spread over two taxation years, from paying income tax while they were here. The setting of a special taxation rate for those on backpacker visas is addressing this obvious disparity.
For the electorate of Grey the largest demand for backpackers comes from the tourism and hospitality industry, but increasingly the agricultural industry is also using backpackers for seasonal work, especially during seeding and harvest. Hospitality in the outback areas of Grey would stall in its tracks, in particular in the Flinders Ranges, Hawker, Coober Pedy, Maree, Oodnadatta and Marla, if it were not for backpackers.
Let me also say that when I speak for those who venture inland looking for work I am incredibly impressed by their excitement at what they have discovered: the legend of Australia. It is an opportunity to live and learn on what looks to many like a movie set and a chance to live the dream of the outback—one unfortunately missed by so many of our own population. It is a great tragedy that the unemployed, in particular our young unemployed, will not move to accept these jobs. The damage they do to their own lives by just accepting unemployment as a fact of life is immense.
Last year I ran a youth survey in my electorate. One of the questions was: 'Should a young unattached person be required to relocate to find work?' An astonishing 75 per cent said no. It raises a huge question as to how many young people have missed the lesson on employment—that it is the stepping stone to a successful life outcome. A job is everything—better health, better educational outcomes and happier families.
Australia will be so much better off when we have a mobile workforce willing to move to where the work opportunities are greater. At the moment, we have hundreds of businesses that would close their doors if the supply of backpackers were to cease or even drop off. Having a vibrant backpacker market has a range of other advantages as well: building relationships for the future; attracting highly educated potential migrants; and, best of all, on almost every occasion, the backpackers leave with a lot less money than they arrive with. It is no secret that many in the coalition were not happy with the proposed reforms when the tax rate of 32.5 per cent was proposed. I thought the 19 per cent rate offered by Treasurer Morrison was a pretty good deal. Of course, the Senate has seen it differently. I think there has been a fair bit of grandstanding and political point-making in that. But I rest my case. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
MOTIONS
Death of Mrs Jo Cox
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents;
(2) express its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox's family, colleagues, and to all who knew her;
(3) pay tribute to Mrs Cox's extraordinary contribution to public life; and
(4) convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:31): On 17 October, I moved a motion paying tribute to Mrs Jo Cox, the former member of the House of Commons in the UK, which was seconded by my good friend the member for Griffith. Having spoken on that occasion, I will not detain the House at length today. But I wish to make a couple of points as the debate resumes on this most important matter for all of us in this place. Firstly, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the member for Watson, the Manager of Opposition Business, and the member for Sturt, the Leader of the House, for enabling this procedure to go forward so that more members can make a contribution to the debate on this most important issue and also so that Australia's parliament can effectively and appropriately pay tribute to a life lived in the service of others, to a person who demonstrated the finest qualities of public life, qualities that I think all of us here aspire to demonstrate and to hold. And we can convey our sympathy, solidarity and respect to the House of Commons in a formal manner. So I pay tribute to the member for Sturt and the member for Watson in that respect.
I would also say this in addition to my remarks those weeks ago: I stand here determined to remember what Jo Cox did, what she stood for and how she went about her political life and her activism—how she lived her life, not the manner in which it ended. I stand here in solidarity with her husband, Brendan, her children, her colleagues and her friends to say that, in this place, we remember her for what she did and we will strive to live up to her example. We will strive to continue her great sense of optimism—a sense of optimism that her incredibly brave husband expressed in writing in TheNew York Times—to continue to think that we can work together for a better world. In doing so we should always call out the forces of division, maintain our confidence in hope over fear and strive for a kinder politics. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (10:34): I rise today to also speak on the motion moved by the member for Scullin. The motion reads:
That this House:
(1) condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents;
(2) express its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox's family, colleagues, and to all who knew her;
(3) pay tribute to Mrs Cox's extraordinary contribution to public life; and
(4) convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
I agree.
This woman, Helen Joanne Cox, who I did not know, was born in 1974. She had two young children, who were left behind, and her husband, Brendan. She was elected to represent Batley and Spen, the parliamentary seat, in the 2015 general election, and she had spent several years working for the charity Oxfam. She was murdered doing her job. This is the point. For politicians, for members of parliament and senators in this place, it brings home the reality of what happened to this poor woman. She was two years younger than me. She was only a fairly new politician, and she was out doing what all politicians should do, and that is listening to their constituents. She was on her way to a library, from what I understand, to meet her constituents when this man murdered her—stabbed and shot her. It is absolutely appalling.
I am very thankful that justice has been served in some way, that this man has received a life sentence and that the judge recommended that he not be let out. But I note that her husband said:
She—
Jo—
would have wanted two things above all else to happen now: one, that our precious children are bathed in love; and two, that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her.
That is a great statement from her husband. There was no hate in his statement. It was very much remembering what his wife had done and wanting to look after their children and to put the hate aside and move on.
I stand here as a member of parliament in Australia saying to politicians in the UK and to the family of Jo that we are very sorry for what happened to Jo, and we understand. We understand that she was serving her constituency and her country in a very honourable way and that this man murdered her out of the blue. It is a terrible indictment. It makes us think. I often do mobile offices. I am out and about in the community. You want to do that. It is a very important part of our job. What happened to this woman is absolutely tragic, and we remember her deeply.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:37): I want to start today by thanking the member for Scullin for initiating this debate and by thanking the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House for enabling MPs to continue to speak on this motion here today. I know that all MPs in this place have thought quite a lot about Jo Cox and her family over the past year. As I am a member of parliament with two young children, like Jo Cox, this incident was particularly affecting for me. For all the cynicism that besets us, I know that, almost without exception, most members of parliament take our democratic liberties extremely seriously. As any of our family members will attest, we, the members of this chamber, have in a very real sense given our lives over to those democratic ideals. There is no clock-off time. There is no off switch to being an elected representative in our community.
I tell all of my staff and all of my campaign volunteers that they will inevitably encounter people who are dissatisfied, people who are angry, in the course of our work. That is part of being in the community and part of being an elected representative. But I tell my staff and my campaign volunteers that, anytime anyone in our community criticises us or even abuses us, this should give them a warm inner glow. They should take this as a reminder of the great blessing that we enjoy, living in a democratic society where people feel free to speak out, to dissent, to criticise members of the government, without fear of being jailed, being tortured or having family members disappeared.
In this way, the murder of Jo Cox is not only a great personal calamity that feels all too close to home for members of this chamber but also a shock to something bigger that we all hold dear: the idea that we can pursue political ends without violence, that you can engage in political debate without fear for your personal safety and that our elected representatives can work as equal members of the community, not separated from them.
In this respect I want to take issue with the comments of the Leader of the House upon the referral of this motion to the Federation Chamber. I do not take issue with his intent or good faith in the slightest, and I do not say this in a sense of conflict, but it is in all of our interests to be clear about what has occurred here. When referring this motion to the chamber, the Leader of the House described this incident as a tragedy and a random act. It was not. It was a deliberate targeted atrocity. It was a planned political assassination. It was a terrorist act by a neo-Nazi. The killer had been a member of neo-Nazi, fascist and white supremacist political organisations for more than 20 years. This act was premeditated and researched. While committing this obscenity, Jo Cox's murderer shouted: 'Britain first', 'This is for Britain' and 'Keep Britain independent'. When arrested, he stated: 'It's me. I'm a political activist.' The police described this as a targeted attack. At his trial, the murderer refused to give his name. Instead, he stated: 'My name is death to traitors. Freedom for Britain.' He was assessed as being mentally competent to stand trial and responsible for his actions. His trial was managed under the terrorism case management list in the British courts.
This was not a tragedy, it was a terrorist act. After conviction, the sentencing judge stated he had no doubt that the killer murdered Jo Cox for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause, namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism, which is most often associated with Nazism in its modern forms. This was a terrorist act by a member of an ideology that is growing in prominence across western democracies. Indeed, research by academics from Birmingham City University and Nottingham Trent University has recorded that more than 25,000 individuals tweeted in celebration of Jo Cox's murder. Neo-Nazis are becoming increasingly emboldened in the US as well. And groups of this kind are active in Australia, including in my own region in Melbourne's west, and have attracted the attention of our counter-terrorism officials.
Jo Cox's family, and particularly her husband, have shown enormous dignity towards her murderer. Jo Cox's husband said: 'I feel nothing but pity for the terrorist who murdered my wife, the true patriot.' But he also made it clear he believed that Jo Cox would have wanted people to unite to fight against the hatred that killed her. Hate does not have a creed race or religion; it is poisonous. As elected representatives we owe it to each other to see her murder as part of something bigger that is occurring across western democracies today. In this respect, I was thinking about Hilary Benn's extraordinary speech in the House of Commons around this time last year. Speaking on the conflict in Syria, he said:
We are faced by fascists—not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this Chamber tonight and all the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy … in contempt.
What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. It is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists, trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It is why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice.
This is also why we must stand up against the rise of modern neo-Nazism. It is right that we stand up against the kind of fascism pursued by ISIS, but we must also stand up against the re-emergence of neo-Nazi fascism in western democracies. The greatest tribute that we can pay to Jo Cox's memory will be to defend and reinvigorate the democratic institutions and values that she believed in, and to which she dedicated her life, and show that we can reshape the world and build a better world through collective action, through debate, through argument and through democratic institutions without resorting to violence or force. This is the spirit in which we gather in this building every sitting. This is the spirit in which we undertake our work in our communities every day of the week. This is the spirit that we must defend in the face of the rise of neo-Nazism across western democracies.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (10:44): I wish to join with other members of the House in supporting this motion concerning the murder of Jo Cox. She was, as we are all aware, a very dedicated and hard-working woman, and she had committed her life, as members of parliament do, to the service of others. We know she spent time working on humanitarian issues. From Oxfam through to her role as a member of parliament, she sought to address some of the most pressing international challenges of our time, particularly Syria. Jo Cox was absolutely committed to making the world a better place. Her contribution to public life is an example to all of us.
Jo Cox's death at such a young age is a tragic loss for her family, her friends, the constituents of Batley and Spen, the British parliament and the wider community. I join with others in expressing my deepest sympathies to everyone who knew her. For all of us who are members of parliament this is particularly real. I think each one of us is aware that, in the current environment, there but for the grace of God. I think that is what we all really understand.
This year I represented Australia at the Inter-Parliamentary Union gathering in Geneva. Australia had a particularly pertinent resolution up. It was one that Louise Markus, when she was the member for Macquarie, started when she went to a previous IPU gathering. It was then brought along by Senator Sue Lines, and I finished the process at the last gathering. Sometimes we see very good outcomes when we all work together. I see this as a prime example. Although the resolution was particularly relevant, and the former member for Macquarie had started this much earlier, it was not until we were there with our British colleagues discussing Jo's death that it was shown just how relevant this resolution was.
It is a particularly important resolution that says:
The freedom of women to participate in political processes fully, safely and without interference: Building partnerships between men and women to achieve this objective.
It is a wonderful example of how Australia contributes in this international forum. I was the rapporteur at a particular stage during the debate when the British parliamentarians raised the issue and discussed elements of the resolution and the act of provisions. It was here when we heard so much about Jo, when we heard how important Australia's resolution was and when we heard how important the timing was. So, in spite of the gravity of the situation, I want to inform members here that Australia has taken a very active role internationally in this space. I would encourage members to have a look at that resolution.
This was a very important resolution. This was the 135th IPU gathering. It was very important from many angles, and I presented it to the broader plenary when we finished. Just think: 141 countries were represented and over 673 MPs attended from around the world, and Australia's resolution was passed unanimously. There was such a great consensus, not just on the back of the tragedy with Jo. So many women that we meet when we are a part of those gatherings have such challenging environments as members of parliament. It is not like what we have come to expect in Australia—we see that frequently.
One of the parts of this resolution that I thought was really important was that it called on:
… political leaders and individual men and women parliamentarians to condemn—
which is what we are doing today—
acts of harassment, intimidation and violence against women candidates and parliamentarians, including online and in social media
It also called on parliaments to adopt legal and practical measures to prevent and punish such acts. In light of what has happened to Jo Cox, we can well support those recommendations.
I want to briefly touch on the need for the development and encouragement of strong male political advocates for women. They are very important to the success of women. Politics is very robust and increasingly adversarial right around the world. When I have talked with my colleagues and other parliamentarians at the IPU, as other members would have, and in the visits that have been to this house—and the Afghani women parliamentarians are a prime example—I have seen more and more women facing this sort of challenge.
I am particularly concerned about social media bullying. That can prevent men and women from running as a political representative. Once they get there the nature of the bullying is destructive and aggressive. It is a free-for-all. In recognising Jo's efforts, I say that every member of parliament I have come across in my time has been there for the right reasons. Each one has their beliefs and is pursuing them to make a difference and to do the best they can. Social media bullying is an issue that we have to deal with. Often it facilitates what we have seen here and can encourage a whole lot of others into that space.
I want to once again offer my personal sincere condolences to Jo and her family. This is no longer something any of us take lightly. If it can happen to Jo, basically it can happen to any member of parliament anywhere. I encourage members to look at this resolution. Equally, all members of parliament, men and women, are very aware of the environment we work in, and we need it to be safe. I encourage all of us to work to that outcome.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (10:53): I rise to make a contribution on the motion concerning the shocking murder of UK Labour MP Jo Cox, the former member for Batley and Spen in the UK parliament, who was murdered in her community while just doing her job. Jo Cox was elected to parliament in 2015 and she quickly became known as a fierce advocate for inclusive public policy. In her inaugural speech she spoke of the fact that, regardless of difference, strong communities are far more united and have far more in common than the things that divide.
