The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill contains a significant package of reforms to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. These reforms are designed to simplify the law and better deal with anticompetitive conduct while supporting procompetitive behaviour. They will strengthen Australia's competition law to improve the long term welfare of consumers, businesses and the economy.
In 2014, the government commissioned an independent 'root and branch' review into Australia's competition framework: the Harper Competition Policy Review. Professor Ian Harper and the review panel consulted extensively with businesses, consumers, regulators and legal experts and found that, while our competition laws have served Australia well, they should be reformed to enhance their effectiveness. This bill implements a significant number of the competition law reforms recommended by the Harper review and agreed to by the government in its response. It also implements the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its 2013 inquiry into the National Access Regime, which the government accepted in its response to the Harper review.
Schedule 1 to this bill amends the definition of 'competition' in section 4 of the act to confirm that competition includes competition from goods and services that are capable of importation, as well as those actually imported. This change clarifies that a credible threat of import competition is relevant to competition analysis.
Schedule 2 to this bill amends the act to simplify and better target the provisions on cartel conduct. This includes changes to confine the application of the provisions to cartel conduct affecting competition in Australian markets and to change the scope of the joint venture exceptions to ensure that they do not limit legitimate commercial transactions or increase business compliance costs.
Schedule 3 to this bill repeals the price signalling provisions. Since their introduction in 2012, no cases have been brought under these provisions.
The price signalling provisions are replaced with a general prohibition on corporations engaging in a concerted practice that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition.
This prohibition will capture anticompetitive conduct that falls short of a contract, arrangement or understanding as the courts have interpreted each of those terms in section 45. An exception is provided where the only parties to a concerted practice are the Crown and one or more government authorities.
Schedule 3 also repeals the separate prohibition on exclusionary provisions from the act, which substantially overlaps with the cartel prohibitions in the act.
Schedule 4 to this bill repeals the definition of 'exclusionary provision' and a defence to the prohibition on exclusionary provisions, following the repeal of this prohibition by schedule 3.
Schedule 5 to this bill simplifies the provisions of the act by removing separate, complex prohibitions on covenants that substantially lessen competition and expanding the general prohibition on contracts that substantially lessen competition to include covenants.
Schedule 6 amends the act to increase the maximum penalty for breaching the secondary boycott provisions so that it aligns with penalties for other breaches of the competition law. As secondary boycotts are harmful to trading freedom and therefore harmful to competition, they warrant a significant penalty.
Schedule 7 to this bill amends the act to prohibit third-line forcing only where it has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. This will bring the prohibition on third-line forcing in line with the similar prohibition on second-line forcing and with other comparable jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, the European Union and New Zealand.
Schedule 8 to this bill amends the act to allow a corporation or person to notify the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission of resale price maintenance conduct as an alternative to seeking authorisation from the commission for such conduct. It is appropriate to make notification available for resale price maintenance conduct because this conduct may in some circumstances be procompetitive, and notification is a quicker and less expensive means of obtaining an exemption than authorisation.
Schedule 8 also provides an exemption from the resale price maintenance prohibition for conduct between related bodies corporate, reflecting that companies within a corporate group are not considered to be competitors.
Schedule 9 to this bill makes a number of amendments to the act. It simplifies the complex provisions governing the authorisation process. It makes the commission the decision maker at first instance for merger authorisations, as it is best suited to make these decisions. It also grants the commission the power to issue a 'class exemption' for business practices that are unlikely to raise competition concerns or are likely to generate a net public benefit.
This will remove the need for individual applications for authorisation by creating 'safe harbours' for business and thereby reduce compliance and administration costs and increase certainty.
Schedule 9 also allows the commission to impose conditions on notifications for collective bargaining that involves collective boycott conduct, and grants the commission a power to issue a 'stop notice' requiring notified collective boycott conduct to cease.
These reforms will introduce greater flexibility into the collective bargaining notification process to ensure that it is more widely used. This is likely to be of particular benefit to small businesses, given their lack of bargaining power relative to larger suppliers. The commission may also impose conditions on notifications for resale price maintenance.
Schedule 10 to this bill extends section 83 of the act so that a party bringing certain proceedings may rely on admissions of fact as well as findings of fact made in certain other proceedings. This will help to reduce the cost of private actions, as a person relying on a previous admission of fact as prima facie evidence will not need to establish that fact.
Schedule 11 to this bill extends the commission's power to obtain information, documents and evidence in section 155 to cover investigations of alleged contraventions of court enforceable undertakings and merger authorisation determinations.
Schedule 11 also introduces a 'reasonable search' defence to the offence of refusing or failing to comply with section 155. This reflects the increasing cost of documentary searches as businesses retain many more documents, such as emails, than in the past.
Schedule 11 also increases the fine for noncompliance with section 155 to bring it into line with penalties for similar notice-based investigative powers.
Schedule 12 amends part IIIA of the act, which contains the National Access Regime, to implement the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its inquiry into the regime. This will ensure that the regime better targets the economic problem of an enduring lack of effective competition in markets for nationally significant infrastructure services. Schedule 12 amends and clarifies the declaration criteria that must be used by the National Competition Council and the designated minister in determining whether a service should be declared. Notably, the current 'private profitability' test is replaced by a 'natural monopoly' test. Schedule 12 also introduces a new power for the minister to revoke certification of a state access regime.
Schedule 13 to this bill deals with the transitional application of amendments made by the bill.
Schedule 14 to this bill makes various amendments to streamline the administration of the act, to reduce compliance burdens for business, individuals and government, while preserving the protections available under the act. These amendments focus on the requirements of the Australian Consumer Law.
Together, these reforms contained in the bill will strengthen, simplify and modernise our competition laws. The reforms will support the enforcement role of our national competition regulator and facilitate pro-competitive conduct to the long-term benefit of Australian businesses, consumers and the economy.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:41): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill would establish a reporting regime for petroleum, other fuels and fuel-related products to improve Australia's fuel statistics.
The Australian government has produced statistics on the production, refining, import, export, consumption and end-of-month stocks of petroleum and fuels such as ethanol for over 40 years. These statistics are used by government agencies to monitor the market and energy security; by business to monitor supply and demand trends and prioritise future investment; and by international organisations to help compile global statistics which increase market transparency.
In recent years, the proportion of businesses contributing to the statistics has declined, while the fuel market has become increasingly competitive and diverse in both the sources of fuel and the types of fuel available. While a clear majority of the industry supports the statistics and continues to contribute data, declining participation in some categories has reduced the coverage, usefulness and accuracy of the statistics. The introduction of a compulsory reporting requirement will ensure that the government can continue to produce reliable and useful fuel statistics.
The production of accurate statistics is particularly important as the government implements its plan to return to compliance with Australia's obligation as a member of the International Energy Agency to hold fuel stocks equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's average daily net oil imports. Including stocks as part of the reporting requirement will ensure Australia's oil equivalent stockholdings can be calculated accurately and in a timely manner.
The bill sets up a legislative framework for mandatory reporting. The specific reporting requirements will be provided in subordinate legislation to ensure the reporting requirements stay up-to-date with changes in the market and technology. The fuel market has the potential to undergo significant change, from the use of biofuels to battery powered cars to the introduction of hydrogen fuel cells. It is important that new products and activities can be swiftly added to the reporting requirements to ensure the statistics remain relevant.
During consultation on the reporting requirement, businesses made clear that they expect their sensitive information to be treated securely. The bill provides extensive protections for personal or commercially sensitive information. For example, the bill prohibits the publication of information that could identify an individual or enable commercial-in-confidence information to be determined. This ensures that reporting businesses can be confident that their sensitive information will be stored securely, only used where necessary, and only published where appropriate.
The government is committed to minimising the regulatory burden associated with mandatory reporting. Data-sharing arrangements are being pursued with a number of federal, state and territory agencies to ensure that data already reported to government is used first, rather than requiring it to be reported twice. For example, the bill will authorise the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to share import and export data collected through the customs regime to remove the need for this information to be recollected. The bill also requires an independent review to be undertaken in 2021 to ensure the impact and effectiveness of the reporting regime is evaluated and, if necessary, able to be refined.
Debate adjourned.
Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:45): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill supports the implementation of the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017.
This bill will empower the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to share data they have collected with the Department of the Environment and Energy to reduce the reporting burden associated with the reporting obligation imposed by the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017.The data provided to the Department of the Environment and Energy will also be used to monitor compliance with the reporting obligation contained in the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017.
Debate adjourned.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:46): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will amend the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, which implements Australia's obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
It will improve the efficiency of the ozone protection and synthetic gas management program, achieve significant environmental outcomes and reduce Australia's emissions.
The bill implements the outcomes of a significant review of the program, streamlining the administration of the act, reducing burdens on industry and ensuring a high standard of environmental protection. It will reduce the number of businesses required to hold a licence, halve the reporting obligations and reduce the number of invoices sent by up to 94 per cent.
The central element of this bill is an 85 per cent phase-down of the importation of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) by 2036.
HFCs are powerful gases, primarily used in the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry, that can be thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, making up around two per cent of Australia's yearly emissions.
The phase-down will be achieved by establishing a quota scheme and diminishing cap on imports starting on 1 January 2018. A similar approach was used successfully to phase out prior gases such as CFCs and HCFCs.
This phase-down will be in line with the Kigali Amendment, under which all 197 parties to the Montreal Protocol and Australia's major trading partners agreed to phase down HFCs.
Australia played a leadership role, co-chairing negotiations to secure this global agreement, culminating in October 2016, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, the member for Flinders, in this regard.
The phase-down, together with other measures included under this program, will reduce emissions by up to 80 million carbon dioxide equivalent tonnes by 2030. This will contribute significantly towards our Paris target.
Globally, the HFC phase-down is expected to bring major benefits. It could result in 72 billion tonnes of emissions reduction by 2050—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon!
Mr FRYDENBERG: the equivalent of at least 1.3 times one year's global emissions. As it has been estimated, it will avoid up to 0.5 degrees of temperature rises by 2100, according to the United Nations Environment Program.
The Australian market is well placed for this domestic phase-down and industry supports the measures. Consumers will be able to use their existing equipment and systems until the natural end of life. In addition, the phase-down will leave a 15 per cent residual from 2036 to ensure that maintenance of hard-to-replace and existing equipment can continue.
Australia has a proud record of leadership in addressing ozone depletion and issues related to the Montreal Protocol. It is widely considered the world's most successful environmental protection agreement, being the only one with universal acceptance.
It has reduced the production and the import of ozone-depleting chemicals by over 99 per cent globally. Concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere are reducing, and scientists confidently predict the ozone layer will be repaired by the middle of this century in the mid-latitudes and about 20 years later in Antarctica. A truly remarkable achievement.
Through this bill, Australia, led by the Turnbull government, will continue to show the same leadership on HFCs. I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (09:51): I am pleased to present the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I will just ask the minister to ignore the member for McMahon and to move that the bill be now read—oh, he is presenting it. Sorry, go on. Ignore the member for McMahon.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Mr Speaker, you are being distracted by the member for McMahon too!
The SPEAKER: Indeed.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The heckling here is unacceptable.
The SPEAKER: Too much coffee for the member for McMahon this morning. Let's just move on.
Mr FRYDENBERG: While Caesar is out of Rome, he starts to play up, I tell you. I am pleased to present the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code), and related legislation—
The SPEAKER: I need the minister to move that the bill be read a second time.
Mr FRYDENBERG: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. You can proceed.
Mr FRYDENBERG: I am pleased to present the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and related legislation.
The bill addresses the recommendations made by the first interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2016 federal election, relating to the authorisation of voter communication, which was tabled on 9 December 2016.
Concerns raised during, and immediately following, the 2016 federal election campaign, as well as submissions received during the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2016 election, show that the current authorisation requirements have not kept pace with technological change. Consequently, those who wished to hide their identity from voters could do so by communicating via media—including modern technologies—not covered by the current authorisation regime.
Such practices reduce important information available to voters in making their decision on polling day. They reduce transparency and accountability, and hinder the ability of regulators to identify the source of a communication in the case of noncompliance.
The bill proposes to ensure that:
electoral communication is clearly authorised irrespective of how it is communicated;
political debate is not only open, it is also transparent; and
authorisation requirements are harmonised across different communication channels, cutting red tape for those who seek to contribute to public debate—while at the same time striking an appropriate balance to protect free and open debate and discussion.
The bill imposes higher obligations on groups who play a prominent role in influencing political debates, namely those subject to the Commonwealth electoral funding and finance disclosure regime. Exceptions are provided for news and current affairs content, as well as genuinely satirical or artistic endeavours.
As part of its report, the joint standing committee also condemned the impersonation of a Commonwealth officer or entity, and suggested that steps should be taken to ensure that these activities do not occur in the future.
Recognising the importance of this issue, the bill seeks to safeguard the public from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Australian government bodies. This will ensure that the public has confidence in the legitimacy of communications from Australian government bodies, and will safeguard the proper functioning of government.
Part 1—Authorisation
Australia is a longstanding and successful democracy, and the Commonwealth Electoral Actis one of the oldest pieces of Commonwealth legislation. As the joint standing committee's report identified, sections of the Electoral Act's authorisation regime are outdated. One consequence is that modern campaign techniques like robocalls and bulk SMS messages do not currently require an authorisation informing voters who is trying to influence their vote.
Subsequent amendments have created inconsistencies, with separate requirements for broadcast media and internet advertising. This too is outdated in an era where the same advertisement can be screened on a network's broadcast and streaming services. There are inconsistencies in application to printed matter, too: flyers have different requirements to how-to-vote cards, and some items of clothing are exempt while others require authorisation.
Consequently, the joint standing committee recommended the regime be updated to improve the transparency and accountability of communications, and consistency of coverage.
This bill promotes free and informed voting at elections and referendums by allowing electors to know who is communicating with them. It strengthens Australia's democracy by extending current authorisation requirements and harmonising existing requirements across communication mediums.
This bill responds to the committee's recommendations by requiring that three categories of communication include an authorisation:
Firstly, all paid advertising, regardless of the medium used to communicate it, or the source of that communication. This extends a current requirement that applies to paid advertising on the internet.
Secondly, certain communications (whether paid or unpaid) made by or on behalf of entities with disclosure obligations under the Electoral Act. These include registered political parties, candidates and third-party campaign groups whose expenditure on influencing elections exceeds the disclosure threshold, and donors whose donations exceed the disclosure threshold. In this category, a number of exceptions are made, including for personal and internal communications, news and editorial content, satire, research and opinion polls.
Thirdly, longstanding provisions that require authorisations for certain forms of printed material will be retained—for example, leaflets, flyers, posters and how-to-vote cards.
The bill also seeks to harmonise authorisation requirements applying to electoral communication across different channels, addressing gaps and inconsistencies wherever possible. To improve transparency, authorisations will now inform voters of the name of the political party behind a communication. Currently this is only a requirement for broadcast advertising. Other entities with disclosure obligations under the Electoral Act will also be required to put their name to their communications—including associated entities of political parties and third-party campaign organisations whose expenditure on influencing elections exceeds the disclosure threshold.
To enforce these new requirements, the bill introduces a new civil penalty regime. This provides a wider range of enforcement options for the Australian Electoral Commission to assist in ensuring compliance. The new enforcement options available to the Electoral Commission include expanded injunction powers, enforceable undertakings, and more substantial fines. The Electoral Commission will also have new information-gathering powers to support enforcement.
In the tight time frames of an election campaign, this civil penalty regime will both discourage inappropriate behaviour and enable the Australian Electoral Commission to police and penalise noncompliance.
The Australian Electoral Commission will also be able to issue legislative instruments to explain how communications in various media should be authorised—for example, social media posts or robocalls. This will keep the regime up to date as new technology emerges, and simplify compliance.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring voters are aware of who is communicating with them without adversely impacting public debate. This bill facilitates transparency and public confidence in Australia's electoral processes. It enables voters to assess the credibility of the information they rely on when forming their political judgement and casting a vote. Ultimately, this bill supports free and informed voting at elections, an object that is essential to Australia's system of representative democracy.
Part 2— Impersonating a Commonwealth body
The joint standing committee also received reports concerning the impersonation of government entities, and the potential for these misrepresentations to mislead voters.
It is essential to a well-functioning democracy that the public have trust in the legitimacy of statements made by government bodies. That trust will inevitably be eroded if individuals are able, with impunity, to represent themselves as communicating on behalf of government bodies, without any authorisation.
Accordingly, this bill further safeguards the proper functioning of our system of government by introducing new offences to criminalise conduct where a person falsely represents themselves to be acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body.
For the purposes of the new offences, a Commonwealth body could be a Commonwealth entity, a Commonwealth company, or any service, benefit, program or facility provided by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. These offences will capture false representations in relation to a broad range of government bodies and services, from the Australian Taxation Office through to Centrelink and Medicare.
This bill seeks to address a possible gap in our criminal law which means that impersonating a Commonwealth entity, company or service may not be appropriately criminalised. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth official. It is less clear whether the current offences cover a person pretending to be, or to act on behalf of, a Commonwealth body, which is why we have taken action.
The bill introduces offences to ensure the punishment reflects the person's state of mind in making the false representation.
The primary offence covers circumstances where a person is reckless as to whether their conduct will result in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a false representation. This conduct will be punishable by up to two years imprisonment.
The amendments also create a new aggravated offence where a person holds out that they represent a Commonwealth body or service with the intent to obtain a gain, cause a loss, or influence the exercise of a public duty. The more serious and deliberate nature of this conduct warrants an increased maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
The bill contains safeguards to ensure that neither of these offences unduly limits freedom of expression.
Conclusion
Australian voters decide the future of our country. It is appropriate that we, as parliamentarians, give voters the tools to make informed decisions in an informed manner on polling day.
Consequently, this government is committed to ensuring that voters know who is communicating with them to influence their vote. These changes update the Commonwealth's authorisation regime for the 21st century—increasing transparency and accountability, without imposing an undue burden on communication with voters. This bill also safeguards public trust in the legitimacy of statements made by Australian government bodies.
The parliament has been well served by the work of its Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which regularly examines aspects of our electoral system and the issues that arise from the conduct of national elections.
I commend the committee for its work to date in identifying the need to reform the authorisation regime and the Criminal Code, and I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (10:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Further to this parliament's recent passage of a bill to establish the independent parliamentary expenses authority (IPEA), I am pleased to introduce the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017.
This bill is the next step in the biggest reforms to the management of parliamentarians' expenses in more than a generation. It is the new foundation on which we will build the instruments that prescribe all future parliamentary work expenses.
This bill will see the implementation of a number of key recommendations of the review chaired by John Conde and David Tune into the parliamentary entitlements system, by streamlining the legislative and administrative framework for parliamentarians' work expenses into one single head of legislative authority—this was one of this review's key recommendations.
A number of other recommendations of this review will also be progressed through this bill, including:
Changing the outdated terminology of "entitlements" and "benefits" for parliamentarians to "work expenses";
Introducing the principle of value for money travel to ensure that we spend taxpayers' money carefully and responsibly;
Imposing a 25 per cent penalty loading on work expenses which are claimed incorrectly; and
Providing a clear definition of "parliamentary business" so parliamentarians can be more confident about whether their individual use of taxpayers' funds, particularly when it comes to travel, is within the rules.
Through the introduction of an independent authority which can make rulings, a clear definition of 'parliamentary business' along with increased transparency, the government is moving to restore public confidence in parliamentarians' expenditure.
As this government has previously said, the current parliamentary expenses framework is complex and challenging both for parliamentarians and the public to navigate and understand. It comprises multiple pieces of legislation, regulations, determinations, procedural rules, guidelines, conventions and decisions of executive government.