She spoke of the need to bring people together, and certainly throughout her life she led by example. Prior to entering parliament Jo Cox worked as the head of policy and advocacy at Oxfam Great Britain and then ran the humanitarian program for Oxfam International. Well before entering parliament, Jo Cox had made a mark on the world by working to reduce poverty and increase opportunity for the world's poorest and most vulnerable.
She was killed while going about her normal business as an elected representative. There was certainly nothing unusual about the scene. Meeting constituents and hearing concerns are the duties that all MPs carry out day to day irrespective of their political stripes, not unlike what I and my colleagues do in our own electorate. Of course being a member of parliament is not a job for everyone. In fact, earning your place in the House of Commons or here in the House of Representatives is hard fought. MPs give up many things to lead the fight on issues and steer the country in the right direction, making it better and creating a more just society.
Jo Cox was doing just that when her life was taken in a cowardly and planned attack. The man who would be her killer was a racist and a right-wing terrorist, who believed that the ideology of acceptance and multiculturalism was so dangerous and so perverse that those who believed in it should be killed. The irony of this, I am sure, will not escape many people, but it brings to light the broader problem that we see here in Australia of political posturing by extreme and retaliatory groups, who teach aggressive reactions to perceived threats. We even hear it in this place from time to time. We hear it in the press, we hear it in press conferences and we hear it out in the community. It is divisive behaviour that acts as an example to communities who feel let down by the political status quo. We hear the echoes of extremism repeated in the media by journalists, commentators and self-appointed experts, because apparently having a platform makes you an expert on any number of things these days. I am reminded of the quote by Bill Bullard, who said:
Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge … is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.
It leads me to wonder—as I am sure Jo Cox did while advocating for a more accepting and harmonious society—whether the people who would have us believe the world's problems can be solved by segregation and hostility have ever sought to put themselves in the shoes of the most vulnerable.
We cannot just count ourselves lucky to live in an open and free society and pretend that severe human suffering does not exist around the world. We cannot just blame those who have come to this country to seek a better life for themselves for the things we, as leaders, are ultimately responsible for: opportunity, equality and a fair go. Jo Cox had that clarity of purpose. She spoke of the importance of being an accepting society and she spoke of the government's role in making sure everyone has a chance to succeed.
I extend to her family my sincere condolences. I pay tribute to her life of advocacy and purpose. She was a credit to her family, to her party and to her country. In the words of her husband, 'Jo would want us to fight against the hatred that killed her.' To honour Jo, her husband and their children, I undertake to do just this.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:57): I rise to speak on this important motion that the House of Representatives of the Australian parliament condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, member of parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents; that the House expresses its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox's family, colleagues and to all who knew her; that we, as members of parliament here in the Australian parliament, pay tribute to Mrs Cox's extraordinary contribution to public life; and that we convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
On 17 October, I rose to speak on a motion of condolence for Jo Cox. I would like to make some further comments today in my capacity as chair of the UK-Australia parliamentary friendship group and as a female member of the House of Representatives. It is again with much sadness and reflection that I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, someone who, through enormous courage, enormous conviction and her dedication to her constituents of Batley and Spen, showed every day how important it was to her to fight for what she believed in—for justice, for truth and, most importantly of all, for the rights of others.
As we have heard in this debate today, Jo Cox was brutally murdered on 16 June. She was simply doing her job. She was listening to her constituents in what we here in Australia call a listening post or a mobile office. I think for each of us here in Australia, like members of parliament all around the world, Jo Cox's death came as a horrific shock. Here was a member of parliament from the House of Commons upholding the democratic institution of her parliament, reaching out to people—those who agreed with her and those who did not—and being on the streets of her constituency at a very difficult time for the UK, when the debate over Brexit was at its very highest.
It is with enormous relief that we learned just last week that Thomas Mair, a white supremacist, will spend the rest of his life in prison for Jo Cox's brutal murder. I do not really want to spend much time reflecting on the murderer. In my view, he was simply a madman and what he did was utterly horrific. I want to spend my contribution today reflecting on the words of Jo Cox's husband, Brendan, who has been extraordinary in the way he has spoken about his wife. He said of Thomas Mair:
We feel nothing but pity for him, that his life was so devoid of love that his only way of finding meaning was to attack a defenceless woman who represented the best of our country in an act of supreme cowardice.
Speaking outside the Old Bailey after the verdict, he said:
To the world, Jo was a member of parliament, a campaigner, an activist and many other things. But first and foremost she was a sister, a daughter, an auntie, a wife, and above all a mum to two young children who love her with all their being. All their lives they have been enveloped in her love, excited by her energy and inspired by her example. We try now not to focus on how unlucky we were to have her taken from us, but how lucky we were to have her in our lives for so long.
Brendan Cox also thanked the many hundreds and, frankly, thousands of people who spoke out about Jo Cox's bravery and compassion. He said—it is extraordinary that he found these words at such a time of immense grief in his own life and in the lives of his family members, including his two children:
This has been Britain at its best – compassionate, courageous and kind. It’s given us great strength and solace.
I also want to add that the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the murder was 'an attack on democracy, and has robbed the world of an ambassador of kindness and compassion'.
The member for Forrest today made a particularly important contribution, speaking of the work of the IPU and the resolution led by Australia. I think it is a very important time for us to remember that, when we go out and do our job upholding this wonderful democratic institution, we do so with a sense of risk. It is incredibly important that we, as members of parliament here in Australia—in both the Commonwealth parliament and the state and territory parliaments—and others in parliaments around the world join in solidarity to condemn this terrible murder. As MPs, we need to do everything we can to keep each other safe, to support each other and to make sure that we acknowledge that this is not an easy life sometimes. Every time we go out and speak with people on the streets, attend protests and meet with people who are angry, we respect the right of every individual to speak up for what they believe in. But we also think it is important that members of parliament are respected too. I am particularly horrified by—and I am not even going to talk about it much in my contribution—the terrible hate speech that emerged on social media after the death of Jo Cox.
Today, in sadness and with great reflection, I rise to express my sincere condolences to Brendan Cox and to his children. We salute Jo Cox for her wonderful contribution to public life in the UK and the impact that she has had on all of us around the world.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (11:04): I rise together with my colleagues on both sides of this place to pay tribute to the life of Jo Cox who, as we know, was senselessly killed as she met with constituents in Birstall, West Yorkshire in June this year. Jo Cox was the MP for Batley and Spen, where she was born and bred, and was first elected at the 2014 general election. She had barely been in the Commons long enough to get her feet under the desk, yet she had already built a reputation for working hard, particularly on international issues, and was widely regarded in the House of Commons as a rising star.
Ms Cox grew up in Yorkshire and was the first in her family to go to university. She did it in style, attending Cambridge no less. There she was struck by the still-rigid class structure in which it did matter where she was from, who she knew and how she spoke. Before her election she was again working in areas where the impact of her contribution was commendable. She worked for Oxfam as the head of public policy and then went on to work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Ms Cox was the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Syria and argued that military action could be beneficial to the Syrian people. She was a leading campaigner for the Remain campaign in the Brexit referendum, and a couple of the themes we saw in the referendum campaign sadly and tragically played out in the context of Ms Cox's death.
Jo Cox was killed as she met with constituents as part of what is called in the UK a 'constituency surgery'. It is a practice that does not really apply in precisely the same way in Australia but is widespread over there, but it fundamentally comes back to the same thing. Ms Cox was doing in the UK the same sorts of things that all members in this place and places in states and territories do as part of their everyday lives—that is, just engaging with the community in an effort to make sure that she understood the needs of her community and properly reflected those needs, attitudes, wants and desires in the people's place in the United Kingdom.
In the course of going about her everyday work, as we know, she was tragically killed by Thomas Mair, a local white supremacist, who railed against her participation in the Remain campaign. Mr Mair was described as someone previously thought to be perhaps a bit odd but harmless—if only that were to be the case. Whilst there is evidence to suggest that Mr Mair did suffer from OCD, a psychiatric assessment found that he was not so mentally ill as to no longer be responsible for his actions. The reality was that we saw a lone wolf at play—someone from the far right, a white supremacist terrorist. He was a terrorist, plain and simple.
The context of this crime is important and it does touch upon a couple of key themes that resonate not only throughout the community in the United Kingdom but also much closer to home. The Brexit campaign was marked by something similar to the Donald Trump 'post-truth' divisiveness, which sparked a flurry of activity surrounding hate speech in the United States. It was marked by its vilification of foreigners and scare campaigns about migration from the EU. Reams have been written about the connection of Mair's actions with what he believed to be a threat to the interests of white Britain, but really what we saw in relation to how those warped, inappropriate, ill-conceived and, quite frankly, unacceptable views were perceived as legitimate was the Brexit campaign itself, which actually served to confect that threat.
Much closer to home, what is deeply concerning to me is the fact that we see similar threads throughout exchanges and social media, in the media and in other forums in relation to what can only be described as unacceptable hate speech; speech and communication which can only have one intent, and that is an intent to divide, an intent to vilify and an intent to belittle. It tries to create a perception, for completely baseless reasons, that one group of this society is superior to another. Every breath we take and every step we walk must be dedicated to stamping out any form of traction that this dialogue might receive in the context of the various forums that we see. That is why, whether we like it or not, what we do in this place resonates so strongly out in the community in relation to our opportunity here, as leaders of our respective communities, to make sure we do that, to make sure we lead.
How do we lead? It is very, very simple: we lead by calling out any single form of language or conduct that serves to divide, belittle, bully or attempt to vilify one section of the community at the expense of others. That is also why we need to take such significant and strident steps to preserve the sanctity of the protections that are carved out in our current legislation. That is why we must make sure in this place that we lead by example and rise above any kind of debate that may have the effect of watering down very hard fought for protections in our legislation, such as section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The effect of doing so can have such profound and potentially tragic outcomes, and that is why it is so important.
The other really important factor that strikes very close to the heart of the tragedy of Mrs Cox relates to the fact that her family lost a member of their lives just by doing her job. That happens all too often in every single walk of life; we see families faced with the prospect of their loved ones not coming home from work. It applied in the most tragic of ways to Mrs Cox; it applied in 195 cases of workplace deaths in this country. In my home state of Western Australia, it applied 35 times when we lost workers on worksites. This is a rate of 2.6 deaths per 100,000 workers in my state, which, tragically, is the highest rate in the country. Regardless of what we do, coming home safely from work in whatever walk of life, in whatever part of the world you live in, should not be an aspiration. This should be a fundamental, acceptable human right. We must make sure in this place we do everything meaningfully possible to make sure that occurs every single time. In this place, we are elected not to represent our own interests; of course we are elected to represent the interests of our constituents. And Mrs Cox did that, with a bias towards those who had no voice of their own.
As I conclude my remarks, I acknowledge and pay tribute to her wonderful family, who have been so strong in such trying circumstances in making sure that they continue to lead the fight that Mrs Cox began—that is, calling out injustice, calling out for those who are marginalised and making sure everyone within the country of the United Kingdom, just as we should do here, has an equality of opportunity to achieve. Jo Cox died as she lived: working for the marginalised and forgotten, upholding democracy and campaigning for a better future for the people she represented. May she rest in peace, and may her life be an example for us all.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:14): I did not know Jo Cox—she was from a different political tradition to my own, she served in a parliament on the other side of the world and she worked for an organisation, Oxfam, with which I deeply disagree on many issues, and yet she touched the lives of so many people. She touched the lives of some members opposite who knew her; she touched the lives of members of my own side who had encountered her on international delegations. And in many respects we all know Jo Cox, even if we do not know Jo Cox the person. She was someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's aunt, someone's wife, someone's mother, someone's friend and someone's member of parliament. She was a public servant who was motivated by the same great traditions that motivate all of us to come into this place—to do something for our community, for our country and for the world, and to make it a little bit better.
She was brutally murdered at a time when she was holding a constituency surgery, very much like many of us do in our own electorates here in Australia—putting ourselves out into our communities, holding listening posts, holding street stalls and making ourselves available as we go about functions and businesses. I think one of the great strengths of being a parliamentarian in a democracy like ours and like Britain's is that constituents can come up to you, they can approach you, they can ask you things, they can present you with things and they can give you a piece of their mind—and, frankly, they so often do. That is part of us staying in touch, and that is something we never want to lose.
I remember in the early 2000s when I worked in the court system—I had the privilege of being an associate to one of the justices of the High Court. At that time you could walk into practically any of our courts without going through a security scan, and I thought that was a fantastic thing. It actually said how secure our democracy was that, with the exception of the Family Court, you were pretty safe to walk into a courtroom. Now there are security scanners everywhere. Now this parliament, in and of itself, is in lockdown, in a security sense, and that is just a sign of the times. We have to take greater precautions for our own security when meeting in this place, we have to take greater precautions for the security of judicial officers meeting in courts and, sadly, sometimes we have to take greater precautions when we are out in the streets. That is something, sadly, that Jo Cox found. We never want to be in a situation where we cannot be accessible as parliamentarians to our constituents or we cannot be accessible to the community. That would be a very sad thing if it happened.
Jo Cox was killed, as other members have said, in a hate crime by a white supremacist. I think political murder is not something that is new in Western society—there were political murders in the Roman senate—but there is a climate in our political debate, a climate in our political discussion, that is motivated in part by the communications technology by which we operate and the social media environment in which we live.