It is time for a simpler, more transparent framework that governs our use of public resources to conduct our parliamentary business.
There are many benefits in establishing a simpler parliamentary work expenses framework. A simpler, clearly defined framework will not only better guide and support parliamentarians in making confident, responsible decisions, but it will enable increased public awareness of the expenses and allowances that can be claimed.
This, in addition to the monitoring, auditing and reporting functions of the soon to be established IPEA—including the more regular disclosure of parliamentarians' expenses—will facilitate a greater degree of transparency, accountability and integrity in our use of taxpayers' money.
A simpler framework will also reduce the administrative load on parliamentarians and their employees, allowing us to spend more time doing what we are elected to do—serving our constituents and community.
New rules and obligations will be placed on parliamentarians to ensure that we spend taxpayers' money carefully and only for purposes that relate to the duties we undertake as their parliamentary representatives.
Under a new dominant purpose test, parliamentarians will be prevented from accessing public resources under the new framework, unless it is for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. This test will be the standard that we must meet in order to claim work expenses.
In keeping with the recommendations of the review, the bill will specify that parliamentary business means parliamentary duties, electorate duties, party political duties and, for office holders, official duties. The bill will authorise the minister to make a legislative instrument that specifies activities under each of these four duty streams.
The bill will also require us to ensure that our use of public resources achieves value for money—that public resources are used efficiently, effectively and economically. This is consistent with the obligations on Commonwealth public servants for the proper use of taxpayers' money. It is appropriate that it also applies to our use of public resources.
Parliamentarians will be personally accountable and responsible for assessing what represents value for money and must be prepared to justify publicly their use of taxpayers' money.
Parliamentarians that claim expenses for a dominant purpose other than conducting parliamentary business or who breach conditions relating to claimable work expenses will be personally financially liable for the costs associated with the work expenses and subject to additional financial penalties under the penalty loading scheme.
The penalty loading scheme will impose a 25 per cent penalty loading on top of the cost of an expense or allowance that does not comply with the rules and which is not repaid within 28 days from the date the claim was made. The penalty scheme will not apply where there was an administrative error by the Commonwealth. Nor will it apply where a travel expense or allowance was outside the rules but, in incurring or claiming that expense or allowance, the parliamentarian reasonably relied on advice from IPEA.
Further to this, it must be acknowledged that it is imperative that parliamentarians and their staff are able to receive guidance and support to ensure that we access work expenses within the rules and abide by our obligations. This is particularly important in relation to the travel we undertake to fulfil our representative duties.
This bill will provide IPEA with the power to make written rulings relating to travel expenses and allowances. IPEA may provide a ruling on its own initiative or at the request of an individual parliamentarian. Rulings will conclude whether a travel expense or allowance was within the rules, including whether it was for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business or represented value for money.
A ruling is conclusive evidence of the matters it deals with. Where a ruling finds that a parliamentarian has incurred or claimed a travel expense or an allowance beyond the rules, the amount claimed or incurred will be a debt to the Commonwealth and a penalty loading will apply if not repaid within 28 days of the claim.
Importantly, as I have already mentioned, a debt will not exist where a parliamentarian claimed or incurred the travel expense or allowance in reliance on personal advice given by the IPEA. This ensures that parliamentarians can receive personal advice which provides them with certainty of what travel expenses and allowances they are able to claim. The Department of Finance will continue to provide advice on work expenses other than travel, but such advice or expenses will not be the subject of a ruling by the IPEA.
As the Prime Minister has previously identified, as parliamentarians we have a duty to ensure that our use of public resources meets the expectations of all Australians. Following the establishment of the IPEA, this bill is the next step in a robust response to the obvious shortcomings of the existing system. The bill will provide greater clarity to parliamentarians in their use of taxpayers' money while further increasing transparency and accountability on such expenditure.
My hope is that this bill will also go some way to restoring the public's confidence in the parliamentary expenses framework, which has arguably degraded the public's view of parliamentarians over recent decades.
I look forward to working with the opposition and other members and senators to ensure that this very important next step to timely reforms to parliamentary work expenses is delivered as soon as possible.
Debate adjourned.
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Frydenberg.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (10:12): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Further to the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017, the second bill in the package of legislation to reform the parliamentary work expenses system is the Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017.
This bill makes consequential amendments to relevant legislation, including the repeal of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 and the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952, to facilitate a new simplified 'principles based' parliamentary work expenses framework.
The bill also provides for provisions to assist with the transition from the old work expense framework to the new work expenses framework. This includes validating expenses by parliamentarians or former parliamentarians that span the two frameworks.
The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017so that the IPEA's powers and functions are more directly referable to the new work expense framework.
The full details of amendments made by this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Keenan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (10:14): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am very proud to present this bill, because the government is committed to preventing harm to children, both in person and online. Such harm, including sexual exploitation of children, is, obviously, devastating to the people involved. It is devastating to their families and it is devastating to the broader community as well.
The introduction of the protecting minors online bill follows the murder of 15-year-old Carly Ryan by a 50-year-old man who posed online as a teenage boy.
This year, 2017, marks the 10th anniversary since this tragic event, and Carly's mother, Sonya, has worked tirelessly since then to protect children in an increasingly challenging online environment. Through the introduction of this bill, Carly's mother has achieved the outcome of a law to better protect young Australians in the online world. I am very proud to have worked with Sonya Ryan to develop this measure, which is effective and recognises Carly's legacy. I would also like to acknowledge the work and support from Senator Nick Xenophon and the rest of his team, who have helped us in the development of this bill.
The government has a duty to ensure that, with ever-evolving technology and expanding communication methods, Commonwealth laws provide a deterrent and a sound basis for prosecuting offenders who would do Australian children harm.
The protecting minors online bill sends a clear message: this behaviour will not be tolerated. Australian children must be safe to grow, explore and develop online as in 'real life', and we need to protect these spaces for them.
Rapidly evolving technologies and the anonymity that the internet provides have resulted in unprecedented opportunities for the harm and sexual exploitation of our children. Our laws need to keep pace with the speed of technological change and the way that this technology is used. This government has a demonstrated history of protecting children online through the enactment of a range of offences directed at the use of carriage services, such as the internet and mobile phones, for the sexual exploitation of children.
The bill represents a further step to protect Australian children from those who would seek to do them harm.
The introduction of this bill improves protection of children online by introducing a new offence that complements existing online child sex offences for preparatory conduct, including grooming or procuring a child for sexual activity. The bill extends the criminalisation of the use of the internet and social media as a forum for predators to groom or procure our children to engage in sexual activity to a broader range of conduct.
This offence builds upon the proactive policing of online child sex offences, allowing law enforcement to take action against online predators sooner and with greater consequence.
The bill introduces a tough new offence for adults preparing or planning to cause harm to, procure, or engage in sexual activity with a child and now may be punished by up to 10 years imprisonment. Importantly, this will also include those who misrepresent their age.
Conclusion
This bill will ensure that young Australians have a greater protection from online predators and serve as a significant deterrent to those who would do them harm. I therefore commend it to the House and, again, I thank the people who have collaborated in the preparation of this bill, in particular, Sonya Ryan. The passage of this bill through this parliament will be an enduring testament to the strength of character she has shown in the face of enormously difficult circumstances and, also, a tribute to the life of her late daughter.
Debate adjourned.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Keenan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (10:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which contains a range of measures to improve and clarify Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements. This government is committed to providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their job and ensuring that Commonwealth laws are robust and effective.
To that end, we keep our criminal justice framework under constant review—our agencies, policies, laws and processes—to ensure that we have a regime in place that is well equipped to deal with the job of tackling crime.
This bill contains a range of measures across Commonwealth acts. I will address the key measures in the bill in further detail.
Amendment of the AFP Act
Schedule 1 amends the functions of the Australian Federal Police contained in section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The amendments clarify the functions of the Australian Federal Police to enable them to provide assistance and cooperation with international organisations and non-government organisations in relation to the provision of police services or police support services. The amendments also provide a definition of 'international organisation'.
The amendments will ensure that the AFP is able to share information with a range of organisations, depending on the types of investigations on foot and the changing criminal threat environment. International partnerships allow the AFP to meet operational challenges and threats and progress Australia's national interests. The AFP's core work across all crime types is becoming increasing global and, as a result, international cooperation is becoming more and more important to the AFP's operations.
Custody notification amendments
Schedule 2 of the bill will amend the custody notification obligation in the Crimes Act. The amendments will clarify the timing of the requirement and ensure that the investigating officials who intend to question an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation before they begin their questioning.
This amendment is necessary following a contrary interpretation of the obligation in an ACT Supreme Court case, which frustrated the intention of the custody notification requirement. The clarification is important for the ACT because the requirement in the Commonwealth Crimes Act applies to ACT offences.
Schedule 2 will therefore put beyond doubt that an investigating official must notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation before questioning an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander, giving full effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This was always the original intention of the legislative requirement.
Controlled operations disclosure offence
Schedule 3 amends the controlled operation disclosure offence provisions contained in Part IAB of the Crimes Act 1914. The amendments will mirror those amendments made to section 35P of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, which implemented all of the recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in his report on section 35P of the ASIO Act.
These amendments will introduce new elements that must be proven before an ordinary citizen can be convicted of a disclosure offence. The amendments will create two separate offence regimes. One offence regime will apply to 'entrusted persons' or persons who came to the knowledge or into the possession of information about a controlled operation in their capacity as an entrusted person. A separate offence regime will apply to all other persons, or 'outsiders'.
Under these new regimes, the disclosure of information made by members of the community, except those who received information in their capacity as an entrusted person, will only constitute an offence if the information will endanger the health or safety of a person or prejudice the effective conduct of a controlled operation.
The amendments will also establish a defence of prior publication available only to persons who did not receive the relevant information in their capacity as an entrusted person.
It is critical that law enforcement agencies have the tools and capabilities available to them to effectively combat the significant threat of organised crime in Australia and of serious and systemic corruption.
The government understands the importance of maintaining public awareness of, and confidence in, the activities of our law enforcement agencies. The decision to mirror the amendments to the ASIO Act further demonstrates our commitment to achieving the right balance between freedom of expression and our national security and law enforcement requirements.
Increasing penalties for general dishonesty offences
Schedule 4 of the bill will amend the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalties for the general dishonesty offences from five years' imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment.
This will address inconsistencies across penalties for offences in the Criminal Code, which capture similar conduct. It will also give courts the ability to adequately sentence the full range of offending that can occur under the general dishonesty offences.
As the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions pointed out in evidence to the current Senate committee inquiry into penalties for white collar crime, the general dishonesty offences in the Criminal Code cover fraudulent schemes, consisting of multiple instances of criminal activity. The current five year maximum term of imprisonment can be inadequate in these circumstances.
This amendment will allow judges to sentence appropriately, while also retaining their discretion to impose lesser penalties for less serious conduct.
Protecting vulnerable persons
The government remains committed to strengthening the protections afforded to vulnerable witnesses and complainants giving evidence in Commonwealth criminal proceedings.
To this end, the bill will amend the existing non-publication offence in section 15YR of the Crimes Act to require that a person seeking leave from the court to publish matter that is likely to identify a vulnerable person must take reasonable steps to notify parties of the original proceeding (including the vulnerable person themselves) before making the application.
This will ensure all interested parties have an opportunity to present submissions to inform the court's decision about whether to grant leave for material to be published, including on any trauma and reputational damage the vulnerable person may experience as a result.
Personal information that may be relevant for fraud and corrupt conduct
Schedule 7 of the bill amends the Crimes Act 1914to authorise sharing personal information for tackling fraud and corruption against the Commonwealth.
Schedule 7 of this bill will bolster the Commonwealth's ability to combat fraud and corruption. The government will be able to gather information from within the Commonwealth and more broadly (including from the private sector and state and territory agencies) to reduce the amount of public money lost to, and the damage inflicted by, fraud and corruption. The measures will assist Commonwealth bodies to stamp down on corrupt officials and those who are seeking to defraud the Commonwealth.
The amendments also protect privacy by limiting information sharing to circumstances that are necessary for an integrity purpose. This is similar to existing safeguards under the Privacy Act 1988. The amendments also enable guidelines on the operation of these measures to be made which require the approval of the Information Commissioner.
These amendments do not impact on secrecy requirements in other legislation. By authorising rather than compelling information sharing for Commonwealth integrity purposes, the amendments do not adversely impact on how state and territory agencies or the private sector handle personal information.
Spent convictions
Schedule 8 of the bill will amend the Commonwealth spent convictions regime under the Crimes Act 1914 to remove impediments that would prevent the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission of New South Wales from using spent convictions information to vet employees and investigate serious misconduct and corruption in particular circumstances.
Removing these impediments is necessary to give full effect to exemptions under the New South Wales spent conviction regime, which was recently amended to allow the Commission to use spent convictions information pursuant to their functions.
Conclusion
Australia's criminal justice framework is both fair and strong. But it never serves to be complacent. Where opportunities arise to fine-tune aspects of our regime, we take these up. This omnibus bill, which does a variety of separate things, is a very good example of us continuing to improve our legal framework.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (10:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2017. The bill comprises eight schedules that would implement several small but necessary amendments to veterans legislation to clarify, improve or streamline the operation of the law.
Schedule 1 of the omnibus bill amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to modernise and align the Veterans' Review Board's operations with those of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, following the amendments made by the Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015.
The amendments also support the alternative dispute resolution processes and the recent amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, which provide for a single appeal path for reconsidering decisions.
Schedule 2 would amend the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 concerning the Specialist Medical Review Council to improve the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council—the SMRC—to streamline some of the SMRC's administrative arrangements and to better reflect the manner in which its functions and processes have evolved over time.
The proposed amendments would simplify the nomination and appointment process for councillors, enable online lodgement of claims, streamline the notice of investigation requirements and give the SMRC an ability to pay the travel costs of applicants who appear before an oral hearing of the SMRC.
The proposed amendments in schedule 3 of the omnibus bill would enable international agreements to be made that would cover allied veterans and Defence Force members with service of the type for which benefits and payments, including rehabilitation, can be provided by the Repatriation Commission or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission under the relevant acts.
Currently, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs can only enter into arrangements with the governments of countries that are, or have been, dominions of the Crown. These amendments would enable the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to enter into arrangements with a broader range of countries.
The proposed amendments in schedule 4 are intended to clarify that vocational rehabilitation assistance under an employer incentive scheme in the form of wage incentive payments are within the scope of the enabling provisions of relevant legislation.
The proposed amendments in schedule 5 would amend subsection 409(2) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and, if enacted, subsection 151A(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, to add the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) as a person to whom the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) may provide information, for purposes allowed under CSC's legislation.
The proposed amendments would implement a recommendation by the 2011 Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, intended to improve the information-sharing framework for incapacity and superannuation benefits between DVA and CSC and therefore reduce the time taken to process claims by DVA and CSC which would better support injured former ADF members.
In addition, enabling the CSC to use medical information and reports held by the MRCC to determine superannuation claims would also avoid the need to send ADF members for further medical assessment where DVA already holds relevant medical evidence that could be used by the CSC to determine superannuation benefits.
ADF members would be spared from any retraumatisation from having to retell their stories. This is particularly significant for ADF members who suffer psychological conditions, including those that have arisen as a result of physical or psychological abuse.
Schedule 6 of the bill amends the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to provide for the delegation of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' powers and functions.
Unlike section 212 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 makes no provision for the delegation of the minister's powers and functions.
That omission has prevented some administrative reforms from being implemented to achieve efficiencies across the Department of Veterans' Affairs as part of the government's commitment to reducing red tape.
Schedule 7 of the omnibus bill amends Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation to exempt certain legislative instruments from subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003.
The amendments would enable these legislative instruments to incorporate material contained in another nondisallowable legislative instrument or another nonlegislative writing as in force from time to time. The amendments would also update the language of some of the provisions under which legislative instruments are made under Veterans' Affairs portfolio legislation to accord with a contemporary drafting style.
Many of DVA's legislative instruments include references to external documents, such as fee schedules and the Rehabilitation Appliance Program National Schedule of Equipment, which are incorporated by reference into the instruments and are legally regarded as being part of the instruments.
Currently, any change to an incorporated document cannot be recognised unless the changed version is incorporated in the legislative instrument by an amendment or a replacement instrument. Under the proposed amendments, changes to the incorporated document would be automatically recognised and not require the minister or commissions to remake instruments each time an incorporated document is changed.
The amendments in schedule 8 of the omnibus bill were included as part of the lapsed Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. They repeal redundant and spent provisions concerning benefits that are no longer made and cannot be made again. Removing these redundant elements will make veterans legislation easier to interpret.
Noting that this legislation includes a number of measures that are beneficial but technical in detail, I will be writing to the chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee in order to review the bill and to seek public comment for the benefit of the parliament.
While this will be conducted in addition to the normal consultation my department will conduct, I encourage all interested parties to use this opportunity to provide input to the bill.
Each of the sets of amendments are relatively modest. They will enhance the operations of the department and will mean better outcomes for veterans.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (10:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 and its companion bill, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017.
The government is committed to the vital role vocational education and training plays in ensuring Australia has the skilled workforce it needs to drive innovation and economic growth.
Australia's economic prosperity depends upon the quality of our graduates, the outcomes of the training they receive and whether they are skilled in the way employers need them to be skilled.
The quality and reputation of our VET sector is therefore critical to the success of our country, our workers and our businesses.
It is essential that we give the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) the flexibility, resources and support it needs to provide high quality regulation of the sector through proper cost recovery arrangements.
ASQA has a wide range of legislated responsibilities under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the NVETR Act) and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act).
Those responsibilities include:
registering providers,
accrediting courses,
undertaking compliance audits,
collecting, analysing and disseminating information about VET providers, and
taking regulatory action where appropriate.
Activities such as intelligence collection and data analysis, which inform targeted monitoring, are core elements of ASQA's risk-based regulatory approach.
These activities benefit the quality of the whole sector rather than individual RTOs.
This bill amends the NVETR Act and the companion bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Act 2012 (the NVETR Charges Act).
Combined, these amendments will ensure that ASQA can recover the costs of critical compliance monitoring and intelligence analysis work it undertakes to protect and enhance quality in VET.
These amendments will create the appropriate legal structure for the recovery of costs associated with ASQA's broader regulatory activities.
The amendments replace the current annual registration fees collected by ASQA under the NVETR Act with an annual registration charge collected under the NVETR Charges Act.
I do want to be clear—there will be no additional financial costs or impacts on businesses or ASQA's revenue as a result of the amendments.
The charge simply replicates the current fees calculated and applied by ASQA.
The amendments are consistent with annual charges under the ESOS Act and the VET Student Loans Act 2016 and a validation provision in the companion bill is included to make sure there is no confusion about the validity of previously collected fees.
Similar to current arrangements, the amount or calculation of the charge will be determined by the minister through a legislative instrument and agreed by the Council of Australian Governments Industry and Skills Council.
Exposure drafts of the bills were released to state and territory officials who supported the amendments.
The bills include amendments to ensure providers are notified of amounts owing at the time of their registration, time frames for payment of the charge and refund arrangements where a provider's registration ends during the course of a financial year.
They also make clear that charges are recoverable as debts owed to the Commonwealth and that past cancellations for failure to pay will continue after the fees are replaced with a charge.
Last year, around 4.5 million people participated in the VET system.
Investing in Australia's workforce by supporting high-quality VET is central to our country's success.
The bills support this commitment and maintain a revenue basis for ASQA to adopt a regulatory approach that enhances the quality and integrity of the Australian VET system.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (10:44): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I also introduce the second bill in the package of bills to amend the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator legislation—the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017.