I remember when I was growing up my mother used to say to me that fire and water were good servants but bad masters, and I think the same sort of thing can be said of social media. It provides us with a wonderful sense of opportunity and possibility to communicate with people, but it also narrows the sources from which we get information. It is possible to live in a world that is entirely an echo chamber: where people only ever agree with your opinion, where you are not exposed to difference and where you are not exposed to a friendly debate or a polite exchange of ideas. And I think it does something even worse than that: it is taking us to a pre-enlightenment age where reason is replaced by emotion. This is the age of the emoticon. This is the age of the Facebook meme. It is constantly trying to stir our emotions to get reactions rather than to stir our minds to reason. An appeal to emotion has always been part of the political armoury, but I think we are seeing that more and more now. As I said, I worry that we are hurtling towards a pre-enlightenment age where reason will be completely overtaken by emotions. And when emotion rules reason it can often lead to violence, and that is what we saw here in this instance.
Violence is never, ever the solution for political problems or political challenges. Members who may have read the excellent magisterial biography of Sir John Monash by Geoffrey Serle would have seen that Monash was a great soldier—everyone knows that—but he was also a great citizen. One of the things that Serle had access to were the prodigious diaries that Monash kept from the time he was a 16-year-old boy. In the early thirties, when it seemed as though democracy was failing, Monash was repeatedly approached by ex-servicemen who were saying to him, effectively, 'All you need to do is say the word and we will be prepared to follow you in a coup d'etat'. Monash wrote back to these ex-servicemen and said, 'To achieve constitutional change, you must use constitutional means.' That is a very important message. However much people are upset with the decisions that are made in a political system, there is never an excuse to resort to violence.
I get worried every year when I read the results of the Lowy Institute polls that show a decline in support for democracy. This year's Lowy Institute poll showed just 61 per cent of the population and 54 per cent of 18-to-29-year-olds believe that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government. We must work harder to demonstrate to people that what we do in this place serves them.
The previous speaker, the member for Perth, made some comments about the Brexit campaign and its connection to this particular instance. While I acknowledge that the murder of Jo Cox was a white supremacist and while I acknowledge that he supported the Brexit campaign, there were arguments advanced for Brexit that had nothing to do with white supremacy. It is very important to note that. The British people felt—and that is why they voted in the way they did—that, having had a democratic tradition that stretched back hundreds of years, they had lost control of their ability to control courts and make final decisions about the things that occurred in their own country, and there are reasonable arguments about that that can be made. I just wanted to make that point.
I said earlier that what happened to Jo Cox occurred on the other side of the world, but it occurred in the British parliament and, as the British parliament is the mother of our parliament and is the mother of so many parliaments around the world, it has an extra effect in this country. What happens in Britain has particular cultural effect here, although we are quite proudly a multicultural nation that has been infused with and has the benefit of the many people who have come here from different backgrounds. Our law, our language, our traditions and our parliamentary democracy stem from Britain, and it is very much British institutions and British traditions which have formed the way we see ourselves.
A generation ago, students learnt British history and that British history has helped cement our traditions. They learnt things like the Magna Carta, John Hampden, Ship Money, Star Chamber, Charles I losing his head, Judge Jeffreys, the Glorious Revolution, the first reform bill and, to quote the late John Hirst who wrote an article called From British rights to human rights:
... those who didn't know these particularities knew at least the slogans of British constitutional liberty: Britons never will be slaves; the Englishman's home is his castle; it's a free country; fair play; I'll have the law on you—which were heard as often in Australia as in Britain ...
The murder of Jo Cox was fundamentally an attack on British democracy. It was fundamentally an attack on British institutions and the British tradition, which is as much their tradition as it is our tradition. We must always condemn political murder in whatever form it occurs, because it is fundamentally an attack on our democratic system.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those members opposite who moved this motion originally and to acknowledge the work of the Leader of the House in showing that this is a motion which should be adopted and sent to the House of Commons. I send greetings to members of the House of Commons and say that we in Australia feel solidarity with them at this time. I particularly want to send my condolences to the family and friends of Jo Cox, her constituents in Batley and Spen, the British parliament and the wider community. May her memory be a blessing.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:23): I rise in this place to support this motion regarding the murder of Jo Cox MP. I am speaking about a woman I have never met but whose work and message has touched the lives of so many who live across the pond, as it is colloquially referred to. Jo Cox was born on 22 June 1974 and she died on 16 June 2016, just six days before her 42nd birthday. She was elected to the British parliament in 2015 to represent the good people of Batley and Spen. She had been attending a constituency meeting, doing her job—a job that she truly loved. This senseless, targeted action sent shock waves through the British parliament and the country. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, said the death of Jo Cox was a tragedy. He said:
She was a committed and caring MP. My thoughts are with her husband Brendan and her two young children.
The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the country would be in shock at the horrific murder of the MP who was a much loved colleague.
Jo Cox was a rising leader in the UK Labour Party. Like myself, she was elected to represent the area where she was born and raised. Jo was a strong advocate for equality, passionate about her electorate, a loud voice for refugees and a supporter of Britain staying in the EU. Before her parliamentary life, Jo worked at the Freedom Fund, an antislavery organisation at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as for Oxfam and the British aid agency; and in various senior capacities in the UK, US and Brussels. Her work brought her into contact with some of the most downtrodden and vulnerable people in the world. She met women who had been raped in Darfur. She encountered child soldiers in Uganda and met Afghan civilians, desperate for help from the global community. Jo connected with these desperate people and went on to be a strong voice to bring their issues to the attention of those who could make a difference.
Jo's passion and drive for equality and social justice naturally carried over to her parliamentary work, and in her maiden speech she spoke about people coming together, saying:
… what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than the things that divide us.
Given Jo's aforementioned observation, I remain constantly curious as to how and why we live in such a right-wing, conservative world, where the norm appears to be an obsession with promoting and nurturing fear of fear itself based on difference, regardless of whether it is perceived or actual. I live in a proud, multicultural community, and for that I am truly grateful.
It is clear from Jo's transcripts in the parliament and in interviews that she had a spirit like no other and a conviction to speak out. She revelled in being a nonconformist and when asked by a reporter what she does to relax, she answered, 'I climb mountains'—because, of course, that is what she would do. Jo always spoke with great understanding and never disregarded those who held opinions that differed from her own. In fact, Jo said:
It is a joy to represent such a diverse community.
With regard to Brexit and the hostility towards immigration, Jo cited it was a 'legitimate concern' that did not make someone 'a racist xenophobic'; for Jo, however, it was just purely about the facts and providing real solutions outside of Brexit, as she outlined in one of her speeches:
Over half of all migrants to Britain come from outside the EU and the result of this referendum will do nothing to bring these numbers down.
No-one, including politicians, should fear going to work or doing the activities associated with their job, and that is just what Jo was doing on the day her life was tragically cut short. She was just doing her job, serving the people of Batley and Spen. Jo's death was nothing short of a dreadful tragedy, an unspeakable act, and I will not mention the name of her convicted killer in this place because he does not deserve his name even being muttered. What is most important is that Jo's message of a better future for all lives on. What we need to remember is not how she died but rather how she lived her life. What some would hope would further divide us, we must take every possible step to ensure that we find unity in this tragedy, as Jo Cox deserved no less. When some would want fear and hatred to foster and grow, we must show love and compassion. When we are attempted to create fences that segregate or use symbols that only serve to promote fear and division, we must resist and break down the barriers with open and welcoming, courageous arms. Jo's husband Brendan said after her death:
Today is the beginning of a new chapter in our lives. More difficult, more painful, less joyful, less full of love.
I and Jo's friends and family are going to work every moment of our lives to love and nurture our kids and to fight against the hate that killed Jo.
Jo believed in a better world and she fought for it everyday of her life with an energy, and a zest for life that would exhaust most people.
She would have wanted two things above all else to happen now, one that our precious children are bathed in love and two, that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her.
Hate doesn't have a creed, race or religion, it is poisonous.
I am sure that Jo's family, whilst terribly sad are also incredibly proud of the person she was and the work that she did for her community and for humanity, never faltering from her beliefs and values. Most deepest and most sincere sympathies go to Jo's family and friends, especially her husband Brendan and their children.
Whilst I might be across the pond, I hope her family hears my message—that her message and fight will not be lost, and they will be continued in this place. There is no room in our world for divisive politics that aims to nurture hate, fear and discrimination. It could be said that it would do politicians good to hear the following words: 'Speak boldly and with intellect. Never hush your voice for someone's comfort. Speak your mind, make people uncomfortable, for it is in our discomfort that we grow.' It is often argued that our thoughts become our reality, and this is why the politics of fear and hate is so dangerous and seriously flawed.
Jo Cox's life and her work as a politician were not about the politics of popularity. They were about leadership that welcomed and valued difference and diversity and that created a better life for the people that she served. I commend this motion to the House.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (11:30): Like so many others, I rise in this chamber to speak in support of the motion in relation to the late Jo Cox MP. What we saw on the event of her murder was an absolute tragedy—certainly for her community, certainly for her country, certainly for democracy around this world and of course, most particularly and above all else, for her family—because Jo Cox was going about the role of an elected official, a local MP, who was quite passionate about the causes and the electorate in which she was involved. We understand from the history that so many of us around the world have read about Jo Cox since her untimely death that she was committed to Oxfam, and she was committed to the resettlement of Syrian refugees, amongst others, into her country. We certainly understand that, whilst she was a relatively short-term member for her electorate, she was quite popular and quite engaged in her community.
I note that, when we look at the aspects around this terrible tragedy, Jo was killed because of who she was and because of what she stood for. It is important that we all understand this because otherwise we will learn nothing. Words matter. If you engage in the politics of fear, hate and division, if you talk about the breaking points of a society, you cannot expect that there will be no consequences. In this case, we saw that politics of fear, hate and division come to this tragic end in the case of Jo Cox. To think that she was so viciously attacked in the streets of her community resonates with anyone who supports democratic processes around this world and certainly for the few of us who have the great honour of representing our communities here in this federal parliament in Australia. Whilst we must debate issues, whilst we must embrace all opinions on important societal issues, it is important that we recognise that the politics of fear, hate, division and violence, as we saw in this case, have no place in our society—particularly in a democratic society.
This year has been particularly divisive, and it is up to every one of us in public life to do all that we can to heal the wounds within our communities around the world so that we can reunite and build for the future. I note that Labour MP Tracy Brabin, who was elected to replace Jo, said in her maiden speech that her constituency of Batley and Spen would not be defined by the one person who took her from us but by the many who give. What happened was not only an attack on a woman, a family and a community but, as I have also reflected here today, an assault on the principles and basis of our democracy.
Each member of parliament around the world in democratic countries can reflect on their own engagement with their own communities, irrespective of their political attitudes. I know that in my home community of Groom, in Queensland, we have recently welcomed, as part of the federal government's resettlement program, a number of Syrian families into our community. I was honoured and proud to join with other community leaders just recently in an official welcome to them by the whole community, held at St Patrick's Cathedral but supported by all walks of life in our community and certainly all faith traditions.
I thought of Jo Cox on that day. I thought: there she was, carrying out her role as a local member. There she was, pursuing her passion for her community and not only her community but those from elsewhere, such as the Syrians that she was so keen to support. Again, regardless of political orientation or attitudes, all of us need to guard against extreme views and those few occasions where those views can play out so violently.
So today—along, I am sure, with all members of the Australian parliament and of parliaments around the world in democratic countries—we must join together and learn from the message of Jo Cox and what she means to all of us. Her legacy will live on for all of us in democratic countries. I note that her replacement quoted from Jo Cox's own maiden speech when she said:
… we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:36): by leave—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Infrastructure
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:37): This week we learned that the member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister, perhaps the shadow Prime Minister in many respects, intends to spend his summer writing a follow-up to his book Battlelines. This book, Battlelines, shaped the government's approach to infrastructure policy across much of the last parliament, to the great cost of my constituents and indeed of Australians generally. It was in this book that the former Prime Minister set out his views on the role of the Commonwealth in financing public transport options, where he said that Australians were kings in their cars and had no truck with public transport options.
This reflexive ideological opposition to public transport hamstrung Australia's capacity to boost productivity in our major cities and impacted negatively, as well, on the lives of too many Australians, including my constituents, over the course of the time that he was Prime Minister. We saw very significant planned public transport projects such as the Melbourne Metro, the Brisbane Cross River Rail and projects in Perth and Adelaide as well delayed or frustrated by a blinkered ideological frustration that overcame cost-benefit analysis, excellent planning and demonstrated need.
So, over this summer, I hope that the member for Warringah, who has shown himself to be a driver of the policy agenda of this government just as much as that of the government he formerly led, reconsiders his approach to the role of the Commonwealth in investing in public transport in Battlelines II. I hope that when I and other members look to this new source of political wisdom, this new font of political wisdom, from the member for Warringah we will be able to quote from it approvingly rather than in despair when it comes to infrastructure.
On that note, I join this important debate in response to the infrastructure statement. Before I turn to make some remarks on the statement, on the contributions to it by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, on some matters that particularly affect me in respect of the state of Victoria—where I am from—and on urban policy, I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge the quality of contributions of all members in the previous debate. I am particularly grateful for the thoughtful and considered contributions of government members in particular in paying tribute to Jo Cox in this place in a very appropriate manner.
Turning to the matter directly before the chamber, there are some matters of real concern that arise from a document that, on its face, is actually a worthy document and a useful tool to guide decision-making in the future. It is unfortunate, of course, that it took us so long to get this statement before us and before government; it is at least nine months too late. When one looks at the contribution of the Prime Minister in bringing this matter forward and talking about the Infrastructure Australia statement in the House last Thursday, we see—not for the first time, but I hope for the last time, although I am not all that hopeful—the gap between the soaring rhetoric of this Prime Minister and reality. He spoke of the plan as being the first independent assessment of Australia's long-term infrastructure needs. Making this boast is really churlish in the extreme, given his failure to acknowledge the work and leadership of the member for Grayndler in the course of the last Labor government in setting out a way forward to separate the political cycle—short term, unfortunately—from the long-term infrastructure cycle. In speaking to this, he failed to recognise the fundamental nation-building, nation-shaping role of an infrastructure agenda and to pay credit to the former Labor government and, in particular, to the member for Grayndler as a minister and as a shadow minister in setting out a framework—which I think is bipartisan in intent if not always in effect—around how a national government should support effective investments in infrastructure going forward.