As I outlined in the principal bill, the bills combine to ensure ASQA is sufficiently resourced to continue its broad ranging compliance monitoring activities and operate as a high performing regulator.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Taylor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (10:45): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, which would amend, and in some circumstances repeal, legislation within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, including the Indigenous Affairs portfolio.
Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005 to remove legal uncertainty and update outdated provisions.
The bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005 to enable the Commonwealth and its portfolio bodies to waive the exercise of its statutory consent power by providing written notice to the Indigenous organisation concerned that consent to dispose of an interest in land is no longer required. These amendments will reduce red tape for the Commonwealth and provide opportunities to further the social, economic and cultural development of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders.
Before its abolition in 2005, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission had powers to make certain grants or loans of money to individuals or bodies and to guarantee due payment of a loan made to individuals or bodies for the purpose of furthering social, economic or cultural development.
An organisation that acquired an interest in land with Commonwealth assistance could not dispose of the interest without the consent of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
In 2005, the ATSIC Amendment Act vested the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's statutory consent power in other Commonwealth agencies, including the department responsible for Indigenous Affairs and Indigenous Business Australia.
This measure will enable the appropriate consenting authority, such as Indigenous Business Australia or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to waive the exercise of its statutory consent power by providing written notice to the organisation concerned that consent is no longer required.
Allowing these agencies to remove the consent requirement in particular cases will reduce the administrative burden and will support the more flexible use of assets by Indigenous organisations.
The government has consulted with Indigenous stakeholders on this amendment, which reaffirms the government's commitment to work with Indigenous people to empower Indigenous organisations and communities.
In addition, the bill streamlines the annual reporting requirements of Indigenous Business Australia by repealing the requirement for the responsible minister to table a corporate plan from Indigenous Business Australia, which duplicates reporting requirements in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
Schedule 3 of the bill repeals redundant legislation. The bill would repeal the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. These two acts are both redundant, as the Commonwealth can no longer declare Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reserves in Queensland and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is no longer in use.
Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Auditor-General Act 1997 to align the annual reporting requirements of the Auditor-General with his or her responsibility to the parliament, in line with international best practice for comparable auditing institutions.
Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to make some changes to commission powers and to the offence provisions in the act. Those changes will not apply to the current royal commissions. A key change is to give a royal commission the power to require a person to give a written statement. This is an alternative to requiring a person to attend at a hearing to give evidence. This power was recommended by Commissioner Hanger in his report into the Home Insulation Program.
Changes to the offence provisions include increasing the penalty for failure to comply with a summons or notice to produce documents to a royal commission. This implements Commissioner Heydon's recommendation in the final report into trade union governance and corruption.
This bill reinforces the government's commitment to removing red tape and improving the administration of government and its agencies.
Debate adjourned.
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (10:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill continues to deliver on the government's commitment to strengthen the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and better protect Australian consumers.
The financial system touches the lives of every Australian family and business and the Turnbull government recognises that our financial institutions have not always lived up to community standards.
That is why we are working every day to ensure that our regulators are tough cops on the beat, with the resources and powers that they need to proactively address misconduct and to prosecute those that do the wrong thing.
Introducing an industry funding model for ASIC will make industry more accountable for its behaviour and make ASIC a stronger regulator. It is a critical component of our plan to improve outcomes in the financial services sector and builds on other government measures including:
$127.2 million to enhance ASIC's powers, data analytics and surveillance capabilities and to accelerate measures recommended by the Financial System Inquiry (FSI);
a comprehensive review of ASIC's enforcement and penalties regime to ensure that it has the tools to adequately deter misconduct and to foster consumer confidence; and
the ASIC capability review, which made a number of recommendations to ensure that ASIC is operating in line with global best practice.
Industry funding of ASIC will more closely align ASIC's funding model with that of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA's), as well as a number of international financial sector regulators including the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.
It will also have significant benefits for all Australians. It will:
improve equity, because those entities that create the need for regulation will bear its cost—as opposed to Australian taxpayers;
encourage regulatory compliance, because good conduct will drive down supervisory levies;
improve ASIC's resource allocation, by providing it with richer data on industry activity and emerging potential risks; and
enhance ASIC's transparency and accountability—and by extension its performance—by requiring ASIC to publish detailed accounts of its expenditure.
Let me now go through these benefits in detail.
Improve Equity in Tax Collection
Industry funding of ASIC will mean that, from 1 July 2017, those entities that create the need for that regulation will be the ones who pay for it—as opposed to Australian taxpayers—who too often bear the cost of financial sector misconduct.
Further, because each regulated subsector will only ever pay an amount equal to its costs of supervision, industry funding will promote equity between different regulated entities. This is because certain industry subsectors will no longer cross-subsidise the costs of the regulation of other sectors.
Create a culture of compliance
In addition to enhancing equity, industry funding will also help to embed a culture of compliance within Australia's corporate and financial services sectors.
By creating clear and transparent price signals, industry funding will provide regulated entities with an incentive to improve their own conduct. This is because industry sectors with a record of good behaviour require fewer ASIC resources and will face lower annual charges than those sectors that continue to pose unacceptable risks to Australian consumers.
Improve ASIC's Resource Prioritisation
These reforms, however, go beyond the mere introduction of levies and charges. Critically, the passage of these bills will help make ASIC a stronger regulator.
These bills will provide ASIC with new powers to collect more granular data from regulated entities on the services that they provide—such as the actual amount of credit provided—to support the calculation of the levies payable by each institution.
The benefits of this data, however, will extend well beyond ensuring that ASIC's costs are allocated correctly. This new, rich, dataset—made possible by the $61.1 million that the government has invested in enhancing ASIC's data analytics and surveillance capabilities—will also allow ASIC to better identify emerging risks, better prioritise its resources and better ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
This will make ASIC a more agile and adaptable regulator and drive better outcomes for Australian consumers.
The government recognises, however, that these benefits must be balanced against additional red-tape costs for industry. For that reason, this bill provides checks and balances to ensure that requests for data are reasonable and proportionate.
Enhanced Transparency
Industry funding will also dramatically increase ASIC's transparency. From 2017-18, ASIC will be required to annually explain its regulatory priorities, outline its plan to address them, and provide a detailed account of how well it delivered on its objectives—including justification for the money that it spent and the regulatory tools that it elected to use.
These new reporting requirements will significantly enhance ASIC's accountability to the entities that it regulates. This will force ASIC to ensure that its expenditure is as efficient as possible and will encourage a greater investment in the ongoing assessment of its performance—as recommended by the ASIC Capability Review. This is an important outcome and a key driver behind the government's decision to adopt an industry funding model.
Ensuring Compliance with Industry Funding
The success of the industry funding model relies on industry having confidence that everyone is paying an appropriate amount.
That is why, in addition to outlining the broad framework for ASIC's industry funding model, this bill includes a number of measures to ensure that regulated entities do not shirk their responsibilities to the Australian public.
ASIC will be empowered to collect all supervisory levies that would have been payable from any entity that is caught operating without the appropriate licence or authorisation. This will be in addition to any other enforcement action that ASIC deems appropriate.
For those entities that simply try to avoid paying their dues, ASIC will be permitted to impose a late payment penalty of 20 per cent per annum on any amounts outstanding. To ensure compliance, this financial penalty will be supplemented by the threat of ASIC administrative action including, in severe cases, the suspension or cancellation of an entity's licence.
The government is confident that these measures will provide industry with the certainty it needs to build further support for the industry funding model. Consultation and Next Steps
Developing this legislation, and the industry funding model more broadly, has benefited from the input of many stakeholders.
Across two separate consultation periods the government received more than 300 submissions and met with nearly 50 organisations. And we are not done yet.
On behalf of the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody that made a submission for their contribution so far and to assure industry that the government will soon be releasing a draft version of the regulations for comment. These regulations will outline the specific levy mechanisms, and I encourage all interested parties to make a submission.
Closing
This bill delivers on the government's promise to strengthen ASIC and better protect Australian consumers.
This bill is further evidence of the Turnbull government's utmost commitment to holding the corporate and financial sectors to account for their behaviour and will result in a fairer system, will further incentivise good conduct and will create a more efficient and innovative ASIC.
Full details about this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017 forms part of a package of bills to introduce an industry funding model for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
To ensure that the industry funding model is equitable, this bill requires all entities regulated by ASIC to pay a levy to offset their regulatory costs.
These levies are to be paid after the end of the relevant financial year and any unpaid levy attracts penalty interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum.
To ensure that ASIC's costs are distributed appropriately, this bill also requires all ASIC-regulated entities to report to ASIC on their actual activities throughout the financial year. This will also assist ASIC to better identify financial sector risks and prioritise its resources to best protect Australian consumers.
To buttress this reporting obligation, failing to report when required will be an offence. Further, a failure to report honestly will result in a shortfall penalty equal to two times the levy avoided being imposed.
These measures are necessary to ensure ongoing confidence in the ASIC industry funding model.
Full details of the measure and the ASIC industry funding model are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017.
Debate adjourned.
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 forms part of a package of bills to introduce an industry funding model for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
To provide industry with confidence that ASIC is an efficient regulator, the bill requires ASIC to publish information on all of its regulatory costs for the previous financial year as soon as practicable after 31 October each year.
To provide industry with confidence that everyone is paying the appropriate amount, this bill empowers ASIC to take administrative actions against entities that have failed to pay their levy, late payment penalty or shortfall penalty within a year.
To simplify existing funding arrangements and ensure that no industry pays more than their regulatory costs, this bill also abolishes the existing market supervision cost recovery regime. From 1 July 2017, ASIC's costs in this sector will be recovered under the new industry funding model.
Full details of the measure and the ASIC industry funding model are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On 7 December 2015, the government announced a package of measures designed to incentivise and reward innovation as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda, which is driving the smart ideas that create business growth, local jobs and global success.
The measures in this bill are part of that agenda.
These measures will improve the tax system for businesses, so that they can ultimately grow and create jobs.
The measures in this bill support businesses by:
increasing access to past year company losses by relaxing the 'same business' test; and
improving the effective life assessment on intellectual property such as patents, and other depreciating intangible assets.
The introduction of these measures follows legislation already introduced to provide tax incentives for angel investors and provide new arrangements for venture capital investment. These measures continue the delivery of the National Innovation and Science Agenda announced in the 2015-16 MYEFO.
With these measures we are better aligning the corporate tax system with a culture of business investment and development to allow Australian businesses to grow and ultimately become more productive.
I will now turn to the specifics of the bill.
Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to more readily allow companies and some trusts with past year losses to use these losses as a tax deduction against current year profits.
Under current law, where a company has had a majority change in ownership, tax losses made in previous years cannot be claimed as a deduction against current year profits unless the company is conducting the 'same business'.
Under the 'same business' test, these deductions are denied if the company has entered into any new transactions, or earned any income from new business activities.
Interpretation of this test has historically been very strict. Very minimal change in business operations is allowed before these valuable past year losses are ultimately lost to the entity. This can stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.
It can have particularly severe impacts on start-up companies. In the start-up phase, when developing new processes, products or technologies, it is common for businesses to make losses through expenditure on research and development.
Following that development stage, in order to fully commercialise these new technologies, equity investors are often needed to provide additional equity funding to ensure the viability of the business. This may necessitate a change in ownership.
These entities may discover that there are new and innovative uses for their technologies that they had not previously envisaged. The strict operation of the 'same business' test can therefore constrain these businesses from exploiting these opportunities, for fear that they would lose access to what could be very substantial deductions.
In other circumstances, for businesses which are not performing well, and are consistently making losses, the 'same business' test can deter them from making the changes to their business which would return them to profitability.
The new 'similar business' test introduced by this bill will address these concerns, and support entrepreneurship and innovation.
This 'similar' test will be an easier test to meet, allowing businesses to make some changes to their businesses and operations to take advantage of emerging opportunities and create more efficient structures.
In addition, the removal of the tests which prevent businesses earning income from new activities and operations will give entities much greater freedom to explore innovative uses of their products and to adapt to changes in the business environment.
In this way, this measure strongly supports an innovative culture, encouraging agile, adaptable businesses in our modern economy.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide taxpayers with the choice to self‑assess the effective life of intellectual property, and other depreciating intangible assets they start to hold, on or after 1 July 2016.
The intangible assets to which this choice applies are:
intellectual property, which includes patents, registered designs and copyrights, or the licences to these;
other licences, including spectrum and datacasting transmitter licences;
rights to telecommunication cable systems and telecommunications site access; and
in‑house software.
In keeping with the treatment of tangible assets, the new law also allows taxpayers to re-calculate the effective life in later income years if the effective life the taxpayer has been using is no longer accurate because of changed circumstances relating to the nature of that particular asset's use.
The taxpayer must re-calculate the effective life of the asset if the cost of the asset increases by at least 10 per cent in a later income year.
In the income year that the taxpayer begins to hold the asset, the taxpayer must re-calculate the effective life of the asset if the taxpayer is using an effective life because of the associate or same user rule and the asset's cost increased after the taxpayer started to hold it by at least 10 per cent.
Currently, the law mandates the effective life to be used in calculating the decline in value for depreciating intangible assets. This statutory effective life may not reflect the period of time that the assets provide economic benefits to the taxpayer.
By introducing self-assessment, this measure will better align the taxation treatment of those assets with the actual period of time that the assets provide economic benefits.
This better alignment of the economic life and the taxation life will decrease the cost of acquisition of these assets, encouraging their transfer between businesses to better exploit and commercialise them.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:13): On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Chancery Project Paris, France—Base building refurbishment, International Energy Agency tenancy fit-out.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:14): On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Human Services, Geelong, Victoria.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:15): On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out and relocation of the Australian Cyber Security Centre, Canberra, ACT.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:16): On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project at Mitchell Avenue, Northam, Western Australia.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (11:16): On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Moreton Unit Relocation Project, HMAS Moreton, Bulimba, Queensland.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (11:17): I move:
That notice Nos 17 and 18 government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Report
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:18): As required by resolution of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 29 November 2016 and 28 March 2017.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Report
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (11:18): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report titled Report 168: Certain Maritime Arrangements—Timor Leste, together with the minutes and proceedings.
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 168, which contains the committee's review of amendments to the agreement on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea with Timor-Leste, commonly known as the CMATS treaty. Australia and Timor-Leste, at present, have not agreed to a permanent maritime boundary in the Timor Sea. This has been the case now for some time.
In the absence of such an agreement, the CMATS treaty provides for the joint development of petroleum and gas reserves in the Timor Sea, known as Greater Sunrise. These reserves have an estimated value of some $40 billion. The CMATS treaty provides that future revenue from the development of Greater Sunrise will be shared equally between Australia and Timor-Leste. It also places a moratorium on establishing a permanent maritime boundary. To date, Greater Sunrise has not been developed, even though the CMATS treaty has been in place for some time.
The amendments to the CMATS treaty, reviewed by the committee, are largely procedural in nature, may I say. However, they are necessary prior to its termination on 10 April. Indeed, the CMATS treaty was terminated unilaterally by Timor-Leste on 10 January this year following an agreement between Australia and Timor-Leste to negotiate permanent maritime boundaries.
Termination of a treaty would normally cease all operations and effect of all its clauses. However, article 12(4) of the CMATS treaty gives continuing effect to a number of provisions that would enliven the whole treaty if Greater Sunrise was developed in the future. It is somewhat of a Lazarus clause. As agreed between Australia and Timor-Leste, the proposed treaty actions under review amend article 12(4) so that the Lazarus clause will not survive beyond termination of the whole treaty. Indeed, what we are presenting today ensures Lazarus cannot rise again.
The committee's report also notes that the CMATS treaty gave Timor-Leste a much larger share of the Greater Sunrise resources than it would have under pre-existing arrangements. These pre-existing arrangements will govern the joint development of Greater Sunrise until such time as a permanent maritime boundary is negotiated. The committee is of the strong view that the maritime boundary dispute, like all disputes, should be negotiated bilaterally and in good faith. We continue to commend both governments for agreeing to cooperate by these principles. Consequently, the committee's report recommends to the parliament that the proposed treaty action to amend article 12(4)—to ensure Lazarus stays where he is—proceeds. This recognises that the termination of the CMATS treaty is a first step towards further negotiation on maritime boundaries.
The committee recommends that binding treaty action be taken. However, in supporting the proposed treaty action, the committee has requested that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade brief the committee every six months until this matter is resolved.
I note that the negotiations with Timor-Leste will occur within the confines of the Conciliation Commission, and of course those discussions remain confidential. The committee will, where necessary, hear such briefings in closed session.
These briefings will give the committee the necessary context to review subsequent treaty actions, should Australia and Timor-Leste reach an agreement on maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (11:22): by leave—I commend the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on his report to the House. This arrangement and these developments with Australia and Timor-Leste are not necessarily welcome, in the sense that I wish these things could have been resolved in other ways, and it is a shame particularly for Timor-Leste. But I have to make it clear that these are the provisions of arrangements between our two countries. They have been going through the law as it was set out beforehand. I hope that the opposition's support for this report is noted. I wish, for the sake of our good relations with China, that the opposition's two recommendations to the committee had been noted more clearly by the government, but that is not the fault of the chair.
Australia and Timor-Leste have not agreed to a permanent maritime boundary. In the absence of permanent maritime boundaries, three treaties govern maritime arrangements in the Timor Sea: the Timor Sea Treaty between the Government of East Timor and the Government of Australia, signed in 2002, also called the Timor Sea treaty; the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste relating to the Unitisation of the Sunrise and Troubadour Fields, signed in 2003, also called the international unitisation agreement; and the CMATS treaty signed in 2006.
This CMATS treaty allows for the development of the Greater Sunrise field, estimated to have a value of $40 billion. Where this $40 billion figure came from no-one is exactly sure, but it was apparently in some report that Shell issued way back when. This treaty would share revenue equally between Australia and Timor-Leste. If the treaty did not exist, it is said that Timor-Leste would get only 18 per cent of the revenue, so renegotiation of this in the fullness of time, Lazarus or not, is going to be very important for them.
Timor-Leste unilaterally terminated the agreement on certain maritime arrangements in January, as is their right, and the agreement will cease to be in force from 10 April 2017. The amendments to the CMATS treaty are required before 10 April to give effect to the intention of both Australia and Timor-Leste that the CMATS treaty will cease to be in force in its entirety.
Australia and Timor-Leste have agreed to negotiate an agreement for permanent maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea, and that is good. The two countries are currently before the Conciliation Commission to reach a negotiated, non-binding solution. That is also good. Particularly with a developing country like Timor-Leste, 'Big Brother Australia' wants to make sure that we do these things by conciliation and agreement as much as possible. Part of the start of the process was a package of measures including the cancellation of the CMATS treaty. Australia does not recognise the jurisdiction of international courts in relation to maritime boundary disputes. Actually, I think it is better if we negotiate this directly with Timor-Leste, as I said, in a conciliatory way.
The committee heard evidence that Timor-Leste may struggle financially as natural resources income declines, and that is one of the things I most want to note my alarm at. Evidence before the committee was that in some years Timor-Leste is exceeding the expenditure that was suggested to it as a result of some of the revenues it is getting from natural resources. There is some doubt that a viable solution can be reached, because of topographical issues. The idea that to the south of Timor one would have a vast petrochemical complex is made difficult by the fact there is an enormous trench that goes between the fields and Timor-Leste. So let us hope that, with the goodwill of companies, Australia and Timor-Leste, these things can be worked out. As was pointed out in some of the evidence before the committee, it is very necessary for the viability of Timor-Leste that they responsibly expend the money they have so that they have an income stream after 2025.
It is not good that this arrangement between our two countries was not able to reach a resolution. It is Timor-Leste's right to pursue the cancellation and renegotiation of this treaty. Let us hope for their sake, with goodwill from Australia, that that can be achieved, considering all the struggle that Timor-Leste went through—and many people on this side of the House were very strong supporters of their independence, as was the government—and considering the heroic efforts of the 4,000 Australian soldiers who went over there in extremely difficult circumstances. Down to the lowest corporal, as the then CDF told me, they avoided a war with Indonesia by not clicking their weapons to turn the safety off. With all of that prehistory, let us hope that this issue can be resolved.
Publications Committee
Report
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:29): I present the report of the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
Report
Mr HOGAN (Page) (11:30): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, I present the committee's report entitled 2016 annual report of the Australian Taxation Office: Performance review 2015-16 together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HOGAN: by leave—I am pleased to present today the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue's review of the Australian Taxation Office's 2016 annual report, and of the ATO performance over 2015-16.
It has been an important year for the ATO, one in which its digital transformation under the reinvention program has accelerated.
Tax time 2016 was an important test for progress. The ATO reported a steady increase in online lodgements. By November 2016, nearly all individual and non-individual tax returns lodged had been made online, with 85 per cent of business activity statements also made this way.
The digitisation of ATO services is a major part of the reinvention strategy, but it is not all. As tax commissioner Chris Jordan told the committee, most Australians voluntarily comply with their tax obligations, if they know what they are and how to do so. Rather than prioritising enforcement, the ATO is now investing in early interaction with taxpayers to promote compliance.
Over 2015-16, the ATO rolled out a suite of online supports to self-assessors while also working closely with tax professionals, small business and software developers to design and deliver compatible lodgement and processing systems. For those without or unused to digital access, a suite of alternative services are available.
The ATO also invested in data analytics to identify those in the community who may be less likely to meet their commitments. This research supports the ATO efforts to reduce the scale of the tax and revenue gap across the different market segments.
The committee congratulates the ATO on its very significant progress over this reporting period. Nonetheless, in this review, the committee has determined a need for more comprehensive performance reporting from the ATO in a number of key areas—benchmarking the digital transition and system functionality; staff deployment and compliance accountability; fairness in ATO decision making and debt collection; and fast-tracking assessment of the size and nature of the revenue gap.
The committee has made overall 14 recommendations in its report, a landmark in number compared with past ATO reviews. This responds to the scale and scope of the tax office's 'reinvention', and will allow for the results of the reforms to be better gauged over time.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to the relevance of the evidence taken during this review to the committee's ongoing inquiry into taxpayer engagement with the tax system. Under this broad mandate, the committee will investigate the work that the ATO is doing on the cash economy, and to identify drivers and antidotes to its proliferation.
I would to like to thank committee members, witnesses and members of the secretariat for their contribution to this review, and look forward to further discussion with stakeholders in coming months. I commend the report to the House.
Standing Committee on Economics
Report
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:33): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2016 (First report) together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr COLEMAN: by leave—On 7 February this year the Reserve Bank decided to leave official interest rates on hold at 1.5 per cent. In making this decision, the Governor of the Reserve Bank commented that holding the stance of policy unchanged at this meeting would be consistent with sustainable growth in the economy and achieving the inflation target over time.
At the public hearing held on 24 February this year the governor noted that, given headline inflation has risen in most countries and is much closer to target than it has been for some years, the forecast for global growth has been revised upwards over the recent months, and that is the first time that that has happened for quite a few years. After a weaker than expected September quarter last year, Australia's GDP growth is expected to pick up, sustained by a combination of monetary policy, a lower Australian dollar and other measures. The RBA forecasts that GDP growth will increase to between 2½ per cent and 3½ per cent during 2017, which will place it at the top end of international growth rates.
While inflation remains low, it is expected to move closer to target with the CPI forecast to rise to around two per cent by the middle of 2017. During the hearings it was also noted that, since its low point in January 2016, the Australian dollar has appreciated by over 10 per cent against both the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis. However, the governor noted that the historical depreciation of the Australian dollar continues to support growth in a range of Australian industries, particularly those exposed to export markets, and has remained largely unchanged since the US election.
The governor's testimony suggests that consumption growth is moderating and that wages growth continues to be restrained. Unemployment remains stable, with employment growth being driven by increases in part-time employment. Housing markets across Australia have been mixed. While the Sydney and Melbourne markets continue to record strong growth, other markets, such as Perth, have experienced much weaker conditions. There was a substantial improvement in the number of building approvals in the past two years, mainly driven by strong growth in new apartments being built.
Australia's economic growth is more optimistic than it was in March of 2016, with evidence showing that the headwinds of the declining mining investment and low commodity prices have eased. The RBA expects GDP growth in Australia of between two and three per cent by the end of 2017, and that will be supported by increases in the production of LNG and improving terms of trade. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Lowe, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 24 February. I commend the report to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:36): by leave—I concur with the member for Banks in respect of the tabling of this report. I would also like to congratulate the Reserve Bank because, when they did appear before the committee, Dr Luci Ellis, an Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank, appeared. The governor made the point that this was the first time that a female had appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics in the capacity of an Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank. I think that is an important advance for economics and for women in the study of economics. It was great to see Dr Ellis in Parliament House only last week for the launch of a group associated with encouraging more women to get involved in economics.
In respect of the hearing, there was a broad discussion about the outlook for the international economy and the Australian economy. But, like all discussions with the Reserve Bank in recent times, the focus quickly turned to housing affordability. I thought it was instructive that the Reserve Bank governor, Dr Lowe, pointed to the fact that the bank was concerned about the low level of wages growth in Australia coupled with household debt at the moment.
The major factor contributing to household debt is the cost of housing, particularly in the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane markets, where house prices have gone through the roof. That, the governor pointed out, is having an effect on disposable income households. That, in turn, is having an effect on demand in our economy. The governor quite rightly made the point that, if we are going to increase and encourage long-term growth in the Australian economy, we need to get that level of demand and consumption in the economy up again.
In Labor's view, that means we need to tackle this issue of housing affordability and the fact that buying a house, for many, is becoming out of reach in Australia at the moment. That involves looking at the government incentives that exist around housing affordability. At the moment, if you are an investor, you get an unfair advantage compared to owner-occupiers in Australia if you go to buy a property. I provided some data to the Reserve Bank governor which indicated that the level of housing finance over the course of the last 30 years has basically reversed. It used to be 60 to 40 in favour of owner-occupiers. It is now heading the other way and going towards 60 to 40 in favour of investors compared to owner-occupiers. That data alone says that we have a problem in the incentives we are providing to people to buy investment properties. If someone goes along to an auction and they are seeking to negatively gear their eighth investment property, they get more support from the government at the moment than an owner-occupier seeking to buy their first property to live in. That is wrong. That is contributing to house-price growth in this country, which is making it unaffordable and leading to the household debt issue that is constraining demand. So, in Labor's view, unless you are tackling negative gearing, you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability.
These notions looking at how we increase supply are all very well, but you need to be tackling the two big issues of negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. When the capital gains tax discount was introduced into the federal budget by former Treasurer Peter Costello it was unfunded. There was no measure to fund that over the longer term, and we are now paying the cost of that in terms of budget sustainability. They are the two issues that you need to look at if you are fair dinkum about housing affordability.
I thank the Reserve Bank governor and the deputy and assistant governors for once again appearing before the committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Does the member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:40): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:41): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Report
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:41): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Parliamentary Budget Office review 2016-17: report of the independent review panel.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HILL: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the independent review of the Parliamentary Budget Office. Commissioned by the committee after the 2016 election, the independent review explored the operations of the PBO in the period since its establishment in 2012 with a focus on how it could build on its work so far. The Parliamentary Budget Office in just five years has established itself as a key parliamentary institution in Australia. The PBO provides independent, high-quality analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals.
The independent review was chaired by Dr Ian Watt, AC, a former secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Barry Anderson, a former deputy director of the US Congressional Budget Office, was the other member of the review team. In their review, Dr Watt and Mr Anderson described the PPO as 'a successful institutional development in Australian governance which has filled a significant gap in Australia's public policy landscape'.
This latest review follows a 2014 Auditor-General's report into the administration of the PBO, which found the PPO after its first two years of operation was:
… well regarded as an authoritative, trusted and independent source of budgetary and fiscal policy analysis.
I thank Dr Watt and Mr Anderson for their work and also the staff who supported the review team.
The report has given the committee much to think about in its role of overseeing the operations and resourcing of the PBO. The review canvassed for feedback from a variety of stakeholders as part of its deliberations, including parliamentarians, Commonwealth government agencies, external think tanks, journalists and others. The review made a total of 16 recommendations across themes including a level playing field for costings, accuracy of policy costings, transparency in public understanding of budget and fiscal policy settings, and governance and resources. This report is particularly timely given that Mr Bowen, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, completes his term in July and the Presiding Officers are in the process of appointing a new Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit will further consider the report as part of its role in providing ongoing oversight of the Parliamentary Budget Office.
I note that the committee in undertaking this work will not have the benefit of the long-serving committee secretary Mr David Brunoro, who is sitting in the adviser box. I think you have been with the committee for nine years. You are going on to bigger and better things. I know that all members of the committee have appreciated your service over many years.
I commend the report to interested members who may have any comments on it to raise with me or other members of the committee in the coming weeks.
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Reporting Date
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (11:45): I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:
That the time for presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the life insurance industry be extended to 31 October 2017.
BILLS
Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Consideration resumed.
Senate's amendments —
Senate amendments (7) and (13)
The amendments (7) and (13) passed by the Senate would seek to require that certain serious or organised crime offences only be relevant to the ASIC and MSIC schemes if the offences were connected to terrorism.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes by targeting serious or organised crime, in addition to preventing unlawful interference with aviation, maritime transport and offshore facilities.
Terrorism related offences are already separately captured in the ASIC and MSIC eligibility criteria. Limiting the application of other serious offences to connection with terrorism severely restricts the ability to exclude persons convicted of other serious offences, such as offences relating to criminal organisations or gangs.
Accordingly, the House or Representatives does not accept these amendments.
Senate amendments (8) and (14)
The amendments (8) and (14) passed by the Senate would incorporate the ASIC and MSIC appeals mechanisms within the Aviation and Maritime Acts respectively.
The appeals process is essential to the transparency of the schemes. A comprehensive appeals process already exists in the Aviation Transport Security Regulation 2005 (Aviation Regulations) and Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (Maritime Regulations). These appeal processes have existed in the respective Aviation and Maritime Regulations since the inception of these schemes.
Should the Bill be passed, the appeals process for ASIC applicants will be expanded. This will provide ASIC applicants with the ability to apply to the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department for reconsideration of a discretionary decision (an ability that already exists for MSIC applicants).
The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that introducing ASIC and MSIC appeals mechanisms into primary legislation would not create any additional practical protection against future changes to the Aviation and Maritime Regulations.
Further, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances will examine any regulatory amendment to ensure that the rights and liberties of citizens are not unduly dependent on administrative decisions, which are not subject to review of their merits by a judicial or other independent tribunal.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (11:46): I move:
That Senate amendments (7), (8), (13) and (14) be disagreed to.
I have had the opportunity to discuss the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm in the other place and I understand his point of view on the issue. However, the experts have told us that organised crime has infiltrated our airports and sea ports and we need to be able to tackle this problem. The amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm mean that offences consisting of being a member of a particular organisation or consorting with a convicted offender are not serious or organised crimes under the acts unless they are connected to terrorism. Limiting the application of criminal organisation legislation to a connection with terrorism will severely restrict the ability to exclude people convicted of serious offences related to criminal organisations from gaining an ASIC or a MSIC.
Only people who have been convicted in court of a serious offence under criminal organisation legislation will be captured under this bill. To receive a conviction, a court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence occurred, and this is a high bar. I note that targeting serious criminality has received support from the opposition in this House and in the other place. We would expect that those opposite would support capturing individuals with serious convictions, such as violence or extortion, involving two or more members of a criminal organisation.
The government did not support the amendment to introduce the appeals mechanism into the aviation and maritime acts based purely on the expert advice of parliamentary counsel. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that including the appeals process in the acts would not create any practical protection against future changes to the aviation and maritime regulations. The government has no plans—I repeat, the government has no plans—to diminish the appeal rights for ASIC and MSIC applicants. There is a comprehensive appeals process in the current aviation and maritime regulations and any future changes to the appeals process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as all changes to regulations are.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:49): Labor will not be supporting the government's position on the amendments to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 and will be supporting the decisions made in the Australian Senate. We did not initiate these amendments; these particular amendments were moved by Senator Leyonhjelm of the LDP. But I will say this with regard to this issue, which goes to what I think is emerging, unfortunately, as a distinction between the government's position and Labor's position, not just as the opposition but, clearly, a majority of the Senate as well. The government is moving away from the view that when it comes to national security interests related to transport it is absolutely essential that we target effectively. If you do not target effectively, if you have a broadbrush approach, then you fail to concentrate on the task at hand. The task at hand, of course, is our national security.
It is not a disagreement between the government and the opposition with regard to the objectives on national security. Indeed, it is far from it. Wherever possible, we have tried to be cooperative and to engage with the government on all of these issues. The changes that Labor made in government to ASIC and MSIC cards and national security at our airports—where we have the most stringent regime of anywhere in the world with regard to full body scanners and a 'no scan, no fly' policy—mean that Australians can be certain that the government and indeed the parliament are doing whatever we can to keep them safe from harm.
But with regard to this particular position and with amendments coming up to change the reference to 'serious and organised', the government's first position was 'serious or organised'. Now what they are doing is attempting to make changes which would say just 'serious' crime. To get rid of the term 'organised' from the Senate amendments seems to me to be an unfortunate occurrence.
If I were the government of the day, what I would do is try and negotiate good outcomes through the Senate. There is no-one in the Senate, be it Senator Leyonhjelm or anyone in the opposition, or indeed in the House of Representatives that does not take these issues seriously. But the government are essentially ensuring, by their rejection of the Senate amendments, that this legislation does not pass this parliament today. They have another option before them, which is to accept the amendments that have been made by the Senate and implement the legislation as has been democratically determined after discussions both here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. It was not as if I did not have discussions and raise with the minister Labor's concerns about the proposed legislation and indeed attempt to get the government to move the amendments that we subsequently got carried in the Senate in order to ensure that there was a bipartisan position on legislation such as this, which, I believe, is ideal.
By the government opposing these amendments (Extension of time granted)they ensure that the legislation essentially fails. The Senate has determined its view. The Senate will not be dealing with these matters tonight before it rises. Therefore, the government are walking away from legislation that could be put in place—legislation that the government have said is required and is a response to not only the Ice Taskforce but also other reports and inquiries. With respect to the minister, I think that shows very poor judgement on his behalf and on the government's behalf. But, then again, this is a government that cannot implement their agenda. They cannot implement their agenda in part because they do not have a coherent strategy. The only thing the ministers can agree on is their dress sense. In terms of actually getting on with the business of government, they continue to fail.
I would suggest that it is not too late, Minister Chester, to actually stand up to whoever it is who has come up with this rather bizarre strategy of saying, 'This legislation isn't everything that we want, so we'll have nothing.' That is the strategy that, in effect, you are adopting here. I say to the minister that if this legislation is important, if this legislation does require an amendment to the transport security regime in this country, then they should accept the amendments that have been made in the Senate. That is Labor's position and that is why we are opposing the proposition that is being put forward by the minister and why we will be opposing all of the government's amendments.
We believe fundamentally that there are elements of this legislation that are important and that we want to see put in place, not kicked down the road. This legislation was introduced in 2016. If there were serious security issues in our airports and in our ports, I would suggest that legislation should not take months and months to debate; it should be done expeditiously. What we are seeing here is the exact opposite of that, consistent with a government that, frankly, has completely lost its way. It is so obsessed with its internal divisions that it is failing to govern for the nation.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (11:57): I just want to put on the record some of the reasons that the government is concerned about these amendments and cannot accept them. The changes within our national security environment over the last few years are exceptionally significant, and anyone with the idea now that we can just carve out terrorism and think that is somehow completely separate from serious and organised crime just does not understand the way this threat has evolved. What we are finding is that terrorist suspects or people who have committed terrorist acts in particular almost inevitably have had some criminal connection prior to them being radicalised and prior to them wanting to commit terrorist attacks here in Australia.
We find this experience in Australia and we find it extensively overseas, with people who are on the fringes of organised criminal movements and people who have been involved with things from petty criminality through to very serious criminality. The idea that we can just carve out a distinction and say, 'We're going to only look at terrorism when it comes to assessing people's suitability to work in the very sensitive areas of ports and airports'—and I think everyone can appreciate how sensitive these areas are from a security sense—and, 'Terrorism is the national security issue,' and think that that is somehow separate from organised crime, is not going to provide the Australian people with the protections that they expect from their national government.
I appreciate that some in the Senate have made these amendments probably in good faith and believe that they are restricting the ASIC and MSIC regime purely to terrorism related offences, but that would be an enormous mistake. The government cannot possibly accept this, because we have a very firm understanding about the national security challenge that this country faces, and it would be very misguided for anyone in this House to think that accepting the Senate amendments would do anything other than make our people less safe.
The SPEAKER: The question is that Senate amendments Nos (7), (8), (13) and (14) be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
The House divided. [12:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:10): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendments Nos (7), (8), (13) and (14), and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:10): I move:
That Senate amendments Nos (1) to (6) and (9) to (12) be disagreed to and government amendments Nos (1) to (10) made in place thereof.
I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum. The government is moving this amendment to address concerns raised in the debate that the use of 'serious or organised' may prevent people with convictions for minor or low-level crimes from gaining an ASIC or an MSIC. This amendment will remove the phrase 'or organised' from the bill, meaning that the bill will refer to serious crime only. This will remove any doubt that the bill is targeting those convicted of serious criminal offences. People who have committed minor infringements will not be caught up by this bill. 'Serious crime' will still encompass organised crime that is of a serious nature. For example, an offence of violence or extortion that involves two or more members of a criminal organisation which involves substantial planning and organisation will still be captured as a serious crime. The purpose of the bill is to not allow ASICs and MSICs to be issued to individuals who are a security risk or have a serious criminal record. I note that the member for Grayndler supported targeting serious criminality in his contribution to the debate. I also note that targeting serious criminality was also supported by opposition and crossbench members in the other place.
The government does not support the amendment to 'serious and organised' crime because it would only capture individuals who have been convicted of a serious and organised crime. Both elements would be required. Committing just a serious crime would not be captured in this case. The government has received legal advice to confirm this. It would mean that someone who has a conviction for a serious crime but who acted alone in committing the crime would likely be able to successfully appeal a refusal of an ASIC or MSIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An example of this exact situation is an ASIC applicant who had convictions for cultivating and trafficking cannabis and importing cocaine, including attempting to deliver that cocaine to an innocent person. This applicant acted alone when committing these offences. This applicant was denied an ASIC by the department but was granted an ASIC by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because, even though he had serious criminal convictions, he was not a risk to aviation security. This is exactly the type of applicant the government wants to stop from gaining access to secure areas at airports and sea ports.
Under the opposition's amendments, it is likely that he would still receive an ASIC from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because he did not commit a serious and organised crime. The experts have told us that the ASIC and MSIC schemes need to be strengthened to protect our airports and sea ports against organised crime. This government is committed to keeping Australia safe. Stopping people with a serious criminal conviction from gaining access to secure areas at airports and sea ports is a crucial part of this.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:14): The opposition will be supporting the Senate position that has been determined and will do so for good reason. Let us have a look at how this debate has progressed. The government put forward legislation which proposed to define the target group, if you like, as serious or organised crime. We felt that that was a broadening of the definition which would weaken security by widening the net. If you do not target security issues effectively in the transport area, you undermine it. So we put this amendment forward in good faith, and the amendment was carried in the Senate to change the definition in a range of areas back to what was actually recommended. I will come to the reasons for that in a short while.