Indeed, as I touched on earlier in reference to the former Prime Minister, the references in the Prime Minister's contribution to public transport sit rather uncomfortably with the very poor record of this government in supporting much-needed public transport investments in our major cities—in particular, in Melbourne. The shameful treatment of the Melbourne Metro Rail link means it has been delayed, and that delay will have very significant consequences on the liveability of Melbourne and on its productivity. That is a particular issue for Melbourne, where jobs growth has been so concentrated in and around the CBD, meaning the investments in heavy rail in particular are absolutely critical to maximising productivity growth and to reducing the burden on commuters as they go about their working lives and seek to balance their working lives with the other obligations that we all understand in this place. That is critical. We understand not only how long Australians on average work but the stresses and strains—health-wise, in particular—for people in the outer suburbs trying to balance long commutes with issues around child care and school pick-up responsibilities. The impact of this goes beyond the direct engagement with our children and our family lives. I know, as I think we all do in this place—those of us who represent suburban communities—the cost to too many people of having to opt out of activities outside of family life and work life. There are those wider costs that can only be addressed by having a real focus on infrastructure; it is not just productivity.
I will turn briefly to the circumstances in my home state of Victoria. It is of great concern to me that, while a good story is seemingly told in the response to the 78-odd recommendations of this report, there is a deeper and darker truth that impacts on Victorians. Victoria contains 25 per cent of Australia's population but has been receiving only around nine per cent of Commonwealth infrastructure spending under this government. Those statistics are stark on their face, but when one considers that Melbourne is growing so rapidly—it is the fastest-growing city in the developed world—the gap between investment and need becomes even more apparent.
Melbourne needs appropriate infrastructure investment support from a national government if it is to continue to be the world's most liveable city, as I sincerely hope it will, and if it is to continue to drive the sort of productivity growth Australia needs to maintain our living standards. We are of course the most urbanised nation in the world and these sorts of investments are critical to maintaining our living standards.
I have a couple of reflections on the city's policy more generally as well. There are some very useful recommendations in the report about a national urban policy agenda; however, I think a fair summation of the government's response is it is too little too late. The first act of the government led by the member for Warringah was to abolish the Major Cities Unit, robbing us of understanding and data about how our cities are functioning. That is a loss that has not yet been remedied, even as we seek to understand how important data is in driving effective infrastructure solutions.
When the current Prime Minister became Prime Minister he spoke of two points of distinction from the member for Warringah. The first was innovation. We have heard a little bit about the importance of innovation in Australian public policy making in recent days, but suffice it to say that the bright light of innovation has not in recent months burnt quite as bright as it did about 12 months ago. We have also heard a lot about cities—the other limb of the distinction.
The Prime Minister produced in the lead-up to the last election the Smart Cities policy, a wonderful glossy brochure lacking substance—perhaps a useful metaphor for the government at large, one might say. We heard a lot about city deals in the election as well in Townsville, Launceston and Western Sydney. Unfortunately, here the rhetoric has not met the reality. The city deal descriptor has not been an innovative policy response to meeting the infrastructure challenges of these communities, merely it has been a wraparound for targeted investments directed at seat marginality rather than economic, sustainability or livability concerns.
We on this side of the House do support real city deals and we call on the government to work harder to look at this concept to bring it to reality. We think there is room for bipartisanship when it comes to cities, and there are recommendations here that we can work with the government on to deliver more liveable, sustainable and productive cities and secure the living standards of Australians well into the future.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:47): If you ever want to understand why people deride politics and hate the spin and fabricated news that comes out of this place, look at this infrastructure document. It is exhibit A in the case against politicians. This infrastructure document is more a political puff piece than a genuine response to the types of things that people, particularly those in the region that I represent in Western Sydney, want to see when it comes to infrastructure. There is no better proof than the way the reported Western Sydney City Deal was announced recently by the Prime Minister. This was the big game changer. If something is being talked up beyond what it is, there will be the phrase 'game changer' and you can pretty much spot the fake.
The Western Sydney City Deal that the Prime Minister and Premier Mike Baird revealed is supposed to lead to the generation of 100,000 jobs for Sydney's west. Here are some of the things it is supposed to achieve. It is intended to provide a model for future arrangements to deliver more jobs, transport and services. Guess what? It is centred around one thing and one thing only—Badgerys Creek airport. It talks about a whole lot of things that they will do to improve infrastructure in Sydney's west.
Guess where it was announced? This great plan, this great deal, for Western Sydney was announced in Redfern. The member for Werriwa remarked to me that the only thing Redfern is west of is the CBD. It is about 40 kilometres from one of the suburbs I represent—Mount Druitt. So the geniuses in the Turnbull government from the Prime Minister down, including his army of advisers and army of infrastructure ministers—I do not know how many infrastructure ministers actually exist in this Turnbull government but there is a plethora of them—thought that there would not be a problem in announcing a Western Sydney City Deal outside of Western Sydney. How do you do that?
Deputy Speaker Wicks, I know your electorate is on the Central Coast. I know that as representatives we will have our differences, but you would be stunned if a Central Coast deal were announced in Sydney instead of in Gosford. From my perspective, announcing a Western Sydney deal outside of the region that it is supposed to benefit just shows that it is all about spin, not about substance.
Here is exhibit B in that case: not one of the Western Sydney councils has been engaged in genuine consultation about this Western Sydney plan—not one. The councils have very politely said, 'We'd like to talk,' when really they should have been screaming blue murder that those opposite would announce an infrastructure deal that will impact on them yet have no consultation or discussion with them whatsoever.
Again, this represents in the purest terms the problem with Sydney. As I have said previously, Sydney is a city of two halves where the east determines what the west will or will not get and has no consultation with the west. And we are supposed to cop it. We have no funding for better schools and no funding for hospitals. Mount Druitt Hospital, for example, lost a cardiac ward under the Baird government, which called it 'relocation'. People in our area know exactly what it was. To close a cardiac ward in Mount Druitt Hospital, which is in an area where heart disease impacts so many people, is scandalous. It got shut, and not a whimper.
We do not get the schools, we do not get the hospitals and we certainly do not get the roads investment. This government spruik that they are going to invest in the M12, for example. That is a good thing, but the big game changer—to use their term—is the M9. That is the road that will go west of the M7, but we have no details on how much money, when it is going to happen, when it is going to be spent, when it is going to go ahead—nothing.
Mr Albanese: Not a dollar!
Mr HUSIC: We do not have anything—not a dollar, as the member for Grayndler rightly points out. If you want to talk about job creation, having the M7 and the M9 rolled out will open up land between those two motorways, which will then transform economic opportunity in a legitimately fundamental way. The M7 itself, for example, has provided the opportunity to create the Sydney Business Park. They reckon that in this Western Sydney deal between 70,000 to 100,000 jobs will be created, when the reality is that I have a project right on our doorstep that is going to create 60,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next decade. That is what happens if you have good infrastructure in place.
The challenge I have got for the Turnbull government is: build a motorway without putting a toll on it; build a motorway that does not slug Western Sydney residents. Everyone knows congestion in Sydney is bad. I always love how people talk about the need to put in a congestion tax. Well, guess what? We have got one. They are called 'tolls'. In my area I have residents who pay $35 a day for the privilege of sitting on a congested M7, M2, M4 or M5. While the Baird government will say, 'We are doing all these projects; we've got NorthConnex, WestConnex and all these other things,' that is rubbish. These roads are always congested. They improve a bit and then they congest a bit more. Why? Because the minute people find that they can travel more easily on those roads they go from public transport to private transport and those roadways get clogged. The government does not invest jointly in private and public transport options to make people movement easier in Western Sydney. That is a problem as well.
The other problem I have got is people who advise this government. There is a whole bunch of self-servers who advise this government on transport. I was very heartened to see that today in the Financial Review Joe Aston rightly observed that the great Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue held a big infrastructure conference yesterday, to talk about Western Sydney, 40 kilometres from Western Sydney at a Sofitel hotel. Fantastic! They are talking about Western Sydney outside of the region. They probably made in the ballpark of $250,000 on it.
Back in the late nineties when the second airport decision was shelved, Chris Brown, former head of the Tourism Task Force, said: 'The people around the country and my members around the country are asking, "Why are we looking at a very Sydney-centric decision?" There are projects like rail, which might promote greater regional benefit—a greater the longer term benefit—than rushing in at breakneck speed to get another airport, a third airport, for Sydney.' This is Chris Brown in 1999, when everyone was complaining about the decision—well, people in the east were complaining about the decision—to shelve Badgerys Creek Airport. He then gets appointed to government bodies to look at the second airport for Sydney and then, once he is done with that, he sets up a group, the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, that charges people money to go to a conference—and then he gets that money to generate further conferences and is able to influence the way decisions are made. I think that is wrong. I think there should be an ethical firewall between being appointed to a government body and being able to make money from that.
This is the thing: Chris Brown brings all of his contacts and he uses that to generate influence, particularly in my party, to try to get his decisions spruiked. When he gets that decision reinforced, he then goes and makes more money off it. He should not be known as Chris Brown; he should be known as China Brown, because he is the ultimate purveyor of soft power within our party, using all those funds to generate influence on projects that Western Sydney does not call for. This is the problem with infrastructure decisions in this debate: Western Sydney does not get the infrastructure it needs; it is given the infrastructure it does not want, that does not answer the longer term issues about what is required in our area. I am sick of having people in business positions and with powers of influence influencing various decision-makers when they do not live in the region, do not operate in the region, but make money off the region. As I said before, if the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue and its patrons live in Western Sydney and they are championing it—that is fine. But I will not have a dialogue that is run out of Balmain, pretending to be a Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, influencing infrastructure decisions that get cheered on in this infrastructure statement and totally overlook the needs of the area.
As I said yesterday, I have never heard Chris Brown or the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue criticise the Baird government once for the Nepean Hospital being the most stressed hospital in the state. But when Mike Baird announces $500 million for Nepean Hospital, they are out there like the government's cheerleaders, cheering it on. This is the problem with infrastructure, particularly in Sydney: people in the east making decisions in the west, and ignoring the region together.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:57): Early on in his infrastructure statement to parliament last Thursday, the Prime Minister said something that I agree with. He said:
If Australia is to ride the wave of opportunity that the 21st century offers, we need better infrastructure.
From there, the speech went downhill. What we heard was that he had a plan; he was going to do a study; there was going to be an examination; he was going to have a committee to look after the reports that had already been done by a committee. What we did not have in an infrastructure statement for the parliament was, of course, any attachment of legislation to it or any appropriation from the budget—because there was not a project named; there was not a project advanced; there was not a dollar announced. I do not know why you would give an infrastructure statement to the parliament that does not announce any infrastructure, that does not have anything of substance in it whatsoever.
This comes at a time where infrastructure investment in this country is in freefall. The context here is the resources sector going from the investment phase to the production phase. At that time, because of the decline in infrastructure investment associated with the resources sector, what you should have had—when combined with the fact that capital is almost free and when the government earlier this year could have borrowed for infrastructure at long-term rates, at a rate of under two per cent per annum—is the government stepping in and ramping up that investment, because we know that there is a need.
The member for Chifley just spoke about the M9. Why didn't the government use last Thursday to announce funding for the M9? They did not even announce funding for planning for the M9, for preservation of the corridor, for getting the environmental approvals—nothing came from last week's announcement. This comes when public infrastructure investment has fallen by 20 per cent in the government's first two years. It also comes when the government continues to say that it is going to spend $50 billion on infrastructure in the forward estimates. It is just not true. Indeed, they are not even spending what they said they would spend in the budget papers of 2014. For example, in the last financial year the government did not spend $8 billion in 2015-16; they spent $5½ billion. When you take into account the fact that there was a $490 million payment to Western Australia to compensate for the GST, it is a $3 billion underspend on what they said they would do, or 35 per cent. This follows a $1 billion underspend the year before.
At this year's election campaign, we put forward a comprehensive plan for infrastructure investment: the Cross River Rail in Brisbane, Melbourne Metro, Adelaide light rail, Perth Metronet and Western Sydney Rail. We put forward a comprehensive plan. We put forward and have advanced in this parliament again the need for a high-speed rail authority to advance that proposal. The coalition just offered more cuts. The Prime Minister likes to ride on trains and trams and take photos on them. We want him to actually fund them, not just take photos on them. He spruiks city deals and yet all that does is match our commitments to UTAS in Northern Tasmania and match the commitments that we made to the stadium and regeneration of the City of Townsville. The vague promise in Western Sydney is, frankly, a pittance compared to what is required in Western Sydney. He said in last Thursday's statement that he is going to develop a freight strategy. There is one. It was done by Infrastructure Australia just after they did their national port strategy. It complements the two things together. Yet they cannot even fund the final section of the Port Botany rail freight plan. Through the Australian Rail Track Corporation, it can be funded off-budget, and they can fix the loop around South-West Sydney for a total of just under $200 million so that the freight corridor can be brought into the 21st century, where it should be. At the moment, for the last section between Mascot and the port, it is one way, so you cannot have trains going in and out to the port. If a train is going out, a train cannot go in. It is a two-way corridor with a one-way road. It is completely absurd. And yet they cannot do that.