What the government is now proposing with this quite extraordinary amendment is to remove 'organised crime'. It is beyond belief, frankly, that this government is seeking to move amendments that would delete 'organised crime' from the definition and just leave 'serious' there. I am somewhat flabbergasted. Yesterday, when the minister told me in good faith what was being considered by the brains trust who have come up with this, wherever they may be, I indicated to him—as I do; I have a good relationship with him—that my gut instinct was that I thought it would be a difficult thing to support. I am somewhat surprised, frankly, that this has been brought on today—to essentially knock over the legislation, which is what the failure to support the Senate amendments is doing.
Let us have a look at who talks about 'serious and organised crime' and why that is an appropriate definition. The government refers to the Ice Taskforce report and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report from 2011 as the basis for this bill. That is why this bill is coming about; they have recommendations from experts and, therefore, they are turning that into legislation, as is appropriate. It is appropriate in these areas to take proper advice from experts. Let us have a look at how the experts define the issue that needs legislative action. The Ice Taskforce report, uniformly, talks about targeting 'serious and organised crime'—not once, not twice, not 20 times, not 50 times but hundreds of times. The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures, which this minister for justice and Customs opposite sat on—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Or whatever the title of his position is; it is hard to keep up with things over there.
Mr Keenan: Not really, I have been in the same position for four years.
Mr ALBANESE: That is not a plus, Minister. Most junior ministers get to go up. It is true; you are where you have always been—Minister for Justice. You were a member of the committee that always—not some of the time, but always—refers to 'serious and organised crime'.
Mr Keenan: You really are missing the point here.
Mr ALBANESE: That is the basis of the legislation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Order! Let us have a conversation that the public can understand, rather than one they cannot understand.
Mr ALBANESE: Minister Keenan yaps away, but the fact is that that report says:
The committee recommends that the scope of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 be widened to include serious and organised crime in addition to terrorist activity and unlawful interference.
That is a direct quote from the committee report that was the basis of this legislation—the committee that this minister sat on. And now they come in here—when in the Senate we moved it back to the same definition that the committee recommended be used—and they want to get rid of 'organised crime'. (Extension of time granted) Regarding the Attorney-General's Department's submission on this bill, the minister says, 'Well, that's not the legislative definition.' The Attorney-General's Department's submission on this bill was in the previous parliament, because this is so urgent! It has gone from the previous parliament and legislation from 2016—it is so urgent! It has been hanging around, and the report from years ago says 'serious and organised crime'. That is what the Attorney-General's Department says.
But maybe the Attorney-General's Department, the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the Ice Taskforce are not enough. Let us have a look at what the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission says: 'serious and organised crime'. That is what they almost always use in their definition. Then there is the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, which Labor supported just last year. Guess what it refers to? 'Serious and organised crime.' Indeed, the Senate report on this very bill uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised crime'. Those opposite are critical of it, but they sat on the committee that was the basis of the bill. I have talked about the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Ice Taskforce. Even the Attorney-General's Department Annual report 2015-16, tabled in the House on 7 November 2016, refers to the work that they have been doing to prepare this legislation. They say on page 30: 'serious and organised crime'.
So, for reasons of keeping a proper focus, Labor's amendment will be consistent with the advice that is out there publicly—with the advice that this government has put in place itself in other legislation that has been supported in a bipartisan way in this parliament, and with the advice from the very committee whose report is the basis of this legislation—the committee that this minister sat on.
So we are very concerned that this is walking away from the advice of experts. The idea that this government is essentially prepared to stop this legislation going through—it could go through in a nanosecond without this petulant approach of opposing these Senate amendments—is, I think, a serious mistake by the government. Perhaps the minister has an explanation as to why he sat on the committee report and made that definition. We can see why he is still in the same position after all these years. I understand that. He is just busy undermining all the organisations, the infrastructure department, the Attorney-General's Department—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: There he is, babbling away there, not coming to terms with the fact that it is no wonder this government could not convince anyone in the Senate. These amendments did not just fall across the line by the way—they had everyone, because the Senate took a commonsense approach to this legislation.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (12:23): I really need to respond to that, because, quite frankly, that was just 10 minutes of incoherent rambling from the shadow minister for transport, who really has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. The reason we opposed these amendments is that, obviously, we have advice from our agencies that this would restrict the scope of the application of what we are trying to achieve here—as the shadow minister for transport should know, but if he does not know it is quite remarkable. He is either wilfully ignorant of the argument that has been made here or he is just not concerned about the truth. I understand that the minister has tried to reason with him, has tried to explain the situation and has actually sat down with him and said that this is the reason the government wants to proceed in this way. The reason is very clear: it is because we have strong advice that 'serious and organised' crime has the potential to not capture the scope of individuals that we want to capture under this legislation. Within his contribution, the minister has actually provided examples of where that could happen.
By proceeding the way the government is proceeding—by using the definition of serious crime—we will make sure that we are not going to have the wrong people working at our ports and our airports. We cannot have a situation in Australia where we have criminals, who associate with other criminals, who may not have been convicted of crimes but on whom we have sufficient criminal intelligence to understand that they present a significant security risk for us—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr KEENAN: This is the whole point. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have absolutely no understanding of what the government is trying to achieve here. I understand that the minister has been very patient in explaining what the government is trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve is to make sure that we have appropriate people working within sensitive areas at our ports and airports, and people with criminal backgrounds, people who are associating with criminals and people who are members of bikie gangs, for example, are not appropriate people to be working at our ports and airports.
This shadow minister has come up with some ridiculous argument to say that the government is not adhering to the advice we received. We have been given firm advice that we need to tighten up what is happening at our ports and airports and to tighten up on the people who are getting access to them through the MSIC and ASIC regimes and to make sure that people who have criminal associates and people that we understand are not the right people to be working there should be denied access to those secure areas. It is clear from the member for Grayndler's contribution that he really does not understand what the government is trying to achieve here. We engaged constructively with the opposition. We sat down with him and explained why his proposal will weaken what we are trying to achieve—
Mr Albanese: I have never sat down with you in my life.
Mr KEENAN: The government has sat down with you. This minister has sat down with you.
Mr Albanese: No he hasn't—
Mr KEENAN: You just cannot reason with some people. This is the problem. We can explain to him why what he has proposed here would weaken what the government is trying to do. What he has proposed here would allow the wrong people to continue to work at our ports and airports. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport provided examples in his contribution. Quite frankly, if the Labor Party wants to see more criminals at our ports and our airports then we are very happy to continue to have that argument.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:27): We have just seen the Minister for Justice in the national government of Australia speak about criminals who have not been convicted of crimes. That is actually what he said at the dispatch box and it is in Hansard. It is true that I find that difficult to comprehend—that a Minister for Justice would put forward such a proposition. He spoke about advice. The fact is that he then tried to verbal the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, indicating that people had sat down and got amendments. Let's be very clear: the first I found out exactly what the government was amending was when I walked in here about three-quarters of an hour ago. There has been no attempt to offer briefings by the department or by any security agencies about these amendments being moved on the floor of this parliament to reject the Senate amendments. So let's make that clear. If you were at all serious about outcomes and making a difference, then that would have occurred. I am very familiar with the people who are in charge of security around our ports and airports—very familiar with them—and I actually know what happens when you are serious about outcomes.
But getting serious about outcomes is not moving legislation that speaks about 'serious or organised' crime. When it is amended back, consistent with the Ice Taskforce and consistent with the very committee report that you say is the basis of this legislation in this parliament—the report that the Minister for Justice sat on and signed off on that spoke about 'serious and organised crime—when the public reports from the Attorney-General speak about the same thing, when the public reports of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development speak about the same thing, when the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, I assume moved by the junior minister in 2015, speaks about that—then why is it that, if they are at all fair dinkum, this legislation does not cover changing the definition in that piece of legislation? Is that piece of legislation in the minister's portfolio inadequate? I suggest not.
Having not succeeded in getting this changed definition through the Senate, and the Senate having determined it should be 'serious and organised' crime, consistent with all of the advice that is on the record, rather than 'serious or organised' crime, they come in here today and propose a change to get rid of 'organised crime' from the definition. They then say, 'Oh, it's about hardening things up.'
I will give the minister a tip. We had a few ministers for justice as well. They started off there and then they became Attorney-Generals or took cabinet positions. No wonder you are stuck there. Quite clearly, you do not follow advice. It is probably you, rather than Minister Chester, who is responsible for this debacle. Rather than have the legislation carried by the parliament, they are taking up time in the parliament in order to knock over their legislation.
Let us be very clear: the Senate has amended this legislation by rejecting the Senate amendments and proposing a whole new definition. If this is the best definition, why was it not proposed last week in the Senate? Why was it not a government amendment in the Senate last week to change the definition to 'serious crime'? If that was the best outcome—and there should be no compromise when it comes to the right outcomes for our national security—why did you not do it then? Why has this amendment been plucked from nowhere with another completely different definition from all of the definitions that are on the record? That is why this should be rejected. That is why the Senate amendments should be supported. That is why the legislation, as amended, should be supported and implemented if it is, indeed, the case that the government has advice that this is urgent. If it is urgent, why are they intervening, yet again, to knock over and change their own legislation?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:33): At the risk of prolonging the debate, I would like to make a few closing remarks in relation to the member for Grayndler's contribution. The only debacle is what is occurring on the other side of the House. The other side of the House is about to make an enormous mistake in relation to our attempts to strengthen the legislation relating to serious crime at our seaports and airports.
Under the government's legislation amendments before the House today, 'serious crime' will still encompass organised crime that is of a serious nature. The fundamental problem with the amendments that were put by the Labor Party to add 'and' to make it 'serious and organised' is that they would actually weaken the legislation. The member for Grayndler's contribution, indicating the change to get rid of 'organised crime' was some sort of weakening of legislation on our behalf, is a complete and utter myth. By using the phrase 'serious crime' we capture both.
The legal advice we have on the amendments the member for Grayndler originally put for this legislation is that it would require both to be present. What I am saying is that our legal advice is that using 'and' could be interpreted as requiring both elements to be present before a person could be deemed ineligible to receive and an ASIC or an MSIC card. The government believes requiring individuals to have committed both a serious and an organised crime is not in the interest of the safety of the Australian people. We reject the assertions made by the member for Grayndler. We are endeavouring to ensure that serious crime, in all its forms, will be encompassed through this legislation to provide for the safety of the Australian travelling public.
I urge the member for Grayndler and all those opposite to not make a huge mistake in this place when we divide in a few moments time because it will result in the weakening of the legislation. Almost inevitably in the past both sides have been able to agree in relation to safety in our transport sector. I urge the member for Grayndler to reconsider his position. In this place we are working in the interest of the Australian people, and I think he is making a huge mistake by insisting on using the phrase 'serious and organised' crime.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:36): I am keeping two of their ministers busy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I am sure the people of Australia greatly appreciate that.
Mr ALBANESE: This government has not got any legislation coming through. I am trying to assist. One of the things I would ask the minister to explain to the House and to the parliament is why, in the legislation considered by the Senate, was the definition 'serious or organised' crime? Now the proposed amendment is just 'serious crime'. Is there a distinction between the two? If there is no distinction between the two, why is it that originally the legislation was drafted to include 'serious or organised crime'? This is a fundamental issue. People can be critical and ask why we are seriously taking up these issues. This is a piece of legislation that arose from an ice task force report that was then considered by a joint committee that recommended unanimously 'serious and organised crime'. The Minister for Justice sat as part of that committee. It then took some time to have the legislation brought before the House. It then took some time for the legislation to be debated. It then had a consideration through the proper Senate processes, including submissions being considered. We then had the Senate determine to use the definition that has been used in the ice task force report and by the joint parliamentary committee. And, now, we have a different definition again that completely removes 'organised crime'.
I ask the minister to respond to the query that we have as members of parliament who have a duty to take these issues seriously: if 'serious crime' is the appropriate definition, why is it that the legislation that has been considered up until now included 'serious or organised crime'?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (12:39): I am genuinely unsure whether the shadow minister is unaware of the facts or whether he is just not concerned about them whatsoever.
Mr Albanese: This is a serious question.
Mr KEENAN: I will get to that. The fundamental argument that is occurring here is that the government want a broader definition to ensure the security of the Australian people and the Labor Party are arguing for a more restrictive definition of 'serious and organised' as opposed to the government's version of 'serious crime'. The most fundamental point is that organised crime is serious crime, so it is captured within the definition of 'serious crime'. Obviously, the government have the benefit of going back to our lawyers and asking what the practical implications are of changes that are made to legislation. And we went back and we asked: what is the practical implication? How would a court interpret 'serious and organised crime'—the definition that the Labor Party are currently pushing before this parliament? What is the practical implication of that when somebody goes before a court?
The practical implication is that a court will be required to identify whether a crime was considered to be serious and organised. If an individual—and this is the exact example that the minister for transport has put before the House—acting alone, just himself, were to commit a serious crime, but only one person was involved, then would a court interpret that as also being an organised crime? This is the point. If we are going to have a definition 'serious and organised crime', that is a more restrictive definition. That will allow the wrong people to be in our ports and our airports. 'Serious crime' is a stronger way to move this legislation forward. We do not want there to be a case where an individual has committed a serious crime—let's say they are involved in serious drug trafficking but they were not doing it in conjunction with other people, with a wider crime organisation—and the possibility exists for a court to say, 'Yes, that's a serious crime but it is not an organised crime.'
Now, do the Labor Party want those people working at our ports and airports? That is the question. I do not believe that the Labor Party genuinely want that. Surely, it is the case that they have misunderstood what they are proposing here. That does not mean that they need to follow through with a vote against the government's tougher and more sensible definition, which will allow our ports and our airports to be free from the sort of people we want them to be free from. Do we really want individuals who might not pass the threshold of committing an organised crime to work at our ports? Do we really want them at Sydney airport? Do we really want them at Fremantle port? I think that the answer clearly is no. If the answer clearly is no, then those opposite need to support the government's definition, as has been put with this amendment. 'Serious crime' covers 'organised crime'. If we are going to make it 'serious and organised', it will be harder for us to make sure that individuals who might not have been part of a wider crime organisation are restricted from working at our ports and airports. If that is the outcome the Labor Party want then I am flabbergasted.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (12:43): I will, if I could, attempt to strip the politics out of this. I do not really care who wins the point, the coalition or the Labor Party. But sitting back here and listening to the debate, I must say that I have become increasingly disheartened by the to and fro of this. I do sense that we have largely wasted the last half hour or so on a matter that has not really warranted this debate, and it has delayed members from getting on with other matters that do need to be addressed. I am no ally of the government when it comes to a lot of law and order matters. I am on the public record as saying, in the strongest possible terms, that I think we have gone way too far in legislative reform since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, that we have been far too quick to change the law and to toughen law when really existing laws were adequate. However, in this case, I do think that restricting this to 'serious' just makes sense—if I can apply a fresh perspective on this.
Surely, if we are relying on the term 'serious or organised' then obviously some harmless groups could be caught up in that term. I have also been quite outspoken about the crackdown on bikie gangs in this country because, while there are clearly some mischief-makers in some bikie gangs, most people who ride bikes and most people who join a gang are just law-abiding people like us who enjoy the friendship and camaraderie of a gang. If you have 'serious or organised', there is the real risk that some harmless groups would be caught up in the use of that term. But if we were to change it from 'or' to 'and' then the problem would be that for someone to be covered by this bill they would obviously have to be associated with both. They would have to be associated with serious criminal activity and also be part of organised criminal activity. What happens if someone is associated with serious criminal activity but is not part of organised crime? They would not be covered by this bill. That does not make any sense at all.
Surely, everyone in this place, myself included, would have a genuine belief in keeping the community safe. Surely, we would all agree that the only thing that really matters is that any individual or organisation that is associated with serious criminal misconduct should not be able to go onto the dock or onto the tarmac. They should not have access to these passes. The only thing that really should matter is whether or not they are or have been associated with serious criminal activity. I do not care if they are in the local bike gang. Chances are the local bike gang is a bike gang for people like us. It might be the retired politicians bike gang. It might be the Vietnam veterans bike gang. Most of the members of these bike gangs are just normal people like us who enjoy riding a motorbike and like to do it in a group, and good on them. I may well end up doing the same thing myself, although I will have to be very careful doing that in some jurisdictions in this country because I may be deemed to be a criminal. Who knows, the next election may not go all that well for me and afterwards I may want to get a job at Hobart airport as a baggage handler, and I do not think that just being in the ex-politicians bike gang should alone mean that I cannot get an airside ID card.
The issue, surely, is to stop people who are associated with serious criminal activity—to keep them off the tarmac, out of the secure areas of the airport and out of the secure areas of the docks. The only thing that matters is whether they are associated with serious criminal activity. It does not matter if they are in a group. This whole organised crime thing is a bit of a distraction in some ways. While I have been very critical of this government and previous governments for going too far with legislative reform when it comes to security matters, in this case I actually think the government has got it right and the opposition has got it wrong. We have all wasted far too much time on something that is really quite straightforward. It is about keeping people safe and keeping people who are associated with serious criminal activity out of sensitive areas at our ports and airports.
The SPEAKER: The question is that Senate amendments (1) to (6) and (9) to (12) be disagreed to and that, in place thereof, government amendments as set out in the schedule circulated to honourable members be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:52]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017
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 words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:
(1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and
(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut."—
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:57): Here we are again. It is the last sitting day and the government is again using the day to bash unions and not deal with the real matters that are pressing, such as meeting with Margarita, who is in the House today to meet with people to tell her story. Margarita is a hotel cleaner. Margarita works on Sundays. She earns about $30,000 a year and she is about to cop a $2,000-a-year pay cut. That is a big chunk of her pay. She has come to Canberra today to meet with the Prime Minister and he will not meet with her. She wants him to understand her story, but the government is not interested in meeting with real workers like Margarita. The government is not interested in supporting the amendment put forward by Labor on this bill, which calls upon the government to take seriously the effect that cutting penalty rates will have on low-paid workers. Instead, we have this bill before us. You have to question the timing. From the beginning, can I say that Labor will not stand for corruption in any form and that we support legislation that is drafted properly and applies to all companies and registered organisations. On this side of the House we do not tolerate corruption. You have to be sceptical and challenge the timing of this bill. It is well over 12 months since the Heydon report and recommendations were released. It happens at a time when we are having a debate about penalty rates, workers' rights and the minimum wage.
Let us just reflect for a moment on the Heydon report. This is the Dyson Heydon royal commission into trade unions, where, during the process of the royal commission, the commissioner involved agreed to attend a Liberal Party fundraiser before the commission had even wrapped up. All the funds raised at that Liberal Party fundraiser went directly back to the Liberal Party for their campaigning. We are not talking about a typical royal commissioner; we are talking about a royal commissioner that was involved or agreed to be involved in a Liberal Party fundraiser, so it was political from the beginning. This bill that is before us now is based upon three out of the 79 recommendations of that commission, and we have heard one speaker from the government—I am sure we will hear many more—stand up and use examples from that commission report about why this bill should be supported.
We heard the member for Dunkley yesterday have a go at the CFMEU about their drug and alcohol and safety committee. Let us focus for a moment on what the CFMEU is doing in this space. I have a picture here in front of me from their news centre, with John Setka and Shaun Reardon—two CFMEU officials from the Victorian branch—a health professional and management from Brookfield Multiplex. What brings this group together? It is a holistic approach to drug and alcohol policy. It is called the Building Industry Group. The union, in conjunction with Brookfield and health professionals, is rolling out the Australian-first Drug and Alcohol Management Program in one of the largest construction sites in Melbourne. The purpose of this is to allow construction workers to self-test before working on the job. Basically, it is a harm minimisation program. Its aim is to be anonymous, so that workers can self-test without fear of retribution. This then serves to decrease the risk that construction workers could put themselves and their colleagues at, and also provides them an opportunity for support and counselling. This program is innovative. It is a collaboration of unions working with an employer to encourage the workforce to self-test, so that if there is an issue, they can seek help and support. We know that construction is a dangerous industry and so the union in this case is being proactive in engaging.