If you look at the smallest programs, like the Black Spot Program, there was a 55 per cent underspend last year; the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program had a 65 per cent underspend on what was put in the budget; and the Bridges Renewal Program was 40 per cent down on what was promised. Last week I was reminded of their 2014 budget when they spent $70,000 making a video about the 2014 infrastructure investment plan. The video has been taken down because it is so embarrassing because none of it has happened. Then, during this year in the lead-up to the election, they took $18 million that was allocated to build roads, rail lines, ports and infrastructure and they spent it on TV ads to tell people what they did not have and what they were not getting.
The truth is that people need to hold this government to account. When it comes to Badgerys Creek airport, there is the circumstance whereby people get information from a website about flights based upon some theory. It is not based upon any flight paths that have been worked out. The government says that it can follow Labor's announcement of ensuring there are no flights over communities at night—and nor should there be. That is the advantage of the planning protections that were put in place around the Badgerys Creek site 30 years ago. That is why it is perfectly able to ensure that flights do not go over any communities at night from the second airport. The government should not have that contradicted by some bureaucrats on sites that are out of date. They need to get on top of that and they need to get on top of proper community consultation for that vital piece of infrastructure, not just for Western Sydney but also for the national economy.
This government needs to match up its rhetoric with reality. They need to start investing. They need to have proper consultation. They need to have proper infrastructure plans. They need to restore respect to Infrastructure Australia and put it at the heart of infrastructure development.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (12:07): I am very pleased to rise to speak in this chamber to note the excellent infrastructure statement made by the Prime Minister just last week. Of course, as part of the infrastructure statement, the Prime Minister released the government's response to the 15-year Australian Infrastructure Plan, which sets out a comprehensive agenda of recommendations across a wide range of sectors: transport, communications, energy, water and other areas. Seventy-eight recommendations are in the plan, relevant to all levels of government. Of the 78 the Australian government is supporting 69 of them. Our response reflects our recognition that reforming how we plan, prioritise and pay for infrastructure is critical to sustainable, long-term productivity growth. Our response demonstrates that the 15-year plan will guide key infrastructure policy directions for the Turnbull government. Many of these recommendations are reflected in reforms that the Turnbull government has already commenced. With the release of our response to the 15-year Australian Infrastructure Plan, we are progressing a number of other important reforms in the area of road, rail, freight, data collection, funding and financing. These reforms will support the Turnbull government's record $50 billion investment in land transport infrastructure. Indeed, if you include all areas of infrastructure, including the NBN, water infrastructure, regional funding and other major project funding, the Turnbull government is investing some $80 billion. This investment is expected to leverage many billions of dollars in additional spending from state governments and from the private sector across the economy.
Just this year, the Turnbull government has announced funding for a wide range of infrastructure priorities including Western Sydney Airport where we announced $115 million to fund preparatory work, including $26 million to develop a concept design for rail access that will accelerate benefits to Western Sydney. There is the Forrestfield-Airport Link, an enormously important rail link in Perth where the Turnbull government has committed $490 million. I was pleased to attend, along with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the sod-turning ceremony of that important project just a few weeks ago.
There is the Flinders Link project in Adelaide, which will see the Flinders University medical centre connected to the Adelaide metropolitan rail network. There is the Inland Rail project, where an additional $594 million has been committed by the Turnbull government for the Australian Rail Track Corporation to acquire necessary land and to continue preconstruction work. We have announced significant new infrastructure investments in Victoria, including $350 million for the M80 Ring Road, $220 million for the Murray Basin Rail Project, $345 million for a rural and regional roads package and $75 million for an urban congestion package.
In the course of this year, we have also announced an additional $260.8 million in funding for the tunnel section at stage 2 of Perth Freight Link. We have announced $200 million of funding for Ipswich Motorway and up to $50 million for business case development with the states. We also announced funding for upgrades to the M1 in South-East Queensland, funding of $105 million for the Gateway merge and funding of $110 million to the Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes section of the M1. So very extensive funding commitments have been announced this year, on top of the already extensive commitments that we have made and a record level of infrastructure spending.
Notwithstanding that fact, what we saw in the response of the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister's statement was a number of misleading and inaccurate claims about the Commonwealth government's spending on infrastructure. Like clockwork, whenever there is mention of this government's track record in infrastructure, the shadow minister pops up with his false claim that infrastructure spending has gone down since the shambolic years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. In fact, the Turnbull government is funding infrastructure at record levels around Australia. In 2016-17 we are spending around $9 billion. As The Australian's David Uren has pointed out, if you compare support for state infrastructure across the four-year forward estimates period of Labor's last three budgets and the coalition's first three budgets the average under the coalition was $27.8 billion, a 44 per cent increase on what the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government spent.
These facts are a little inconvenient for the Labor Party which is perhaps why the shadow minister seems to resort to continually making factually incorrect claims. But you would find it a futile exercise to look for intellectual consistency when it comes to what we hear from the shadow minister in relation to infrastructure policy. For example, he got very excited with the claim that the final budget outcome for 2015-16 showed a drop in infrastructure spending to support state activity from what was in the estimate in the May 2014 budget as to the amount that would apply for the 2015-16 financial year. The particular item he cited was payments to support state infrastructure services, and I emphasise that this is part of but not the same as total Commonwealth spending on infrastructure. It excludes spending on Commonwealth projects such as Western Sydney Airport and Inland Rail. The point is that it is not unusual for there to be significant variances between the amounts originally budgeted to be spent on payments to support state infrastructure services in a particular year and the final amount spent in that particular year. In 2012-13, for example, what happened? The amount originally budgeted to be spent on payments to support state infrastructure services was around $6 billion. The amount finally spent in that year was $3.6 billion. I can almost hear you thinking, 'Who was the minister at that time?'
The minster was, in fact, the man who is now the shadow minister. So, as I say, if we were to seek intellectual consistency in the pronouncements of this shadow minister you would find yourself deeply frustrated.
Then, of course, we hear his argument that it is somehow a matter of note that the $490 million commitment that the Commonwealth has made in relation to the Forrestfield project was linked to discussions between the Commonwealth and Western Australia in relation to the GST. Without going into the merits of that I simply make the point that the shadow minister seems to say, 'Okay, we'll look at this spending and say there is a shortfall, but we'll ignore this spending because that's in an inconvenient category.' You cannot have it both ways. Again, if you were to look for intellectual consistency in what you hear from the shadow minister you would be sorely disappointed.
We hear this consistent and utterly incorrect claim from the shadow minister that there has been no new spending on infrastructure since the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left office. That is simply not true. I will mention just one area: the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan—$3.6 billion for the Northern Road being widened for its entire length; the Bringelly Road Upgrade; and, of course, the M12, which will run from the M7 to the airport and the Northern Road. Just last week the corridor for the M12 was announced. None of this was delivered by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. In fact, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government never reached a decision in relation to Western Sydney Airport. It took a coalition government to do that. So this ridiculous claim made by the shadow minister, this wholly inaccurate claim that no new infrastructure projects have been committed to, was untrue the first time he said it and it is untrue each time he says it.
The reality is that the Turnbull government has a comprehensive program of funding for infrastructure. We are spending at record levels. We are not engaging in the sort of accounting tricks that the shadow minister engaged in. In 2013 it emerged that the amounts that had been supposedly set aside by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government for rail projects around the country—over $2 billion for the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link and over $2 billion for the Melbourne Metro—was all beyond the forward estimates. So, basic accounting tricks were being used by the previous government, and then the shadow minister complains that we have adopted a much more consistent and accurate approach in relation to our funding of infrastructure. The reality is that there is record infrastructure spending going on. We have just announced an important response to the 15-year plan. The Turnbull government is delivering for the Australian people.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Domestic and Family Violence
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Parliament:
(1)acknowledge that violence against women is a national issue that requires a whole of community response;
(2)acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 34 times more likely to experience violence;
(3)call on all men to take action, call out violence, and link arms and say ‘No More’ to domestic violence; and
(4)stand united in its commitment to eliminate violence against women.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (12:18): The issue of violence against women has garnered quite a lot a attention recently. While the immediate context may be the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, I would like to think that we as a community are becoming more able to discuss the issue of violence against women more openly.
In 1975, Take Back the Night was started in the US after the murder of Susan Alexander Speeth, who was stabbed while walking home. This was a protest in response to violence against women. These are now called Reclaim the Night rallies and are held in over 30 countries. We are now well into the second generation of publicly fighting for the same thing: the safety of our women and girls. I can only hope and pray that my daughters, who are now aged 14 and eight, are not attending these rallies when they are adults. Heartbreakingly, as a mother, I must admit my general feeling is that, sadly, they will still be fighting to end violence against women. I was, however, grateful to support the recent Reclaim the Night rally in my own electorate organised by West Connect Domestic Violence Services, and I said then what I say now: violence against women has to end.
In sharing my own story last week as a survivor and as a victim of domestic violence, I told the stories of so many women—too many women, too many children. I have been humbled since and legitimately overwhelmed by the support shown to me since. One of the most overwhelming elements of giving my speech and telling my story last week is realising just how many people have been touched by domestic and family violence. These are men and women, people from every walk of life, in every part of our community and indeed from all over the world. This has just reinforced to me how crucial it is that we tackle the scourge of family violence once and for all. It has also provided me with renewed energy in making sure that this is something that we will not still be trying to solve in 20 years from now. As parliamentarians, we are in the privileged position of being able to make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of people affected by domestic and family violence—and we should.
Labor's recent announcement and commitment to end the cross-examination of domestic violence victims by their perpetrators is an important step, and one I hope the government takes on board. I will use my time here to again call on the Prime Minister to back in Labor's commitment and stand up for victims and survivors of domestic violence. Subjecting women and children to this form of hostile questioning, re-traumatises and creates brand new trauma for victims. It can also be why a case is dropped and a perpetrator gets off, and this is not acceptable. Sadly, there have been promises to address this but, with most things, the leader of this country has failed to act. We often hear of the bi-partisan support on ending domestic violence, but where is the action that backs up this rhetoric?
One of the more shocking cases of domestic violence is a woman I have come to know whose story is so horrific that it is amazing she and her children have survived. Her former husband is now tucked behind bars for what I hope will be a long time, however not before she and her eldest daughter were subjected to cross-examination. Her story is:
On one of the court hearings, my abuser attended court unrepresented which in turn gave him the privilege and legal right to represent himself and hence cross-examine myself and my daughter. That was such a horrific experience and defeats the purpose of court rooms having a safe room for women and children ....
Of course, this is one of many thousands of examples of women who have had to endure this kind of experience at the hands of the perpetrator. This reform to end cross-examination has been called for years by survivors like this woman and her child. It is a failure by this Prime Minister and his government to deliver. In fact, the woman from whom I quote has gone on to create a petition on Change.Org calling on the state government to change legislation in domestic violence court proceedings. This petition has garnered over 18,000 signatures of people who want to see an end to traumatising cross-examination. By allowing an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence access to this ability to cross-examine their victim, it has the effect of perpetuating the violence through a court-sanctioned and court-endorsed procedure. The perpetrator has the opportunity to continue the fear, intimidation and undermining, exercising control over their victim in a courtroom setting. This can no longer be accepted.
Tackling domestic and family violence is a priority for Labor in government and in opposition. I will continue to work towards changing legislation and advocating on behalf of the thousands affected by this. Changing legislation in family law is just one step governments can take in helping to end family violence. This is a crisis that is going to take a whole of society to change. It cannot just be left to governments alone to end this rampant behaviour. Society, corporate Australia, schools, unions, workplaces, media outlets, police and law enforcement all have a role to play. There is not one single person in this country who should feel excluded from the efforts to end domestic and family violence. We all have a role to play. Not one single person is exempt from the responsibility of protecting their mothers, sisters, daughters, aunties, grandmothers, colleagues, neighbours and friends. We all ought to feel obliged in helping to end all forms of violence against women.
It is worthy of pointing out here respecting women and valuing women equally in all areas of society would go a long way in demonstrating an understanding of how and why violence against women has reached epidemic levels. Broad gender inequality is a root cause of men's violence against women. Indeed, there is a clear link between issues of gender equity and domestic violence. And, so, in our efforts to reduce violence against women, we should seriously consider what it is that we can do to reduce the markers of gender inequality that stubbornly remain in our society and in our economy even today.
While I do note that it has taken us 113 years to appoint the first female High Court judge, the gender pay gap, the lack of women in corporate positions of power, the lack of women in political positions of power, the lack of support for working women with children and the lack of support for older women in our communities all contribute to a broader sense of powerlessness that maybe is difficult to understand when you are not on the receiving end of it. But the correlation between this sense of powerlessness and the fear, anxiety and despair many victims of domestic and family violence feel are obvious. We have to have a serious discussion about what it is that we are doing to reduce gender inequality alongside the discussion we are having about what we are doing to tackle domestic and family violence. The fact is these things go hand in hand.
On a personal note, I would like to place on record my thanks to those people who have reached out and shared their stories with me, from the top end to Tassie, from Oklahoma to Thailand: violence against women, domestic and family violence knows no boundaries. I am privileged and honoured to have been able to give a speech that held significance for so many women. I will continue to use my position in this place to advocate on their and on their children's behalf.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (12:26): I rise today to talk about violence against women, but first, in speaking about this, I would like to also share a personal story. I too have been subjected to an incident of serious violent behaviour and assault in my life. It shall remain etched in my memory for the rest of my life. This behaviour against me did not occur in my domestic household at the hands of people known to me or people I love and who love me; rather, it occurred in my place of employment. I am sure all would agree that all employees, male and female, should feel as safe from violence at their place of employment as in their home and in their community.