This is just one of the many things that unions like the CFMEU do to make sure that make workplaces are safe, yet what we have seen from the government time and time again is this demonisation and politicisation of the union movement, whether it be in the ABCC debate or this debate. Let us just focus for a moment on how well the ABCC is going. In the last few weeks, since it has come back into action, we have had multiple media reports of Federal Court judges criticising the ABCC. In this report, 'Judge turns on ABCC for wasting time over "cup of tea" CFMEU incident' it says:
A federal court judge has blasted the Australian Building and Construction Commission for wasting time and taxpayers' money on taking two Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union officials to court for "having a cup of tea …
This is what the judge said:
This is all external forces that are beating up what's just a really ordinary situation that amounts to virtually nothing …
For goodness sake, I don't know what this inspectorate is doing.
The report continues:
He said when the ABCC "use[s] public resources to bring the bar down to this level, it really calls into question the exercise of the discretion to proceed".
This is the Federal Court saying back to the ABCC, a creation of this government, 'You're wasting our time; you're wasting the time of taxpayers.' This is what this government are focussed on. They have created an inspectorate about which our own Federal Court is saying, 'You're wasting our time; you're wasting the time of taxpayers.' This is not the only case. Last week we saw another article, published on 22 March, about a building case being thrown out. It said:
Taxpayers were left with a hefty legal bill after the ACT Supreme Court ordered the AFP to pay the bulk of the CFMEU's costs in a legal battle over an illegal raid on the union's Canberra office …
Monday's Federal Court decision is the latest legal setback for the ABCC, in its campaign … another judge last week sharply criticised for mounting a large and expensive case against the CFMEU over "virtually nothing".
This is what Federal Court judges are saying about your ABCC: lots of money being wasted, lots of the court's time being wasted on virtually nothing, wasting time over a cup of tea. That is the focus of this government. That is why we question this bill and that is why we are going to refer it to a Senate committee to really test its rigor. We have already seen the Federal Court's criticism of the ABCC: a waste of taxpayers' money, waste of time over virtually nothing.
And what is the ABCC pursuing these organisers for? We have had ministers stand up and say that dozens of CFMEU officials are facing criminal offences, and this is what they are dealing with. In the case of the cup of tea, the organiser had failed to give 24 hours notification of entering a site—an administrative error, a paper error. That is what it was. That is not a criminal offence. When people stand up here and say that that is a criminal offence, it is not. Failure to give 24 hours notice is an administrative error, a breach of the industrial relations. Let us not get carried away with the truth. It is a very long bow to draw. This is the problem that we have: a government that is fixated on prosecuting people who fail to submit a right of entry notice. That is not a major crime in this country, and it is completely the wrong focus for this government.
It is extraordinary that this bill was introduced and then brought on for debate one week later. There has been no action for 12 months, and now, because it suits them politically, it is being brought on. It damages their case to deal with corruption. The so-called corrupting benefits offences are broadly similar to existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public office, bribery of a foreign official and corrupting benefits. This is one of the reasons why we want to see this bill referred to the Senate, to see how it relates to other bills and if it is necessary or if it is conflicting.
We know that this government likes to politicise, likes to distract, likes to demonise those who stand up to make sure people's workplaces are safe. We have already seen the government this week vote against Labor's moves with the ABCC code to disallow sections in the Building Code that would have created jobs. They did not agree with our side of the House when we said, when workers and their employers agree to have clauses that encourage job creation, at least allow that to stay in an agreement. This government said no. Those opposite are not interested in seeing apprentices and apprenticeship ratios in construction workplaces—they have said that is prohibited content in a collective agreement. They are not interested in ensuring that we maximise local jobs over 457 visa workers or any other temporary visa workers, or in restrictions on labour hire—no, they voted against that so that is still part of the code. This is a government that will use anything they can to demonise their opponents.
Finally, on the amendment Labor has moved on penalty rates we are hearing more and more workers speak out about what the government's support for cutting penalty rates means. People earning $30,000 a year will lose $2,000 a year. These are low-paid workers. This government is now advocating restraint on increasing the minimum wage. Talk about a double whack for some of our low-paid workers. This government is not supporting these low-paid workers; it is advocating restraint in increases to the minimum wage. So Margarita is here right now in this building, and this government not only is standing by and letting her wages be cut by $2,000 a year but also is not willing to stand up and advocate and argue that her base rate should be increased. This is something that the government really misunderstands when we talk about the minimum wage—it is a floor, it is a safety net. When you calculate people's wages, you include Monday through to Sunday rates. One of the reasons people are so passionate about protecting their Sunday penalty rate is that their Monday to Friday rate is really low—really low. In some industries, where employers have had the ability to sit down with employees and their union to bargain a collective agreement, those workers are better off overall.
Time and again in question time we have seen the government stand up and have a go at the KFC agreement. Let me set the record straight there. The SDA, the principal union involved, sat down with KFC and the elected workplace delegates and negotiated a collective agreement which saw those workers overall be better off because they raised the Monday to Friday rates—the base rates. Full-time workers in KFC earn on average about $80 a week more than people who work for the award rate. You cannot just talk about the Sunday rate when you talk about penalty rates; you have to talk about the Monday rate, the Tuesday rate—you have to talk about what people take home. I urge the government to support Labor's amendment on take-home pay. I urge the government and all those opposite to stop engaging in union bashing, to stop hiding behind the dispatch box, behind parliamentary privilege, and to stop having a go at the very organisations that are calling upon them to do more for Australian workers—particularly those surviving on penalty rates. Margarita has worked in hotels for 30 years, and she is not alone—she is one of 700,000 low-paid workers in this country who are facing a pay cut because this government will do nothing to support them. It is a slippery slope, because we have already seen other industries' employer associations apply to Fair Work to reduce Sunday penalty rates. Clubs and hotels, cafes and restaurants have asked; beauty and hairdressing have asked—all low-paid industries, predominantly women working in low-paid industries who are now facing the prospect that if the Fair Work Commission starts to roll this out across industries they too will face a pay cut.
There is never a good time to talk about cutting wages for low-paid workers, but right now, when we have a government failing to protect those penalty rates, they should at least be standing up and starting to talk about increasing the minimum wage. The cost of living in Australia is going up, and those who are working hard but earning the same or less are falling further and further behind. I urge the government to sit back and think about what they are doing, to look at the politics of this. It just does not wash. Every time they stand up here and bag out a union, people know exactly what they are doing—just bagging out a union. They are not standing up for the workers in that union at all, despite the rhetoric.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:13): Typically at times like now I would make some comments about the previous speaker's points. However, the previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, did not seem to want to talk about the bill at hand. Instead, she focused her address on something else. At the end of the day, we are talking, in the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, about corrupting benefits. The fact that the Labor Party do not wish to address the topic probably provides some degree of insight into the extent to which they know there is a problem, and it is a rotten problem indeed.
When most people think of crime their minds likely turn to murder or robbery or some random act of violence, but one of the most insidious forms of crime, one that directly threatens our efforts to revive a civil society in Australia, is corruption. It is a very specific, chronic form of potential workplace corruption that this bill seeks to address. This bill aims to put an end to potentially corrupt secret payments that are too often exchanged between employers and unions to scratch each other's backs at great cost to workers, to the public and to efforts to retain the settings of our civil society.
The payments take many forms in many industries and have been in play for many years. The Winneke royal commission warned of the practice as long ago as 1982, but the Winneke findings were largely swept under the carpet by the Labor government that came into power in 1983, a government that was dominated then, as the Labor opposition is today, by the unions. The Gyles royal commission of 1992 made similar findings, but that inquiry reported under a Labor government just as beholden to unions and again nothing happened. It was not until the Cole royal commission 2003, when the Howard coalition government was in office, that finally there was some action. The Australian Building and Construction Commission was established in 2005 and tackled the issue in the construction sector, where the various commissions made clear the practice of secret payments to trade unions was most rampant.
But, once again, the flame of reform was snuffed out when, in 2012, the Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, at the behest of her union masters, killed the Building and Construction Commission, striking a desperate deal with union bosses and Labor members beholden to those unions, people who she hoped would help check the second coming of Kevin by following orders in any future leadership ballot. Thankfully, late last year this parliament, the 45th Parliament, reinstated the ABCC with significant enhancements to its investigative powers to match those wielded by ASIC and the ACCC. It is now an agency that packs a punch and it is back on the beat. This bill is simply an extension of a very determined interlocking effort involving complementary measures from the coalition to restore the rule of law not just to the construction sector but also to the relationship between employers and unions, wherever and however they may operate. It is firmly based on key recommendations in the final report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, known as the Heydon royal commission, which reported in 2015 and which made it very clear that the problem of these corrupt payments was occurring in industries right across the board.
This bill is very serious and makes it a criminal offence to give a registered organisation or a person associated with a registered organisation a potentially corrupting benefit. This bill makes it unambiguous that it is a criminal offence to receive or solicit a corrupting payment or benefit. It becomes a criminal offence for a national system employer other than an employee organisation to provide, offer or promise to provide any cash or in-kind payment other than certain payments to an employee organisation or its prohibited beneficiaries. It makes it a criminal offence to solicit, receive, obtain or agree to obtain any such prohibited payment and it requires representatives in any negotiation for a proposed enterprise agreement—which includes employers, employer organisations and unions—to disclose any financial benefits that such representatives would or could be expected to derive because of a term in the said proposed agreement. Very substantial penalties will now give real teeth to new limits on corruption in the workplace. The maximum jail term is 10 years. The maximum fines are $900,000 for an individual and $4½ million dollars for a company.
Labor of course sees this—as we heard from the previous speaker—as union bashing, but the reality is that this bill directly tackles employers who engage in secret corrupt payments to unions with just as much vigour as it does union officials. Take, for example, the Leader of the Opposition in a former guise. His Australian Workers Union turned this sort of corruption-type activity into an art form. He was a consummate artist indeed, a true Rembrandt, if you like, of the dodgy deals—deals that came at great cost to members and great benefit to the AWU. Thiess John Holland paid the AWU Victoria, the Leader of the Opposition's old outfit, $300,000 plus GST while it was building the EastLink, disguised as payments for training, back pain research, forum tickets and conference sponsorships—except there was no training, there was no back pain research, there were no forums and there were no conferences. It was all completely bogus, it was hidden and it was corrupt—corrupt on the part of the employer and corrupt on behalf of the union. Thiess Holland got industrial peace while the AWU got 300 grand. I call that extortion, pure and simple.
ACI Operations paid the AWU in Victoria—again, the Leader of the Opposition's old stomping ground——approximately $500,000 while they laid off workers at their Spotswood glass factory. That was invoiced by the union as—wait for it—paid education leave. It comes as no surprise that the money was never paid for education leave. Actually—and you may not believe this—the funds were mostly used to offset a loan for renovations to the AWU's head office. So, at the end of the day, the company had the benefit of a quiet, compliant union, and the AWU had a nice, freshly renovated office. Oh, and what did the workers get? Well, the workers got absolutely nothing—naturally. That is how these deals have worked.
There is also the infamous Clean Event episode, with a direct starring role for the now Leader of the Opposition. Clean Event paid AWU Victoria $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and that stripped them of penalty, overtime and shift loadings.
Mr Perrett: Signed off by the independent umpire—are you saying they got it wrong?
Mr TED O'BRIEN: In case you do not hear, Deputy Speaker, over the noise from the opposition, who clearly did not want this to be heard, let me repeat that: Clean Event paid AWU Victoria $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and that stripped them of penalty, overtime and shift loadings. This dirty deal was done via secret correspondence and was of course never disclosed to Clean Event workers—some of the lowest paid people in the entire workforce. In fact, a Clean Event level 1 casual worker would have been entitled to 176 per cent more per hour under the industry award than under the dirty deal done by the AWU with their employer, Clean Event.
Nothing could better explain the dire need for this bill than the Clean Event episode, for this bill requires that, whenever there is an exchange of money between one party and another, there has to be full disclosure, and that disclosure, which includes to workers, has to be made to them before they vote to accept an enterprise agreement negotiated by the union. Sometimes payments may be reasonable and appropriate and will add value to the deal for workers—no doubt. If the payment from an employer to a union is for training that is actually provided or for back pain research that is actually undertaken, then workers can take that into account when they cast their vote, and workplace authorities will also be in a position, on behalf of the workers, to ensure that all services are in fact provided. That level of transparency is obviously needed to also catch the other sorts of payments, like the dodgy deals already mentioned, or perhaps other deals, where benefits are paid not to union head office but to individuals for personal gain.
In one notorious Queensland case, for example, Dave Hanna, CFMEU official and former major office holder in the Australian Labor Party, used a corrupt payment from a builder for home renovations, in much the same way Bruce Wilson used a corrupt payment for renovations on Julia Gillard's Melbourne house. Full transparency around such payments is obviously crucial and must be legislated. It could save some people a lot of embarrassment, maybe. It could save other people a lot of money. Nine-hundred thousand dollars is a stiff fine for an individual, just as $4½ million is for a company, let alone the costs associated with the publicity such a conviction would bring. Ten years in jail is a long time, but it is clear from the long and sordid history of this issue that only very real disincentives will work.
Finally, it is indeed ironic that this problem, so well documented since at least the 1980s, is still a problem on the scale that it is, and the incidence of these corrupt benefits appears to be growing. Union membership in the private sector is now around 12 per cent. Only entrenched unionism in public services gets it up overall to around 15 per cent. This is, in historical terms, an embarrassingly small sample of the Australian workforce. These sorts of crimes of corruption ought therefore be diminishing, not growing, but of course that does not take account of the emerging shift in the politics of the Left in this country. The union movement, and especially the union movement at the Left of the spectrum, is now in full-scale tilt at taking over the Australian Labor Party. The union movement always has been a big influence, but now it is going for broke. The militant unions are going for total control. Troy Bramston, who writes for The Australian and commentates for Sky News, has worked for Labor and is a Labor historian of increasing note, and he has been saying much the same thing for a very long time—that the Left is taking over the Labor Party and its strongest players are from the Left unions.
At the end of the day, one only has to look to the CFMEU in particular to see not just the damage being done by the union movement but indeed when the Labor Party seeks to have their back, seeks to provide them coverage, by opposing bills such as that which is before the House today. At the end of the day, this bill will provide reliable transparency to protect the interests of workers—and it is the workers who have been the meat in the sandwich in this internal Labor battle. Thank God the coalition will protect them.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:28): I rise to speak on this amendment to the Fair Work Act. I thought I would put it in context, because we need to remember a little bit of history here. I take you back to the 2004 election, where the Howard government gained control of the Senate—one of the most Orwellian terms ever— and subsequently brought in something called Work Choices, as if people had choices. I take you back to what happened in workplaces when the Liberal-National coalition had unchecked power. What did they do? They rolled out individual contracts to undermine the Labor Party, to undermine the labour movement. I say that deliberately, because—it is no surprise; it is in the title of our party—we are the Australian Labor Party. I see us as the political wing of the labour movement. Heaven help us if we are not connected to the labour movement and all the wonderful work they do.
We saw what the Howard government did when their power was unchecked. We saw individual workers not being able to bargain collectively. From that we saw trade unions having to scramble to sign off on deals before their rights were taken away, and then we had the transition to fair workplaces under the Fair Work Act under the Labor government. People need to remember that history and see a lot of these deals in that context.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Burt Electorate: Harmony Week
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:30): Last weekend, I attended the first Harmony Week celebration hosted by the Australian Arab Association in my electorate of Burt. This was a lovely, relaxed family event with food stalls, clothes and craft stalls. I met with members of many communities, including many local Arab communities of different religious backgrounds, those working to assist refugees from Syria, local members of 350 Australia and the HFM community radio outside broadcast team—a pillar of our local community. It was excellent to see support from the City of Gosnells, local police and some of our newly minted WA Labor state MPs.
During the formalities, I was proud to speak about how Harmony Week should be regarded as one of the most Australian of celebrations. Australia is the wonderful country that it is because of its approach to multiculturalism. Ours is a unique approach, like no other in the world. We do not require assimilation where everyone is the same, nor do we promote ghettos or segregation. We invite those from around the world to share our 'boundless plains' and to continue to celebrate their culture and traditions here in Australia, consistent with our core Australian values of freedom and respect—respect for the rule of law, democracy and respect for each other.
The dynamism, growth, diversity and endeavour that this creates was on show at the Australian Arab Association's Harmony Week celebration, with performances from the Cockburn pipe band, Chinese lion dancers, African drummers and Greek dancers. I congratulate the Australian Arab Association, its president, Eamon, and organiser in chief, Amal, for the excellent event that they put on for our community to celebrate multiculturalism in Australia and our rich melting pot of Burt.
Chisholm Electorate: Box Hill RSL
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:31): I rise today to acknowledge the invaluable contributions and integral role the Box Hill RSL makes to Chisholm and to the broader community. A beacon of mateship, community support, companionship and an important home for the commemoration of our local war history, the Box Hill RSL is an integral part of the Chisholm community. The Box Hill RSL serves its members and the community with pivotal veterans' services and plays an undeniably essential role in the Chisholm community. They uphold Australian values of integrity, loyalty, patriotism, empathy, mateship and commemoration. Importantly, they ensure that we, as Australians, continue to honour our service men and women by providing outstanding advocacy and welfare.
Last Saturday, I was honoured to meet Colonel Jan McCarthy, guest speaker at the Box Hill annual function. She served in the Australian Army for 26 years. A former director of Army nursing, she nursed many Australians during the Vietnam War.
I would also like to pay a special tribute to the Box Hill RSL's extremely hardworking committee, comprising President Tony Bowden, Vice-President Trevor Symes, Secretary Ray Wall, Treasurer Arthur Merryweather, John Haward, Brian Tateson, John Sheehan, Judy Coates and Robin Dawes.
As we remember those who sacrificed so much so that the 'lights of freedom and humanity might continue to shine' during this our ANZAC centenary, I am particularly proud to be associated with the Box Hill RSL, which represents the pinnacle of Australian mateship.
Blaxland Electorate: Stacey Street
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:33): Stacey Street in my electorate is the fourth slowest road in all of Sydney. In fact, it is the slowest road in Sydney outside the CBD. It is the seventh slowest road in all of Australia. In fact, it is the seventh slowest road in all of Australia and New Zealand. That is the conclusion of this report by Austroads that was released only a couple of months ago.
The report says that the average speed on Stacey Street is only 18 kilometres an hour and that the street is used by about 60,000 motor vehicles every day. It sometimes takes 40 minutes just to travel five kilometres. So it is a major bottleneck in my electorate. It is a major bottleneck for all of Sydney. It is caused by three lanes merging into two. The solution is pretty simple. We just need three lanes all the way from the M5 Motorway all the way through to the Hume Highway.
The Liberal state government have promised that they would fix this. They made that commitment at the last state election. We are still waiting for that. The people of my community are sick of being forgotten by Liberal governments, state and federal, whether it is cuts to our schools, whether it is what we have seen happen so terribly at Bankstown hospital, or whether it is roads like this or cuts to penalty rates. So I call on the state government: make good on your promise and fix Stacey Street once and for all.