This violent behaviour and assault against me occurred at the hands of male unionists at my place of employment. I was a young corporate lawyer at the time. I worked for a manufacturing company, and a management meeting that I was to attend was scheduled to take place at the factory site of my employer. At this same time, there was an industrial dispute going on, and a group of unionists had set up a picket line at the entrance to the factory. I parked my car, and got my briefcase and notebook. As I walked past the unionist picketers, who had apparently assumed I was a journalist, they made a few wolf-whistles and sleazy remarks. I attended the meeting and later realised that by the time I came out of the meeting, they had figured out a few things: that I worked for the employer, that I was part of management, that I was of Greek heritage and that I was clearly female. In these unionists' eyes, I was the enemy and, in being female, someone to be disrespected. In their minds, they felt it justified their entitlement to assault me and engage in violent behaviour.
The legal definition of assault can be paraphrased as 'when a person strikes, touches or otherwise applies force of any kind to a person, or a person attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to another person'. These unionists suddenly raced towards me. They chased me to my car. Although at that point I was shaking with fear, I did feel safe in my car as I locked the doors. But their assault did not end there. As I tried to drive my car out through the driveway entrance of the factory, several of these unionist men threw themselves on the bonnet of my car while others pushed their contorted faces up against the two front windows, calling me a wog and other obscenities that went to my gender, with further obscene threats of assault.
Although this occurred some years ago, and it was not on a construction site, it is a memory that will be etched in my mind for life. It has become clear to all in recent times that this theme of union thuggery, blatant disregard for the rule of law and blatant disrespect for women by union officials and certain unionists absolutely underpins the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to hold these unionists to account. As our Prime Minister rightly says:
… disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women. But all violence against women begins with disrespecting women.
Fast forward to this year on an unusually sunny day during the winter campaign at a shopping centre in Burwood, in Chisholm. I started chatting with a lovely lady, her mum and her young daughter, the classic three generations doing their local shopping. The little girl caught my attention—a very sweet, pretty little girl who was shy but seemed to enjoy a positive, happy engagement. I commented to the mum on how gorgeous her little girl was. The mum's eyes filled up, and she whispered in my ear, 'Well, she's just recovered from a black eye from her father.' And then, in hushed tones, this lovely, gracious woman told me her story of domestic violence at the hands of her former husband. She said to me, 'It's like he knows it will hurt me more if he hurts my little girl, which of course it does.' As they walked away, the grandma said very simply and genuinely to me, 'Thank you so much for listening.'
Earlier in my career, as a legal practitioner, I worked in legal aid and in private practice and provided support and legal advice to many women whose stories of domestic violence are similarly gut wrenching and desperate. As I have said before, I will always strive to be the representative for the people of Chisholm who will listen more than I talk and to be pragmatic and get things done—the person who, rather than waiting to talk, will listen.
That is why I am so proud to be part of the Turnbull government. We acted back in September last year and announced a $100 million Women's Safety Package, which focuses on practical, immediate action to keep women safe; improved training for front-line workers; enhancing service delivery in critical areas; providing the best resources to change attitudes; and a national campaign. Communication is key to these women. In the national campaign, there have been 36½ million online views of the TV commercials outlining where help can be sought. There was the recent launch of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, which includes $20 million for preventative strategies and cultural change and $15 million for front-line services like housing and financial support.
In my electorate of Chisholm, the Crossway LifeCare group and Kara House provide refuge for women and provide financial counselling. Financial counselling and financial independence are often key for women who are the victims of domestic violence.
Historically, violence against women has been an issue that people simply will not talk about or do not want to talk about, an unpopular issue. It has been an issue that a lot of people talk about in hushed tones or where they say that domestic violence is a private thing, not something that should be discussed in public. In fact, the term 'domestic violence' poses a risk of minimising or diminishing what is, simply put, a crime. Violence against women in any form, in any community, in any context, is a crime. This is an issue where, rest assured, the Turnbull government is listening, standing with those Australians who have been frightened, hurt or scared by violence against them. We actively and constructively are doing something about it. For anyone impacted by domestic or family violence, call 1800 RESPECT or 1800 7377328.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (12:33): I am very glad to join with the member for Lindsay and previous speakers in debate on this motion. I am also heartened by the fact that consensus has been reached in this place about the devastating effects of family violence in communities. As has been said, family violence does not discriminate. I think the member for Lindsay reminded us last week that, while we talk often in this House on motions about domestic violence, it is not abstract for her, and it is not abstract for many people in this place. I am reminded of the inaugural speech of Trish Doyle, the member for Blue Mountains, in the New South Wales parliament, who also recounted her personal experience as a little girl.
For 33 per cent of women, physical violence is experienced firsthand, and many more experience violence indirectly or experience non-physical abuse. I think it is really important that we put on record in this motion that family violence does not necessarily mean physical violence. There are many ways in which violence is perpetrated, including psychologically and financially. It includes things like smashing plates, smashing furniture around you and intimidation. I think that is not often recognised.
This week we have paid particular attention to the violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. But I want to reiterate here what I have said for many years: violence against women and children is not part of Aboriginal culture and there is no excuse. I am very proud of the display of unity from this parliament yesterday, when it linked arms and said, 'No more.' But it means nought if we do not take action. Awareness is welcome, and it is fantastic that as a community we are finally talking an issue which for too long has stayed behind closed doors, but the truth is that for many women who are currently experiencing violence our display of unity yesterday will not mean much in practical terms. What they need are services. They need a place to take their children to escape the violence and be safe and supported. They need to be able to access financial assistance and legal assistance. They also need the psychological support.
I am really pleased that the member for Lindsay, in her address to the parliament the other day, spoke about how for many years her mum was blamed for not leaving and it is not as simple as that. Because you are in a relationship with a violent partner does not mean that there are not feelings there between the two people. The people who say 'Why doesn't she just leave?' do not actually fully understand the situation. We talk so much about awareness. But what about action? I do not think we consider what failure of the systems means. It can mean the difference between life and death. I will tell you a story.
On Anzac Day in 2015 in Brewarrina, an 18-year-old Aboriginal woman was murdered by her father. The story rated a brief mention in the national and local papers—and brief it was. The murder was particularly horrific. I will not go into detail, but it was another family destroyed and a community even more traumatised. The murder barely rated a mention in the local paper and, as I said, the national and state papers hardly bothered to cover it. When that girl was murdered the local safe house, a refuge for women at risk, was almost impossible to contact. When my office ran to check, it was answered by a male voice on an answering machine directing women to call a mobile number—and that mobile number was not operating. It was not bad luck; it was a result of cuts to funding and services for domestic violence.
At the time, I spoke out. Family violence, particularly in western New South Wales and rural and remote areas, where there are many Aboriginal families across this country, continues to be a national crisis. But the media was not interested in that girl's death, and nor were governments. That incident, and the issue, went largely uncovered. The sad fact is that the rhetoric we hear on the issue of DV, whether it is from state or federal governments, is not always met with action. For all the talk we hear from those opposite about the first announcement from the Turnbull government being about the $100 million for measures to combat domestic violence, the funding offer, as the member for Lindsay just reminded me, does not come close to replacing the cuts that have already taken place. I would be very interested in just how much of that $100 million has actually been spent, what it has been spent on and why the spending is so slow if this is such a national crisis.
It was not Aboriginal women who cut legal services. It was not Aboriginal politicians who scrapped the Brighter Futures program in New South Wales. It was not feminists who closed domestic violence refuges for Aboriginal women and children in New South Wales and many other services as well. It was Liberal state and federal governments. These same people were silent when $3.6 million was cut from the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services. There was silence when the state Liberal government closed scores of specialist Indigenous violence services and also handed over to faith based organisations the secular women's refuge services in New South Wales.
That has meant a reduction of about 500 beds per night for women and their children escaping domestic violence. I do not want to be too pessimistic because we know that at least some of the measures will help, but let us just be clear that the Hey Sis program in New South Wales, which has been supported by private enterprise, is not being supported any longer; it is being cut—in fact, I think it has gone. The Tackling Violence program in New South Wales, which is one of the most effective domestic violence programs I have ever seen—using football teams as the catalyst to drive down the level of domestic violence in many communities—is being run down as well. All the federal funding has been withdrawn, despite the fact that there is this so-called $100 million.
The answer is not paternalism or command and control policy from Canberra. We cannot impose solutions on communities, black or white. Those communities have the solutions. It is up to us to support those communities and to listen to people that have had the experience. We know how devastating and intergenerational domestic violence is and, in fact, in some ways, it is a learnt behaviour, particularly for children who are growing up in those situations, which affects the choices that we make later in life. I am very proud that Labor has proposed policies like those announced by Bill Shorten the other morning: making it easier for victims to give evidence via video, so they are not, as the member for Lindsay discussed, cross-examined by their attackers; and making sure that as many people as possible have access to DV leave, so that the victims can take the time to go through the courts. It just astounds me that the Minister for Women in this government is refusing domestic violence leave for the people that are employed in the Department of Human Services. The CPSU is trying to get a workplace agreement in place that includes this, but the Minister for Women says, 'No'. Women escaping domestic violence or needing domestic violence leave will have to trade off their annual leave or some other sort of leave. How is that a government supporting victims of domestic violence, or survivors—I am not going to say 'victims'; survivors of domestic violence?
No-one should feel trapped in a violent relationship because they do not understand how to get out of it. It is up to members of parliament to empower those families to know what the steps can be to leave. It is scary and it is daunting. Often there is not the financial sustainability within that family and with those women and children to actually leave a relationship. I want to thank everyone in this chamber, particularly the member for Lindsay, for shining a light on this terrible scourge. That wonderful experience yesterday of being on the forecourt court and linking arms was a powerful show, but we have to back it with action. Like the member for Lindsay, this issue is not academic for me; it is lived experience, and that is not an unusual lived experience, unfortunately. I commend this motion to House.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:43 to 16 : 00
MOTIONS
Domestic and Family Violence
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Parliament:
(1) acknowledge that violence against women is a national issue that requires a whole of community response;
(2) acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 34 times more likely to experience violence;
(3) call on all men to take action, call out violence, and link arms and say ‘No More’ to domestic violence; and
(4) stand united in its commitment to eliminate violence against women.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:01): Last week I heard my colleague Emma Husar, the member for Lindsay, give a compelling, emotional and brave speech in the House about how domestic violence has affected her life. I know very well the shame that she spoke of last week. For women who have been touched by domestic violence, no matter how much we achieve, no matter how far we go in our lives, there is always just a little part of you that stays broken; you carry around with you, wherever you go, a stain that never quite washes away. And here we are in the year 2016, with more than a century of the women's movement behind us, and there are many things that I am still questioning. I am questioning why we are still talking about what a woman wears. I am confused that we still judge women by what they wear. I am confused that women are still earning less than men. And I am wondering what happened to that idealistic wide-eyed 17-year-old me who sat around with her friends talking about what we would or would not put up with in a partner. I remember saying that, if a man ever raised his hand to me, that would be it, I would be out of there, I would not stay. But I did. I stayed.
Above all, I am confused that we, who call ourselves a progressive nation, who pride ourselves on the status of women, are still a nation in which one woman in four is a victim of domestic violence—that means one in every four women on our streets, one in four women in our workplaces and our schools and one in every four women right here in this place. It is a startling fact and it is one that we must continue to talk about because change does not happen when we are silent. We cannot stay silent on this. That is why the member for Lindsay's brave sharing of her story is so powerful.
Domestic violence is not something that happens to other women somewhere else. It is not something that discriminates. It is not something about which all of us on both sides of this House can say, 'It doesn't affect me.' I must also make the point that it is not just about women; children and men also suffer from domestic family violence—though women, by far, suffer the most. Over the past week or so, I have heard and read many comments and many opinions. I have heard the comment that men are responsible and I have heard the comment that women should take more responsibility for raising men who respect women.
Let me just make this point: there is no blame game here. There is nothing to be gained from placing the responsibility for domestic violence on one group or another, for it is the responsibility of all of us, of every person, every Australian, to contribute to changing attitudes to and behaviours of domestic and family violence. As the mother of two sons, I know that I raised my boys with the clear message that violence is not okay—never, ever—and I take that responsibility very seriously. As a survivor of domestic violence, I will share my story and lend my voice to those of other women to make sure that all women who suffer know that they are not alone and that the shame is not theirs—and I take that responsibility very seriously.
As the representative of my electorate and my community, I will speak out against domestic and family violence here in this House, and I will work towards delivering support services to help those in violent situations in my electorate and programs for domestic violence in Cowan—and I take that responsibility very seriously. As a woman, I will use my voice to empower women and to send a clear message to them to challenge domestic and family violence. I take that responsibility very seriously. And, though I never had a daughter—because I think God looked at me and said, 'No, you're not getting a daughter'—I will always use my voice to tell our daughters that their worth is not measured by the kind of partner that they can attract. You are worth much, much more than that. And I say that accepting behaviours that disrespect women, glossing over them and justifying them as harmless locker room banter contribute to a culture that normalises disrespect. We must all speak out because it affects us all.
I also want to make a point here about accepting a cultural defence against violence and abuse. It is not okay for our judiciary to accept that behaviour which contradicts our Australian values is a valid defence in trials involving abuse and violence against women. Many years ago, I worked in an organisation where we worked with women who had been abused. I remember alerting the authorities to the case of a young girl, a 15-year-old girl from the Afghan community, whose father was abusing her and whose mother was also in a violent situation. The authorities came in and took the girl away, but they soon gave the girl back to her abusive father, citing pressure from within the community and accusations that they had been culturally insensitive. So this kind of abuse is often enabled to continue because it is seen as something that is inherent to culture and because of a fear of being insensitive to minority religions or cultural groups.
I am here to say: no, it is not okay. It is not part of culture and should never be accepted as such. We need to educate our institutions and departments that cultural sensitivity does not mean that we turn a blind eye to cultural violence and abuse and that, first and foremost, our eyes should always be on protecting the people—women, children and men—from family and domestic violence.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:08): Last week, many community groups around Australia held some sort of event for White Ribbon Day. They definitely did that in Gilmore. They have been doing it for years. Australia leads the world in raising awareness of domestic violence. Recently, I was privileged to meet Delilah Sandeka at Goroka, Papua New Guinea. She is the national coordinator for the family and sexual violence units with the Royal PNG Constabulary. Every nation acknowledges that domestic violence is an issue. In some places it is worse than others. And, even though Australia is world leading, there is still a great deal more to be done.
Let me first congratulate every single group that helps the victims of family violence, as they nurture and help someone when that person is at the lowest ebb of their life. I especially congratulate the amazing women whose workplace is the Nowra Police Station. They have been assisting women victims of domestic violence for many years. This takes compassion, dedication and a love of community. Domestic violence funding and prevention initiatives have very strong bipartisan support. We do not always agree as to the distribution of the funding, but we do all agree that the investment is absolutely worth the effort.
Since 2013 the momentum has been continuing. In 2015, a $100 million safety package for women was announced. State governments have also contributed to additional projects such as the Respectful Relationships curriculum aimed at combating family violence. That curriculum focuses solely on men as the perpetrators of domestic violence, teaching students that only by challenging male privilege will violence diminish.
You will note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have a bundle of pink and blue ribbons connected to my White Ribbon badge. Some may wonder why. It is incredibly significant, for it is my firm belief that domestic violence has been skewed to infer that only men perpetrate violence on women. While a significant majority of cases are male violent actions directed towards a female, there are men who are being completely abused and bullied by their partners, some with weapons as well. We have to do more in this policy direction.
With one in three family violence cases recorded as being women causing abuse or injury to a male—whether that be a boy, a partner or an older male—we need to consider in depth what the next plan of action should include. We need to link arms as a total community and say 'Enough is enough' and work towards an overall reduction of violence.
I have frequently had a distraught father in my office who has taken his children from a violent home and had nowhere to go for emergency housing as it is only available for females in the same circumstances. These men and their children end up using their car as their home and using the showers at swimming pools and the barbecues in the local parks. Crisis housing is stretched to breaking point and there are not enough resources. This will take a three tiers of government approach to develop a solution strategy and it really should begin soon.
I honour the fact that my government has invested $230 million over two years to extend the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. This will go some way to assist. But I wear these ribbons as a form of stereotypically representing what I am about to say, for the colours of pink and blue usually indicate female and male. I propose that no-one should abuse, bully or harass another human under any circumstances at all—not now and not ever. I propose that no person should ever take a weapon to solve an argument. I admit that what I am proposing is a dream of utopia, but it has to start somewhere.
I quote from a recent newspaper article: 'Over 40 years of international research shows school education programs are not the answer to the problem of family violence, let alone teaching little schoolboys about white male privilege.' What the evidence actually shows is that family violence is not a gender issue. To tackle family violence, we need to tell the truth about the violence most children are experiencing in Australian homes. It is two-way violence involving both mothers and fathers. It is violence linked to drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness and poverty.
I am proud that in recent government hosted COAG meetings there is agreement to develop the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, leading on from 2010 initiatives going straight through to 2022. We need to target activities to end the cycle of children mimicking parental violence. These families are at risk. As overseas research is showing, teaching violent couples new conflict management skills would be effective.
I completely support the need to develop Respectful Relationships, or any other program, particularly in a school curriculum. But this should not have a gender bias. It should be teaching respect for all relationships whether they be work, family, parenting or social. Every one of us should be responsible for this cultural change that we need to evolve. Again, I quote from the same article: 'Gender inequity is a part of the picture in many cases, but it is not the only thing.' Denying that violence is complex, and that men and children are victims as well, runs against all of the reliable evidence and is simply irresponsible. There is nothing 'respectful' in denying people's suffering.
Parents are not stupid. Already, there is indignation developing about what is perceived as offensive anti-male diatribes in similar programs being run by White Ribbon in schools all over Australia. There have been great initiatives in schools, with young men reciting oaths against domestic violence. But this is only half the problem. We must respect each other, no matter what our perception of difference. In some of the programs, the male students would recite an oath against domestic violence. But the girls were not involved; they were just onlookers. The story went on to describe that the girls felt embarrassed and self-conscious of the boys. I do not know if that is a universal sentiment as there are schools in my electorate that have been raising family violence awareness in a compassionate and sensitive manner for some time. Shoalhaven High comes easily to mind as a stand-out model, with both students and teachers involved. Where this is not done in such a sensitive manner, the parents should get involved and have a say. Perhaps there should be a whole-of-school-community response, but it will need to be developed over time.
One of my constituents has been a strong advocate for the equality approach to domestic violence in his role as a professional counsellor, mainly due to the incidents of male suicide. Andrew Humphreys talks about the introduction of a local pilot prevention program which, in his opinion, is going down the same path as all the previous strategies. These all miss the bulk of deaths of adult men who are not mentally ill. They make one attempt at suicide and they die. Andrew would argue that the unacceptable high suicide numbers for males in Australia are between 18 and 44. This does not include single victim, unaccountable, accidental, road fatality males. They are often male domestic violence victims who have nowhere to turn.
At this present time, we really need to develop a long-term strategy and have a more in-depth discussion on how best to help everyone deal with the underlying issues. In the first instance, we need to develop emergency assistance for male domestic violence victims. In the second instance, we need strategies to develop antibullying in the workplace, from male toward female and the reverse or from another female. This is a foundation stone that we need to develop. In the third instance, we need to encourage the empowerment of young women in our country and in the nations around us. Another wonderful, inspirational woman that I met in Papua New Guinea, who has become a successful grower, was telling me her story and said, 'You need to help us bring our men with us, because if you don't abuse will only increase.' There is evidence in Nordic nations, where their index of gender inequality is probably the best in the world. Their achievement is great, yet they have the highest levels of domestic violence.
I conclude by saying that we can all start this Christmas by being kind to one another. In the next couple of months, almost all faiths have some event to celebrate. May each of you enjoy peace, happiness and health. Look after your loved ones and, if you are battling with somebody you once loved, remember that at some stage you actually loved them. Do not fight over the children. You love them too. Merry Christmas and have a happy and safe holiday.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:17): This is the third time this month that I have spoken in this parliament on the issue of domestic violence. Like others in this place, I hope that I am not bound to speak here for much longer on this issue, because I hope we can stop it. I will make sure that, until it is stopped, I will continue to speak about it, as many Australians are doing. We should be applauding the people who are standing up and speaking out about domestic violence and saying, 'No more.' It is worth reiterating that, in the Northern Territory, my home, a third of police time is spent dealing with domestic violence. Aboriginal women are victims in 72 per cent of all cases. You cannot underestimate the impact of that data and we cannot overstate the suffering that has been perpetrated upon women in the Northern Territory.
It is also important that we acknowledge the positive things that are being done. This week we saw at the front of the parliament and inside the parliament an opportunity for all of us to link arms and say, 'No more.' That was brought about through an initiative that largely comes out of Central Australia and the Western Desert communities. Charlie King, who was here this week, heard the men talking about the need to stop domestic violence and say, 'No more,' and for us to link up together.
This week we had the Rirratjingu community come down from Yirrkala and perform an important dance for us in a cultural ceremony on the Parliament House forecourt, all for the purpose of highlighting their opposition and concern, the need for our nation to be concerned about domestic violence and the need to say, 'No more.' And for that I thank them. But I think it would be remiss of me not to point out that, for some years now, Aboriginal men and supporting organisations across northern Australia have been taking this issue to heart.
I well recall that when I was Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery in a former government I was able to support the funding of a camp at Ross River, about 90 kays out of Alice Springs, for a gathering of men from across the country. That gathering of men was, I think, around 2009. It was initiated and run by a group of men out of Central Australia, led by a bloke called Johnny Liddle who worked at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, a health organisation. Their campaign was saying no to violence. It stimulated a lot of discussion among men from across the country—from Aboriginal communities by and large. Whilst this was a conference for men, by men, significantly it also involved women, to talk about the issue of violence to these men. My memory does not go back to precisely how many people were there. There would have been a couple of hundred. It was a significant event that I had the privilege and great honour to attend.
Bear in mind that this was only a few years after the intervention in the Northern Territory, when men were being demonised. Aboriginal men felt they were seen as people who perpetrated family violence, violence against children and sexual abuse against children. To have these men come together was a sign of great strength, because they were saying, 'We're aware of all that nonsense, the way we are being portrayed, but here is an opportunity for us to stand up and say this is about us, and this is what we think: "No more to family violence, no more to violence against children, no more to violence against women."' Subsequently, that picked up across the country.
I well remember a march, which I have mentioned previously in this place, involving Aboriginal men in Katherine in the Northern Territory. They organised a march up the Stuart Highway, blocking the Stuart Highway, bringing people in to express the view: 'No more violence.' These men took it upon themselves to do this. They were not asked by government. And that is the strength of this movement which Charlie has now built up around the NO MORE Campaign: it is community driven. It has come from men in remote communities across this country and in the towns and urban centres. We are now seeing, as a result of the publicity it has been given and the efforts of people like Charlie, this movement being adopted across the nation. It is not just about Aboriginal communities. Family violence happens in every postcode, every income bracket and every religion; it does not matter which. We know it happens. Violence was never acceptable, but we have to make sure that people know we should no longer accept the possibility of violence in any community in any part of Australia.
I am again reminded of the work that has been done over years now. You may not have heard of this mob, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, because you are a young man: the Normanton Stingers. I will hazard a guess that you do not know where Normanton is. It is at the bottom end of the Gulf of Carpentaria in Queensland, not far from Mornington Island. In 2010, they started a project for their rugby league team called 'Domestic violence not our game'. If members of that team were seen to be engaged in any domestic violence, they were not able to play. This was an initiative by, again, Aboriginal men in Normanton around this issue. I was just reading a piece by Curtis Pitt, the Queensland Treasurer, from 31 May 2015. He was talking about a game of rugby league between the Yarrabah Seahawks and the Mossman PD Sharks. The purpose of the game was to create awareness of domestic violence and to reinforce that domestic violence is everyone's business. It was hosted by the Yarrabah Aboriginal Corporation for Women, in partnership with the Guyula Yarrabah football club.
What that tells us is that there are good things happening around this country around this issue. Whilst we must be concerned and very angry about those men who still think that they can use their power in a relationship to use violence against women and children, in the broader community it is not acceptable, and it is seen as not being acceptable. So I commend all of those who have participated this week in the NO MORE Campaign and those White Ribbon ambassadors involved in the White Ribbon events. It is extremely important that the nation sees that the nation's leaders, men and women, are together linking their arms around this issue of no more violence.
As I end my contribution, I just want to make a couple of observations. There are some significant contributing factors, and we know what these are: poverty in many cases and alcohol in too many cases. Yet we have seen a reluctance by governments to accept the importance of addressing the alcohol issue across this country. People whinge and complain about lock-out laws. I understand that. People whinged in the Northern Territory about having to give their identification at the bottle shop. Well, I do not see a problem. If we know that someone who is an alcoholic or a drinker is involved in family violence activities and we can prevent them getting access to alcohol, we should do so, and we should not apologise for it. I want to commend the new Northern Territory government for the action it is proposing to take in that field, reducing the supply of alcohol and addressing those issues around people who abuse alcohol, abuse their communities and abuse their partners and their children. It is not acceptable, and I know this parliament joins with me in linking arms to say, 'No more.'
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:28): I would like to follow on from the earlier speakers on this motion by raising my support for White Ribbon Day and its aspirations in dealing with violence against women. I spoke on this only last week in the lead-up to White Ribbon Day, on the need to make sure that we recognise domestic and family violence and that we are doing that we can to address it. I just want to use this opportunity, in light of the motion, to reiterate some of the statements I made in the earlier discussion about it last week, particularly to acknowledge the efforts of Goldstein residents who are taking a stand against domestic and family violence and working with the community to improve the state of our community in terms of visibility and awareness of the issues around family and domestic violence but also working to ingrain a culture of respect and action from the citizen up, because, as I am somewhat fond of saying, I believe very strongly that our country is made great when we have individuals who come together to form family and build community and ultimately country. It is that bit of citizen action, at both an individual and a family level, to contribute to the community that helps bind so much of the glue of our society, where citizens take care of each other. That is why I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts last weekend of Jodie Hickey, who not only organised a very significant community event that brought together hundreds of men and women across the Goldstein community to take a clear stand against domestic violence and family violence, but also, equally, raised money to support and raise the visibility of the cause and to support people who have experienced the consequences of domestic violence. I was very honoured and proud to be able to attend the event on Sunday and speak consistently with them against the issues of domestic and family violence.
Jodie Hickey's story does not come from just being somebody who is a community activist, although that is very important; it comes also from firsthand experience. In 2000, her best friend, Mary, was killed by her husband—that is, Mary was killed by her own husband—who is now on parole and confined to his home state of Queensland. It was that action that led Jodie, on the first anniversary of Mary's death, to come together with friends to raise a glass in honour of her friend's memory. Since then, Jodie's efforts to raise awareness of domestic violence have gained momentum in the Goldstein community. She brings people together on an annual basis not only to continue to remember the horror of the experience of Mary but also, as I have said already, to take action and to improve the state of the Goldstein community through awareness, visibility and individual citizen action.