Kookaburra Kids
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:35): Last week, I joined my colleagues Treasurer Scott Morrison and Minister for Veterans' Affairs Dan Tehan at the launch of the Kookaburra Kids program for Defence Force families, both current and returned. Kookaburra Kids has been operating for over 15 years. It provides much-needed support for young people living in families affected by mental illness. From humble beginnings, the program has grown to over 1,100 kids—one of the largest of its kind in Australia.
For those in our community who have served our nation, the impacts can be felt every single day. While today, thankfully, there is greater awareness of mental illness in the Defence forces, the impact at home on the kids had been overlooked. I am proud that the Turnbull government, with full bipartisan support, has committed $2.1 million over two years to work with the Kookaburra Kids Foundation to develop a pilot program specifically tailored to the needs of our veterans' families. Kids will be able to build supportive peer networks, learn where to turn for help and have fun with others in similar situations, so they know they are not alone.
In my electorate, so much great work has been done in the mental health space for both current serving men and women and veterans. As a community, we ask much of our Defence Force personnel. It is vital that we provide support for their families in return.
New South Wales: Gosford By-Election
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:36): The Gosford by-election is just over a week away. Labor candidate Liesl Tesch knows that more needs to be done to boost infrastructure on the coast. Labor has a plan to do it. The Liberal government has played politics with the peninsula. The Woy Woy underpass is the Liberals' most notorious broken promise. It is scandalous that the New South Wales coalition government have seen the cost of the Woy Woy rail underpass blow out from $52 million to $112 million and have blamed their mishandled estimates as an excuse to scrap the project, even though they have known for years how much it would cost.
The Premier, and the two former Liberal premiers who oversaw this project, completely botched it and knew it was set to fail from the start. Gladys Berejiklian is happy to spend up big on Sydney-centric projects but is burying her head in the sand when it comes to funding infrastructure in the regions and on the Central Coast. Once again, Labor has to come and clean up the mess that the Liberals have left in their wake, caused by people who do not know the coast, do not know our issues and do not care about making the coast an even better place to live, work and raise a family. Luke Foley and a Labor government will build the underpass. Liesl Tesch is a local who is standing up for Gosford and the peninsula. Vote Labor on 8 April.
Pollie Pedal
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:38): Next Monday a group of 50 to 60 cyclists will set off on a 1,000-kilometre ride from Albury to Sydney via Wagga, Talbingo, Cooma, Canberra, Goulburn, Mittagong and Camden. This year's annual Pollie Pedal, the 20th in the series, will raise funds for Soldier On, the organisation that supports veterans, especially those from more recent campaigns such as Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. We hope that through this year's ride we will raise about half a million dollars for a new Soldier On facility at North Head, where the ride concludes eight days after we begin next Monday.
Along with the member for Warringah, who co-founded this event 20 years ago, the members for Hume, Canning, Lyne, Solomon and I will participate in all or part of the event, with some 40 to 50 other cyclists. Anybody who would like to follow our progress, or indeed make a donation to a very worthy cause—namely Soldier On—can either go to my web page, kevinandrews.com.au, or my Facebook page, where there are links, or go directly to the web page www.polliepedal.org.au.
Water
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:39): I would like to take the opportunity to correct the record as put by the member for Kennedy on 1 March in this place, when he asserted I supported giving water resources to a foreign corporation. The member has very much mistaken as something else entirely my support for investment in our country, my support for investment in industries and jobs and my support for the structures that are in place that work to ensure such investments are for the benefit of this country.
The member has mistaken as something else entirely my objection to the whipping up of anti-Chinese sentiment around the investment in the Ord irrigation scheme, which is a well-scrutinised long-term project that is delivering opportunities in the far north of Western Australia. The leased land in the Ord irrigation region was not 'given away to the Chinese', as the member stated. In return for this lease, we have seen investment in land development in the order of $100 million. Jobs have been created for local people, and the company buys its farming chemicals and fertilisers from the local farmers cooperative. Importantly, locals who actually live in Kununurra and the surrounds support the investment and enjoy the positives this investment has brought to the local economy.
Before getting caught up in an irrational fear about 'selling the farm' and who it is being sold to, let us remember that UK based investors top the list of foreign owners of Australia's farmland, followed by United States investors and those from the Netherlands. Let us remember also that none of these investors can roll up this farmland like a carpet and take it away.
In One Voice Festival
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:41): On 19 March I had the pleasure of attending In One Voice, a Jewish cultural street festival in the wonderful part of my electorate called Elsternwick—but I will concede that it was slightly over the boundary and just outside of the electorate. In One Voice 2017 brought all strands of the Jewish community together, as well as the broader community, in learning about and celebrating Jewish life in Australia. It was a remarkable celebration of Jewish culture featuring live music, art competitions and exhibitions, community groups, food, art and craft markets, as well as face painting and group activities for kids. The sounds, the tastes and the experiences of the Jewish community and their rich contribution to our wonderful country were on full display.
On behalf of the Goldstein community, I would like to thank the organising committee, including Renata Singer, Judith Weizman, Helen Greenberg, Doodie Ringelblum and Dvora Zylberman. In One Voice would not be possible without the support of the festival partners and presenters, and that is why we thank Kadimah, the Jewish Cultural Centre and National Library, as well the Jewish youth group SKIF. I look forward to next year's festivities, because this year they brought together incredible singers and performers—Deborah Conway was there, performing and opening the festival—as well as many community organisations that make Melbourne's Jewish community so important to our rich way of life.
Legal Aid
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:42): The campaign against the government's cruel cuts to community legal centres is gathering steam. Domestic violence campaigner and former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty, who knows firsthand how vital community legal centres are in protecting victims of domestic violence, has started an online petition in the form of a letter to Malcolm Turnbull, calling for him to reverse the 30 per cent cuts due to come in on 1 July. In just over a week that petition has attracted more than 13,000 signatures—13,000 people who understand the importance of community legal centres keeping their doors open.
So why do the Attorney-General and his Prime Minister fail to listen? Are they deaf to the people who say that they have been helped, or who say that their lives have been saved, thanks to community legal centres? Rosie Batty herself now says: 'I do not know how to get through to George Brandis.' After a series of announcements in the early part of Prime Minister Turnbull's leadership, Ms Batty said that she has had no direct contact from ministers. It is shocking and shameful and they must do better.
The government can start by recognising the overwhelming support for community legal centres in this country and reversing these cruel cuts. For a government that says that it wants to do something about family violence to be cutting the frontline services that deal with family violence is truly shameful.
Anzac Day
International Development Assistance
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:44): Before parliament comes back again many of us will attend Anzac Day ceremonies. Last year I was fortunate to visit Tyne Cot Cemetery, the largest Commonwealth cemetery in the world. Over 10,000 soldiers are buried there. In the centre of the cemetery are the pillboxes that the Australian troops captured when they stormed there. But, standing there and looking out across the fields, what you failed to realise is that there are the bodies of 500,000—half a million—men in the two-mile radius. It was the battle known as Passchendaele.
As this is the last sitting day before we head to the budget, I am reminded that our foreign aid budget has dropped from $5 billion to $3.8 billion. There are 60 million people on the move and 30 million of those are children. The decisions that we, the collective governments of the world, make usually end up being peaceful decisions or decisions that end up with the death of many, many millions of people.
I would say that, as we think about our budget going forward, it is time we started to have a real discussion about what the Australian government's response is going to be to contributing to the world in the way of aid rather than contributing to the world in the way of defence. I think that we should start to increase our foreign aid expenditure from $3.8 billion up. The world seems to be arming itself. We should break that trend and actually become more compassionate and more responsive.
Macarthur Electorate: Shine Community Choir
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:45): I want to talk about arts funding. The 2016-17 budget was both a slight relief and a disappointment for arts groups—relief that there were not more of the savage cuts from previous budgets but disappointment that there was still the 9.5 per cent in real terms cut through the efficiency dividend, leading to a stream of job losses and undermining arts organisations large and small. Participation in the arts and engagement in musical, artistic or dramatic pursuits does not just make us feel good—it connects us. In my community, where the Blue Mountains is the 'city of the arts' and the Hawkesbury has an active cultural life, we know it.
The Shine Community Choir was founded in 2013 by singer-songwriter and now choir master Nikki Giezekamp-Bakija. Her vision was to create a 200-strong community choir for all voices and ages in the Blue Mountains. Working with the Springwood Neighbourhood Centre, choir members have already performed at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York after a concert group saw a Shine Community Choir performance on YouTube. The choir is made up of people from all walks of life who simply share a passion for singing.
Last month I joined with the Blue Mountains MP, Trish Doyle, and the Shine Community Choir patrons, Mayor Mark Greenhill and Maurice Cooper, to celebrate Shine Community Choir's success. But, like every community arts activity, they have to do it completely on their own or with small amounts of spare change that the neighbourhood centres have. I have to say: it would be great to see these sorts of grassroots groups given some recognition.
McMillan Electorate: Woorayl Lodge
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:47): Woorayl Lodge in Leongatha is a not-for-profit community based residential aged-care service. My aged-care heroes today are Keith Marshman, Graeme Evans, Robert Bruce, Judith Bright, Chris George, Leo Argento, Geoff Robb, Linda Fiddelaers, Mark Pearce, Garry Van Sinderen, Jo White and Carolyn Little. These people are the board members of this particular not-for-profit aged-care facility, and they are my aged-care heroes, who give their own time and effort to look after those people in Leongatha and surrounds who are ageing in place—ageing in community.
I am talking about these not-for-profit organisations not only in my electorate but also in regional Australia because Woorayl Lodge is just like a whole lot of not-for-profit organisations throughout Australia. I am raising the issue of appropriate funding that has not been given by successive governments, including this one, to support these not-for-profit organisations. In fact, I am suggesting the larger for-profit organisations have been receiving the bulk of the energy and funds coming out of this government and previous governments for aged care.
Western Sydney
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:48): I rise to thank the 300 members in the communities of Western Sydney who have contributed submissions against the proposed incinerator at Eastern Creek. This is another fine example of the good people in my community of Lindsay and those around in Chifley, Greenway and McMahon. Sadly, Western Sydney knows too well the reality of fighting against the garbage we do not need and begging for the stuff we do, which is too often to the unwilling ears of Liberal governments, as was pointed out in the honourable member for Blaxland's speech before.
This is disappointing, given the platitudes we so often hear about our community of Western Sydney from those same Liberals who announce how important Western Sydney is to the rest of the country. Well, they have one thing right: Western Sydney is important and we deserve the same benefits in our communities, like jobs, infrastructure and amenity, that the rest of Sydney gets to enjoy.
We do not need the largest incinerator in the world located 800 metres away from homes and 1.8 kilometres from a school. We need jobs, education and a hospital to support our growing population. We need some meaningful dialogue about the long-term environmental future and the heat island effect that saw temperatures reach, unofficially, 50 degrees during summer. We do not need populations being pushed to the fringe of Sydney without meaningful investment.
This incinerator is another example of how little Liberals think of Western Sydney residents. We fought off toxic waste at Hunters Hill, a proposed industrial waste facility in the backyard of Orchard Hills and a maximum security jail built on the flood plains of the most flood-prone river in this country, and we are still fighting against an airport that will see a lot of talk about the benefits to our community but not a lot of action. (Time expired)
Turnbull Government
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:50): It is a pleasure to be able to stand and record on the Hansard the Turnbull government's commitment to jobs and growth. We are supporting families and communities, and we are supporting that through record funding in health. We are supporting jobs and growth strategies by record levels of funding in education. We are putting downward pressure on household electricity prices by an announcement that the Turnbull government made more recently and in and around the Snowy Mountains scheme too. We are saving lives by putting medicines through to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and we are defending 60,000 volunteer firefighters in Victoria from hostile union takeovers.
We are supporting the principle of jobs and growth by stronger economic management. There has been no less than $22 billion in sensible budget repair since the election because we are getting on with the job. We are providing income tax cuts to middle Australia for more than 500,000 people, and we are making multinationals pay their share of tax, leading dividends back to this nation of around $2 billion, which those on the other side of this House opposed, and I remind Australians of that. The diverted profits tax, which those on the other side did support, has landed us $100 million to date. We are getting on with the job of creating jobs and growth, restoring trust in government, cutting red tape and getting rid of some of the skeletons that were left behind. And we are providing stronger borders. It has been over 900 days since the last successful boat arrival in this country. We are supporting jobs and growth.
Cyclone Debbie
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:52): While I am down here in Canberra, back home in my electorate of Moreton things are getting very, very damp. My kids are home from school. Their spirits are pretty high, but a lot of other people are very worried as ex-tropical Cyclone Debbie heads down the Queensland coast. So far in my electorate, the suburbs of Archerfield, Oxley, Corinda, Rocklea, Fairfield, Moorooka—where I live—Willawong and Yeerongpilly have been affected. Some of those suburbs are on the majestic Brisbane River, but Oxley Creek and its tributaries are also very high today and rising.
I obviously urge everyone in Moreton to take care. Please stay off the roads, if you possibly can. Do not go rubbernecking. I know people love to go down to some of these low-lying areas but, if they can possibly help it, they should stay away. Please make sure your children who are home from school do not go out and play in the floodwaters. If you need help with water inundation, please call the SES on 132500 or the Brisbane City Council on 34038888. Of course, if there is anything life threatening, please call 000. All schools in Moreton—and, indeed, all over South-East Queensland—are closed today. I know already that there are some private schools that will not be open tomorrow. You need to check the school websites where you can.
Unfortunately, my Lions seniors health and wellbeing expo had to be cancelled this morning so that we could keep people off the road, but I will try to reschedule that with a few local events. Please check your letterboxes for invitations for these health forums.
Emerald Medical Centre
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:53): I rise today to speak about a person who is incredibly important to the community of Emerald in my electorate of La Trobe. Dr George Somers took over the Emerald Medical Centre in 1981 after the sudden death of Dr Murphy, who previously ran the clinic as a sole practitioner. Since then, Dr Somers has built up the clinic with a view to providing a one-stop shop for health care to the residents of Emerald and its surrounds.
The Emerald medical clinic operates with eight GPs, four nurses and eight reception staff. They are all doing a fantastic job. As well, there are 10 allied health practitioners providing healthcare services that complement the regular GP services available at the same location. This means that residents can now access their services at the same location, meaning more seamless health care in general for those who need it most. Emerald Medical Centre is also focused on disaster planning and response. It has the capacity to treat 20 patients during times of emergency. We all know what it is like up in the Dandenong Ranges each summer with the concern of bushfires.
I am very excited that coming up soon is the grand re-opening of the Emerald medical hub, which seeks to put patients at the centre of health care, as they should be. Again, I congratulate Dr Somers for implementing his vision with passion. The grand re-opening is only a few weeks away. Well done, Dr Somers.
Epilepsy
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:55): I want to speak briefly about epilepsy. The Sunday just gone was Purple Day, epilepsy awareness day. Epilepsy is a devastating medical condition that causes seizures and can impact on an individual's day-to-day life. Currently, the NT is one of two states and territories in Australia that does not recognise epilepsy as a disability. But I understand that there is work going on to look at that. Unfortunately, as a result, there is not too much support going around for the many, many thousands of Territorians living with this condition. A direct consequence of not having this vital funding is that the Territory is the only state or territory without an epilepsy support organisation to support these individuals and their families.
I recently had the opportunity to speak with Caitlyn Rolfe, a mother of a five-year-old boy who has epilepsy currently living in Darwin. Caitlyn has recently started a Facebook page called 'Epilepsy in the Top End'. I will help her to run an epilepsy awareness event next year. Caitlyn is hoping such an event will raise more awareness about epilepsy in the Territory, with a future goal of establishing an epilepsy organisation in the Top End. I commend the work of Caitlyn Rolfe and the many other families living with epilepsy every day.
Banks Electorate: Beverly Hills Parking
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (13:56): It is time to build a car park in Beverly Hills. The federal government has put $2.5 million on the table to build this much-needed piece of infrastructure, and it is time for the Georges River Council and the state government to step forward and build this car park.
Beverly Hills is a very active and vibrant part of my community. There are dozens of fantastic restaurants there. We have the GU playhouse cinema and a whole range of other small businesses there employing literally hundreds of people. The big problem is that parking in Beverly Hills is atrocious. That is why the federal government has committed $2.5 million dollars towards fixing this parking problem once and for all.
What we need now is for the Georges River Council and the state government to come forward and to build this car park which is so greatly needed in our community. Beverly Hills is a central hub for residents in the area—people from Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills itself and surrounding areas. So many families in my community visit Beverly Hills to go to one of the terrific restaurants there, but parking is a huge problem. It needs to be fixed. I want to thank Cliff Yung from D to D Cafe in Beverly Hills and all of the other members of the Beverly Hills business community for their strident support on this most important issue.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (13:58): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) Members' statements being interrupted at 2 pm for government business;
(2) questions without notice being called on at 2.30 pm; and
(3) speech time limits on the leave of absence motion being 5 minutes per Member.
Question agreed to.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (13:59): I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 30 March, 2017.
Question agreed to.
Mr PYNE: On indulgence, I will just update the House on the sitting hours situation. Unfortunately, I do not have good news for colleagues in the House of Representatives. The Senate will not return any of the bills that the government is intending to pass in the session this evening or in the early hours of the morning. For those people who have been through this many times before, it takes about an hour to three hours to turn around bills from the Senate into the House of Representatives. We could sit here all night until the early hours of the morning and have nothing to actually deal with from the Senate. Even if they finish at 3 am or 4 am, which is very unlikely, as they have scheduled a shower break for 4 am, it will be 7 am or 8 am when they turn around those bills. The government's view is that we will suspend the House late this afternoon in the normal course of events. Then we will have the House suspended until the ringing of the bells, and the ringing of the bells will not be before 9 am on Friday. That will give the Senate, and the people who do all this good work in the House on our behalf, time to get those bills back to us in the format that we can then deal with them.
I do not apologise; it is not the fault of me or the government. I do express some regret to the rest of the House that the Senate has put us in that position. But they are also a democratically house and that is the choice that they have made. So we are sitting on Friday. We will, obviously, try tomorrow morning to expedite the business as quickly and efficiently as possible. That will mean that people will get home on Friday, but, unfortunately, we cannot get home first thing in the morning as I had originally hoped.
Leave of Absence
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:01): I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:02): We often hear that there is an energy transition that has been going on across Australia over the last couple of years. And that is true. But that transition has been won from a low-cost environment, where Australians have enjoyed some of the lowest-cost electricity in the world that has given our nation an enormous competitive advantage. We have transitioned that to having one of the highest electricity costs in the world, putting our nation at a significant competitive disadvantage.
In a war, the first thing you do when you attack your enemy is take out their base load electricity-generating power stations. That is what has happened throughout history, from World War II to the recent Gulf War. Yet this is exactly what we have been doing to ourselves—our own nation—by taking out one coal-fired power station after the other, with the most recent one to close down, of course, being Hazelwood.
We have seen the effect of that in today's papers. With the closure of Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria, analysts are forecasting a 10 per cent to 20 per cent increase in household bills. That is a 10 per cent to 20 per cent increase in everyone's electricity bill on top of what we were paying already. And the Greens were actually cheering about this. It is not only the cost; it is further unreliability. We have heard that next summer, with the closure of Hazelwood, there will be a 75 per cent chance of blackouts in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.
Of course, the overall cost to our nation is staggering. Our nation's total electricity bill at the moment is around $50 billion. If we were able to match the electricity prices that they have in the United States, and where we were just a few years ago, that would be a $25 billion saving to this nation annually. That is $100 billion over four years extra that this nation is paying in electricity.
That hurts the poorest and less well off in this nation. We know we have record numbers of Australians who have had their electricity disconnected. Thousands of Australians are now living in homes without any electricity because they could not afford their bills. We know that this coming winter there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Australians who will be sitting in cold homes, unable to afford to turn their heaters on. And the effects on their health will be significant.