Each year Jodie organises an afternoon tea, or an equivalent event, and brings people together. She organises raffle prizes and stalls and also finds other avenues to raise money for White Ribbon Day. This year's sellout event—it was definitely a sellout; there was not a spare seat in the room at Sandy by the Bay, the local function centre—was a high tea that marked the 16th anniversary of Mary's death. With increased numbers and excitement, I am sure Jodie will continue to make a contribution to raising awareness for White Ribbon Day. She has already raised considerable sums for the cause year on year. She should be enormously proud of that, but, equally, the Goldstein community should be proud because they have come together, put their hands in their pockets and made an effort to contribute to a cause that is so important.
In fact, Jodie has done this with the help of her two eldest sons, who are champions in fighting against violence against women. Their citizen action is truly inspirational. Jodie is, in the end, a tireless advocate for a society that respects women. I look forward to continuing to support her event in future years and continuing to encourage others who want to take on that responsibility to stand up against family and domestic violence, because that is what we need more of in this country—particularly from men.
While it was wonderful to have so many people at this sellout event, the people who were there were predominantly women. One of the key points I tried to make very strongly at this important event was that domestic violence is not just a women's issue but it is also a man's issue. We need more men who are prepared to stand up with confidence and pride to say that they are prepared to take action on this matter as well. That is why I was proud to be there. That is why I was proud to continue to support it. And that is why I am proud to continue to support Jodie's efforts and any other efforts in the Goldstein community to contribute to making and building the type of country we want.
I hope, through this resolution passing, that all members will share in its sentiments—that we want to build an Australian future free from violence and abuse against all people, but particularly one where men stand up for women and stand against violence against women. In the end, that is a significant way to combat directly the issues that White Ribbon Day seeks to highlight—how family and domestic violence is perpetuated—and to make sure we all show the leadership that we were elected to this parliament to fulfil.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (16:34): I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate today. It is the case that a year ago, almost exactly to the day, I was standing in this same place talking about White Ribbon Day. On that occasion, I was reflecting on 40 years previously—that is, 1975—which was International Women's Year—and the events that I remember happening when I was much younger woman than I am now, such as when my mum and a group of women in our local community decided to establish a women's refuge in the area. Great work was done by the public school mother's group, who were the driving force behind that. They were supported by the local council, a group of nuns from Warrawong, local unions and some businesses who provided equipment and paint and so forth. They established the first women's refuge in our area. I am fairly sure that those women then, and my young self at the time, would have hoped that 41 years later–if they could have imagined that I would end up in this place representing the community—it would not be an issue that we had to keep talking about. But we do, and that is why I want to again say how important this issue is, and we can hope that in another 40 years, our successors in this place will not have to have these conversations. Each and every one of us are working towards making that future a reality, in whatever way we can with whatever power we have.
There have been some amazing contributions across the parliament on this and I want to acknowledge my colleague Emma Husar and her powerful, personal testimony. It brought home to many of us the far-reaching affects that family and domestic violence has on people's lives. It is sadly the case that it permeates throughout families. You clearly have those who are the direct victims of this sort of behaviour, most often women and too often children—and often men too. I think it is important that we have acknowledged that there is an issue with violence being perpetrated against men; though it is predominantly women and children who are the target. But it affects the whole family and that is the reality. That terrible abuse and disrespect of each other plays out through the whole family.
I was at a forum on the weekend where we talked about homelessness. Many teenagers, boys and girls, are homeless because they are fleeing violence within the home. The world is a tough place. The one place where you should be able to go to and feel supported, loved and safe is your home. The fact is that too many people do not have that as their day-to-day experience and that is something that should never, ever walk away from taking action on. Whether that is supporting health services, legal services, programs and housing for those who find themselves homeless, the actions of governments can make a great difference. But at the end of the day, it is actions that we take as individuals that are so important. I am a mother of two sons. It is important that we raise the next generation to have respect not only for each other but for themselves. Too much disrespect for others comes from a lack of respect for yourself.
We need to raise a generation who understand that you are strong and powerful because you are respectful, because you are confident in yourself and you do not have to take that power from someone else to be powerful. These are very strong messages to raise our children and nieces and nephews with. I do sometimes worry about the pop culture view that comes through to young women that looks are everything, that popularity is everything—putting a picture on Facebook and seeing how many people like you then determines how good your day is. I do worry that some of that increasing trend is not giving the young women of today a strength within themselves, a strength to value themselves for who they are. We need to have these conversations.
The activities of community groups in particular are important here. We have a great Reclaim the Night group in Wollongong. I went to their rally in October in the mall. They have been working and gathering petitions on actions we can take. And there are the activities of many groups in this parliament. On Monday morning, as the member for Lingiari reported, we participated in a wonderful cultural event by the Indigenous community about saying no to violence. These are all important things. We need to do them as groups and communities and a society, and we also need to individually ensure that we are giving to the next generation strong and powerful messages of restraint, dignity and care and concern for each other that we can hope plant the seed, so that in 40 years time this is not a conversation that we will need to continue having. I commend both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition's statements on this and I add my voice to that call.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (16:40): It is a pleasure to appear before you member for Canning, presiding over this chamber for the first time when I am in it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): It is mutual.
Mr KEOGH: I rise to speak on the report of the Economics Committee, which I have appointed to, and its review of the four major banks—its first report of that review. I think it is important to reflect upon the history that led to the establishment of this inquiry. It was a unique establishment of an inquiry because it was announced before the parliament really even got started after the election. It was announced in the context of banks failing to pass on interest rate reductions after the cash rate was reduced by the Reserve Bank of Australia. It was in the context of greater and increasing calls by members of the public, by the community and by the Labor Party in response to many scandals that we have seen developing in our banking sector and to calls for a royal commission. The government, being a government that is all about defending banks, decided that to avoid the calling of a royal commission it would instead refer an inquiry to the Standing Committee on Economics of the House. Thus we have produced this report after meeting with the CEOs of the four major banks.
In respect of that I think it is important to understand, as I mentioned, this was announced before the parliament had even really resumed its work following the election. We had a situation where there were only a matter of days after the formation of the committee before it had the bank CEOs appearing before it—all prearranged before the committee's membership was finalised. For me, having come out of a prosecutorial background, having been a commercial litigator, one of the key failings that I was immediately confronted with was the very limited time and scope that was provided to the committee to undertake its inquiry. Not only did we only have days between being appointed to the committee and holding hearings with the bank CEOs, there was no opportunity for public submissions before the CEOs appeared before us and, critically, we really only buried down so that each member of the committee had approximately 20 minutes to ask questions of the CEOs. I am sure, as we have seen during the course of that inquiry's hearing and after, there are many, many more questions to be asked of the banks than is allowable through 20 minutes per member.
I would like to turn to a number of things that have been covered in the content of the report and were covered during the inquiry and those hearings with the bank CEOs. I think it was abundantly clear that the bank CEOs understand that there is quite a public distaste for some of the unethical behaviour and the ripping-off of customers that has been seen by the big four banks here in Australia. During the course of the inquiry we were able to speak to those CEOs about a number of issues that have been raised through many other inquiries, but still during the course of that questioning there were many other things that had to put to those banks on notice about those inquiries. They did provide some of that information to us. Of course, they provided that information to us largely in a way where it was to remain confidential—we are talking large, large volumes of material, which was very difficult for members of the committee to completely get across in the very limited time that was then provided for the reporting process. Of course, my heart really goes out to the staff of the committee, who were put under some pretty egregious time frames. Given the volume of material and the concepts that they had to deal with, I think there was very limited time made available to them.
As I said, the RBA cash rate was really in a way what started this committee inquiry. The banks took great pains to say to members of the committee that the RBA cash rate is not in any way directly linked to the interest rates that they charge their customers. One thing that came out of exploration by the committee was that that disconnect between the RBA cash rate and the rates they actually charge has seen the profitability of the banks in Australia rise to a point where it is amongst the highest of any banking sector in the world. Essentially the banks have been able to take advantage of consumers in Australia when compared to what other banks around the world have been doing. This largely seems to be something they have been able to do because of the great market power that the four major banks have in Australia.
There are many things I need to cover, so I will move on. Some things that came out during our inquiry and talking to the bank CEOs and, critically, also listening to bank customers and looking at the other scandals that have arisen in the banking sector were the key issue of the linking of remuneration to sales by financial advisers and staff within banks cross-selling banking products, the way in which perverse outcomes arise from the vertical integration model exercised by those banks and, critically, the negative culture that can be created within banks as a result of those two things.
I explored during the hearings with the big banks the need to make sure we have better accountability for the executives and senior personnel within banks, and at least conceptually the banks, ASIC and APRA in other hearings have agreed with this. I spoke to the bank CEOs during the inquiry about concepts that have been adopted in the United Kingdom. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority and the UK Financial Conduct Authority have established a new framework that is focused on accountability of individual senior executives and then going down through these financial organisations. It makes sure that there are senior people who can be held to account when things go wrong—when customers face trouble and when systemic issues arise in banks. The banks in the UK have to now make clear the senior executives who are responsible for areas of practice within the bank and they have to be certified to be able to perform those roles. They are responsible for the staff under them being appropriate to fulfil the actions within the bank and they will take responsibility when things go wrong.
The report from Labor members of the committee also looked at the recommendations made by the majority of members of the committee. It did raise a number of concerns. I refer anyone interested to the matters we raised in respect of the recommendations about a tribunal from the majority of members of the committee, the government members of the committee. We found in the course of the inquiry that the tribunal idea had been raised with the bank CEOs by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer well before we got to these hearings, as well as of course then, before we had published a report of this committee, being the subject of a separate referral by the government for further investigation.
The recommendation that was made by the majority of committee members really left a number of open-ended issues that need to be resolved. Who is going to preside at this tribunal? What are the jurisdictional limits that will apply? What will be the scope of the matters it can deal with? What procedures will apply? What avenues of appeal may or may not exist? Not to mention: what is the constitutionality of the existence of such a tribunal? Will it be a chapter III institution? Will it be an executive institution? Government members seem to be confused as to whether it might just be a private body altogether.
Let me say, especially as a former President of the Law Society of Western Australia, that I find the idea that lawyers would be prevented from participating in such a tribunal to be completely abhorrent. In addition to that, it also fundamentally misunderstands the advantage of the banks in such a situation. The banks have teams of lawyers at their disposal behind the scenes and customers will be disadvantaged by not having access to lawyers.
I want to mention a number of things very quickly before my time expires. One is the chair of the committee spent a lot of time questioning bank CEOs, and indeed ASIC in other hearings, on the idea of a tracker mortgage, being a mortgage that would be offered by banks that would follow—track, if you like—the RBA cash rate. The banks did go to some length to try to explain why they thought that was a bad idea. I have to say that I thought they did a terrible job of explaining why it was a bad idea. I thought they could have articulated that message better. But, given all of the time that was spent covering that issue, I was shocked, to some extent, to find that that did not get any mention in the report produced by the majority of members of the committee. There is no mention of that issue whatsoever.
One of the things that I have found almost abhorrent in the behaviour of the banks in the conduct of this inquiry is this. The committee was scheduled to make this report to this parliament on Thursday of last week. For reasons not quite clear to me, it was necessary that the report be made on Thursday last week. As soon as the report was handed down, as soon as the work of the committee in this first tranche of its examination of the behaviour of banks in this country was made public, once our work had concluded in that way, the big four banks of this country moved—the day after—to increase the interest rates that they charge consumers on mortgages, completely out of step with any action taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia. I think that demonstrates quite clearly the need for there to be a royal commission into banks in this country.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:51): I am delighted that the report of the House Standing Committee on Economics as part of its review of the major banks has been released. In September, the Treasurer referred this inquiry to the committee chaired by my esteemed colleague David Coleman, the member for Banks, asking us to review the operations of the major banks. In October we held public hearings with all the chief executives of the banks over three days in Canberra. The work of the House committee and its subsequent report have been lauded by the press as coming out with good solutions.
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. A solid, stable, reliable banking system is critical to the Australian economy. We need only consider the economic impacts of bank failures in other nations, such as in Greece, to understand the importance of a stable banking system. However, while Australia's major banks have remained financially strong, they have let Australian consumers down. There have been too many failures and too many scandals—too many matters that are fixed up reactively after they appear in the media or the like.
The Turnbull government is a government of delivery. In its delivery, the Turnbull government is pragmatic and gets things done. The bank inquiry and line of questioning elicited critical and constructive information and have resulted in practical, concrete recommendations that will give consumers better outcomes in relation to the banking system. The recommendations are underpinned by the key objective of ensuring that Australian consumers get a fair deal—effective, real, solid, practical, efficient outcomes.
The other side have made calls for a royal commission purely from a political, opportunist perspective and with no regard for immediate, practical, good outcomes for the Australian consumer. All that a royal commission would achieve would be elongated discussions and no immediate outcomes of recompense or compensation or good outcomes for the Australian consumer.
The Labor Party do not own compassion for bank customers. They do not have a monopoly on compassion for aggrieved bank customers. Many Australians—including me—across both sides of politics have shared stories of grievances with the banks, and we are all aware of the bank scandals. Moreover, the Labor Party seem to forget that our banks and their thousands of hardworking employees should be respected, particularly as their strength and integrity directly link into the strength and integrity of our economy, which is admired across the globe.
At the bank inquiry and in the media aftermath, the Labor Party vacuously and simplistically—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:54 to 17:09
Debate adjourned.
Fe deration Chamber adjourned at 17 : 10 .