But the real cost is the loss of our international competitiveness. If we are going to create wealth in this country, it is quite simple: we need human ingenuity and low-cost electricity. You combine those two things together and that is what creates the wealth of this nation. That is what creates the wealth to pay for our pensions, aged care, care for kids with disabilities, schools and childcare facilities—everything we hear that members from both sides of the parliament would like to spend more on. But we have to create that wealth, and we cannot create that wealth in this nation if we are going to have some of the highest electricity prices in the world. So I call on members of the Labor Party: please put aside your ideological zealotry on this issue. Think about the welfare of your fellow Australians first. Think about the importance of having a competitive nation. I call on you to abandon the 50 per cent renewable energy target that you are pursuing. If you have any questions about what happens under a 50 per cent renewable energy target, just look at the unmitigated disaster in South Australia—some of the highest electricity prices in the nation, jobs being lost, chaos and unmitigated hardship and suffering in that state because of their ideological pursuit.
So we have a choice in this nation. If we want that 50 per cent renewable energy target, we know where it heads us—down the road of South Australia. Graham Richardson has said to pursue it is an open display of arrogance and stupidity. I call on the Labor members: please abandon your 50 per cent renewable energy target. (Time expired)
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (14:07): The question being asked again and again in our body politic is: how has a seemingly smart man made such stupid strategic decisions over and over? The Prime Minister's conduct of the 18C debate reveals the true character of the government and the true character of the Prime Minister—powerless within his own party; pandering to an ideological right-wing that regard the Prime Minister as an outsider, even an imposter; pursuing an issue that appeals to a tiny rump of hard-line ideologues but not the great majority of Australians; pursuing legislative changes that seek to solve a problem that does not really exist. It consumes the political capital of a government that has none to spend; it consumes momentum of a government that is already in paralysis; it mobilises key parts of the community against the Liberal Party, parts of the community from whom a smarter, more centrist Liberal Party may have hoped to draw support rather than such fierce opposition; and it ensures that this government continues to talk about issues that are irrelevant to ordinary Australians, to talk about boutique alternative right causes.
I cannot believe that we are here again, having once again to fight this fight to stop the government weakening protections against hate speech. We first had to fight this fight during the reign of Prime Minister Tony Abbott. You might recall on that occasion that the Attorney-General, George Brandis, famously made the argument for change based around the notion that 'people have the right to be bigots'. At that time, it was primarily about protecting their mate Andrew Bolt and showing that he was hard done-by at the hands of a vast politically correct conspiracy, a conspiracy that haunts the dreams and populates the nightmares of conservative politicians.
There was at that time a massive movement from the Australian community, ethnic representative groups and the Labor Party to put a stop to those changes. And, ultimately, even the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah realised his mistake, saying:
Leadership is about preserving national unity on the essentials and that is why I have taken this position.
At that moment, Prime Minister Tony Abbott showed more backbone and a greater realisation of what it means to be leader, a greater sense of strategic nouse, than Prime Minister Turnbull ever has.
But here we are again pursuing a debate and a piece of legislation that we know the Prime Minister does not support, we know the Deputy Prime Minister does not support and we know the Australian people do not support. Once more, the 'Idaho Militia' that dominate the Liberal Party room have prevailed over a Prime Minister that has no authority in the party he stole, the party he led to near-catastrophe in 2016. In August last year Turnbull said, 'The government has no plans to change 18C. We have other, much more pressing priorities to address and they include big economic reforms.' Has he just run out of policy or, once more, has he been overrun by his right wing?
Even the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, has slammed the Liberal Party for focusing on this issue as a political distraction. When the Deputy Prime Minister is the person making the most sense, we all know this government is close to losing its will to live! A Fairfax-Ipsos poll of 28 March found that eight in 10 voters oppose changes that would make it legal to 'offend, insult or humiliate'. The Australian people know it is wrong and it is unpopular. The Turnbull government even excluded Indigenous voices from the 18C inquiry notwithstanding the fact that 54 per cent of complainants identify as Indigenous.
The law as it is now strikes the right balance between free speech and protecting people from racial hate speech. Section 18C says it is unlawful for a person to do an act in public which is 'reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' another person or a group of people. Offend, insult and humiliate have a legal definition which case law has determined creates a high bar, and 18D creates public interest and good faith protections which those opposite always fail to consider.
This will impact my electorate. The electorate of Batman is proudly multicultural and is among the most diverse communities in Victoria. Half of my constituents speak a language other than English and one in 10 are not fluent in English. It has the largest urban Aboriginal population in Victoria and is home to many Aboriginal peak bodies. What does this government want people to be able to say that they cannot say now? What does the government want members of my community to be able to hear that they cannot hear now? (Time expired)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:12): I am devastated by last week's Therapeutic Goods Administration decision to continue the ban on e-cigarettes. Everyone here would know that two-thirds of Australians who smoke are helped to an early grave not just by carcinogens, not just by toxins, but also increasingly by a nation that will not contemplate alternatives where the rest of the world does. New Zealand put us to shame this week by legalising e-cigarettes. The UK has openly trialled them and even developed locations for vaping around hospitals. In the USA they are freely available, as they are across the EU.
For those in the gallery who do not realise, these are small implements with nicotine solution that recreates a sense of smoking and delivers nicotine without any of the harmful effects. I can appreciate the primum non nocere notion that we first do absolutely no harm but, surely, if you are going to ban e-cigarettes, how can you possibly collect the evidence? We have the rest of the developed world recognising that we can lower the years lost due to smoking by turning to these devices. Sixty-eight per cent of smokers will tell you they would use them if they were a similar price or less. Three-quarters of Australians in surveys say they would contemplate this as an alternative.
I am not about to tell you that there are no other concerns with nicotine solution. Surely if a child drank a litre of it, that would be a problem. Yes, if it touches your skin, it can be absorbed. This is the case with every drug that we have at our disposal—it has benefits and it has risks. But it is the Royal College of Physicians that we should perhaps be listening to. This august group in the UK, where clearly vaping is not the enemy of the state that it is in Australia, said provision of the nicotine that smokers are addicted to without the harmful components of tobacco smoke can prevent most of the harm from smoking. And, I add, it is without a single cent's cost to the taxpayer.
We spend billions trying to combat smoking, and here is a ready alternative available to the Australian public. But, no, we will suppress it and continue this ban purely on the argument of lack of evidence. The result is mislabelling of this product, selling it not on the free market but selling it on the black market and importing it from overseas. For goodness sake! We are not talking about cocaine. We are talking about nicotine. If we redesigned the system, we would have no cigarettes and no e-cigarettes, but that is not how it is. Millions of Australians who are addicted need something at their disposal other than a patch. This recreates the sense of having a cigarette. It is reasonably socially acceptable in every other wealthy country except Singapore. That is right; we are lining ourselves up with the absolute prohibition model of Singapore. Many times I have come in here and spoken about the benefits of Singapore. But we are talking about a massive public health battle. We are talking about billions being spent, not just in prevention but in trying to save the lives of people in hospital.
I have seen it for myself, as an eye surgeon treating people who, after a life of smoking, suffer cataracts, macular degeneration and even glaucoma—all of which have smoking related impacts. I do not want to see another person going blind if we can avoid it. I do not want to see another person going to an early grave if we can avoid it. These things are already on the market but are simply not available. We need a TGA that does not take an absolute no-risk approach. We need a balanced approach to this. With a black ban, you cannot even do the trials.
Having reviewed the research in the area, the Royal College of Physicians—it is great, isn't it, Deputy Speaker Vasta; they have done the evaluation, the research, for our TGA—came to the conclusion that e-cigarettes are one of the most useful aids to quitting. They also found that the hazard to health arising from e-cigarette use is unlikely and—please remember this, after I am long gone—the dangers of e-cigarettes are less than five per cent of the dangers of smoking. There is a net benefit of 19 out of 20, and we cannot get a trial in this country.
There are some very smart people in the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I am not advocating for civil disobedience. I am not telling smokers to put their packs above their heads and go down and picket the joint. But it is time we had a more open approach to data and evidence. It is time we had a trial like this, because I do not want to relive the five years when we fought against medical cannabis, only to have a Eureka moment and discover we should not have taken the attitude that the evidence was not complete. You know what? The evidence will never be complete as long as we ban something that is already broadly available. We should be more open to work with our supermarkets, with our points of sale, and through education and the public health groups to make sure that vaping is possible in Australia. It is already there. We should stop turning a blind eye and work together to beat the scourge of smoking.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (14:17): What is going on with the mob opposite? What kind of government are they that seem to have lost the basic ability to count—one of the most important attributes in politics? They have advanced to the Senate a proposition on the issue of 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that they know will be defeated. It is just like when they advanced the idiotic idea that Australians, including many of the decent people opposite, should support an extradition treaty to China, knowing that they did not have the numbers. Three weeks ago in this place I signalled, in a speech rejecting a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, that Labor had its doubts about passing the extradition treaty. It was reported in the newspaper, in The Australian. The government seems to have lost the ability to understand politics. Fancy tantalising our Chinese trading friends with a treaty and then withdrawing it in front of their eyes.
In a diverse, racially harmonious country like Australia—a success story—why are you abandoning something that has existed for many years? I might say, it was for 11 years of the Howard government. Sections 18C and 18D—the two provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act that have seen harmonious relations between all Australians maintained—are going to be abandoned. As the member for Batman pointed out, it is because of some ideological ginger group in the government that does not represent many of the good people on the other side. It is completely non-understandable that you would put up these resolutions and discredit yourselves, when you know they are not going to be successful.
It is not only that sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act were completely okay for the 11 years of the Howard conservative government. I want to give you some examples of the kinds of things that should never be seen in or supported by the Australian public. There was a case before the equal opportunities commission relating to Olga Scully, who repeatedly distributed anti-Semitic literature in letterboxes in Launceston. She sold and offered such literature in a public market in Launceston, offending and confronting many people. She said that people who were victims of the Nazi genocide were stealing people's money, that they were frauds et cetera. How many times does this have to happen under the government's proposed new reframed act for a similar judgement to be made against people like Ms Scully? As Andrew Bolt suggests, will they have to be abused five times before the cock crows?
I think the current Australian system works well. We have a great country. We have tolerance between many groups. We have the doctrine of the fair go. Of course procedural fairness at the Human Rights Commission can be adjusted so that only serious cases are considered. But if it ain't broke don't fix it, particularly when you know you are like Judean People's Front, the suicide squad pictured in the Monty Python film where they all kill themselves and they have no result at all. There is going to be no change to the law, because the Senate will block it. Why advance it? Why destroy public harmony in Australia, when we have a law that existed for 11 years under John Howard?
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:21): I want to thank this government for investing an additional $23½ million into the health of the people of Petrie. It certainly is important to them. Support for mental health services is a priority in my area. It comes up in some of the most raw conversations that I have when I am communicating with locals. Too many people feel desperate—they feel hopeless, and at their most helpless right when they need that help the most. Intentional self-harm and suicide are overrepresented in a number of statistical divisions in Petrie. So not only is it an issue that impacts the people of Petrie, but it is also one that is immensely important to me, personally.
On 26 June 2016, the coalition government committed $192 million over four years to strengthen mental health care in Australia, with a focus on new models and better support for young people and those young people who are most at risk of suicide. Redcliffe Area Youth Space has been around for almost 20 years and has become core to the group of volunteers and organisations that guard the health of our community. As result of this latest investment from the federal government, RAYS Executive Manager Amy Mayes, whom I contacted this morning, said the centre would open its first clinical service. The program's lead agency, she said, would now put another 10 staff on the ground throughout the region, including at the Deception Bay community youth program. The funding will also see a suicide prevention trial and a community-based follow-up service in the Redcliffe region for people who have recently attempted suicide or who are at a high risk of suicide.
Mental Illness Fellowship Queensland has been appointed as a community partner that will develop and deliver the program in collaboration with the Brisbane North Primary Health Network and also the Redcliffe Hospital. The purpose is to provide a short-term transitional service, with follow-up support, short-term counselling and case coordination for people who have recently attempted suicide or who are at risk.
Suicide and intentional self-harm, and mental illness as a whole, do not discriminate. There but for the grace of God go I—and it could easily be any one of us. As a community, I think we are learning. We are finding our voice and opening up about the impact and nature of mental health issues, and we keep putting one foot in front of the other. I welcome this funding announcement and thank, in advance, all those throughout Petrie who work to tend to our loved ones with great care. Government, through taxpayers, can and must provide funding, but it is the carers who make the real difference, of course, in this area.
If I might, I would like to also take the time to send all strength and best wishes to Queenslanders—to those already impacted by and cleaning up after Tropical Cyclone Debbie, and to all those back at home in my electorate. The weather, at the moment, is definitely not our friend, and I know that you, as a Queenslander, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, understand. It is a time to be alert, employ caution and take care of ourselves and one another. Schools have been closed all day, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your electorate and mine and in the member for Hinkler's—all throughout Queensland, right down to the Tweed border—and businesses have been urged to shut up shop from around lunchtime today.
The conditions are pretty well atrocious, and the latest advice is that we have not seen the worst of today's storms. In the areas of North Lakes and Mango Hill, we already have 2,000 homes without power, flash flooding and some 60 to 70 local road closures throughout the region. There are a number of sandbag collection points and evacuation centres established in Redcliffe and throughout the Moreton Bay Regional Council area. With the most inclement conditions scheduled to strike at peak hour, I urge everyone to take it easy. And of course, remember: if it is flooded, forget it.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:26): Last Friday, at Mabel Park State High School in my electorate, we celebrated Harmony Day with the Bridging Cultures event, and I wanted to congratulate Access Community Services, Multilink and all of the groups involved in putting on such a successful and wonderful event. I wanted to thank Principal Mick Hornby as well, not just for letting us chop up his oval, as we did on that wet day, but really for his commitment to multiculturalism in our area.
So much effort goes into sending that important message that everybody belongs, whether it be in our schools, our community groups, our places of worship, our businesses, our sporting organisations, our peak groups or our settlement and service providers. And, while all of this work is going on to strengthen the bonds between people, the Turnbull government is going out of its way to weaken those bonds, by changing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. On what planet should the big priority of a national government in a country like ours be to weaken protections against racist hate speech, with all of the challenges that we have to deal with as a nation? Why is it that this government wants to make it easier to run someone down on the basis of their race? That is what is being debated in the Senate today as we speak. Even if it fails, as it should, it will send a damaging, if not devastating, signal to people all around the country that, while communities are working towards one honourable, peaceful and inclusive objective, the government of their country is working against us.
I am proud and privileged to represent such a diverse, multicultural, musical and colourful community, and people from 189 different homelands who want what we want: they want to raise their kids in a safe environment; they want jobs for their children; and they want, as we all do, to live amongst peaceful neighbourhoods. The government's attempts to change section 18C run counter to those objectives; they run counter to our values; they run counter to our interests; and they run counter to what so many communities around the country, especially in mine but all around Australia, are trying to do to strengthen the bonds between us and not to weaken them.
I say to the people of my community who are doing this important work: do not be deterred by the attempts of this Prime Minister and those opposite to weaken the protections against hate speech. Do not be deterred. Your efforts and the efforts of the people on this side of the House who stand with you—our efforts—will prevail.
The SPEAKER: The motion moved by the Leader of the House was that leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Robinson, the Hon. Ian Louis
Report from Federation Chamber
Order of the day returned from Federation Chamber for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 23 March 2017, of the Honourable Ian Louis Robinson, a former Minister and Member of this House for the Division of Cowper from 1963 to 1984 and Page from 1984 to 1990, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
The SPEAKER (14:30): The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Tropical Cyclone Debbie
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the Prime Minister and I toured regions in Queensland affected by Cyclone Debbie. I thank the Prime Minister for dealing with these events in Queensland on a bipartisan basis. Can the Prime Minister please update the House about the briefings we received today and the ongoing recovery effort from Cyclone Debbie?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:31): I, likewise, thank the Leader of the Opposition for agreeing to my invitation to join me today in north Queensland to meet with Brigadier Chris Field, the recovery coordinator. He is the Commander of 3rd Brigade and has been working with Chief Superintendent Kev Guteridge from Queensland Police and Assistant Commissioner Steve Barber from Queensland Fire and Emergency Services in a truly seamless operation. This is the biggest pre-deployment of Australian Defence Force servicemen and servicewomen in the anticipation of a natural disaster. Right now, there are over 1,300 personnel—maritime, air and land assets—deployed to recover from the disaster.
Let me describe to the House what we did. We flew this morning to Townsville, where we were joined by the brigadier. In Townsville we were joined by the member for Dawson. His electorate is the one that has been hardest hit by this cyclone. We then went by helicopter to Bowen. The speed of the reaction of the Australian Defence Force should make every single one of us so proud. Bowen, as the honourable member knows, is cut off by floodwaters both north and south. When we got there we met with the Mayor of the Whitsunday region, Andrew Willcox, who is absolutely on the case and was very appreciative of us going there together and participating in some joint squeegeeing—we have a unity ticket, at least on that. He noted that power was out and some telecoms services were out, and they could not get the technicians into the city, because they were in Townsville. Immediately, Chris Field said, 'Right, we will fly them in.' I have just had a message from the brigadier, who reports that the electricians have been delivered to Bowen, so I can report to the honourable member for Dawson that the specialists that are needed to get the lights back on there are in place. HMAS Melbourne, a hydrographic survey vessel, has already checked the Port of Townsville and the coal point at Abbot Point to ensure that they are safe for shipping, and it has also now delivered water and food to Daydream Island, which had been cut off and there had been a lack of fresh water. The big, twin-blade Chinook helicopters are at work. As we speak, one is moving pregnant women and ill people from Daydream Island to a hospital. That is happening right now. So the ADF is responding in real time with an efficiency that we are all very proud of.
I will just say a little bit—I know I am trespassing on the standing orders for a moment—but I think the Leader of the Opposition and I were both very impressed, as was the member for Dawson, that there was relatively limited damage to many structures built after 1985. It is quite clear that the building standards in recent years have made a very big difference. It underlines the fact that mitigation is absolutely critical in maintaining those high building standards. It was very instructive to see in many places all of the leaves stripped from trees, trees uprooted and cast to one side, and a relatively modern building appearing, whether it was from the perspective of the street or the air, to be relatively undamaged. That is very important.
The mayor assured us that, as at this time, there has been no loss of life, beyond the individual who was killed in the car accident that occurred prior to the cyclone crossing land. But, of course, there are isolated communities and there is more work to be done. But it has been a formidable effort.
I have to say that nature flings her worst at us again and again, and North Queensland feels the brunt of that again and again. But when Australians pull together, when they work together in a common cause, they can tackle anything. We can do anything. We can take on and respond to any challenge and any natural disaster. I mention the teamwork and the spirit of the ADF, the emergency workers, and people like Michelle O'Regan, who drove us around in Bowen. Her pumpkin farm has been devastated, but nonetheless she is getting back on the job and back into business. The people of North Queensland make every Australian proud, just as the ADF makes us all proud.
It was a shocking cyclone. The damage is being cleaned up. The next challenge is going to be floods. That will be a challenge right through Queensland. But, once again, I have no doubt that the spirit of Queenslanders, the spirit of Australians and the professionalism of our Defence and emergency personnel are equal to any challenge now, as they always have been.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on indulgence.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): Obviously I endorse what the federal government and all levels of government are doing. I also want to extend a note of gratitude to the locals we met, and just to say to those who might be listening in North Queensland, or those who know people in North Queensland who have been through this cyclone, that we get that you will feel a slump and that a lot of people are actually putting on the best face possible. You realise that when you talk to the small business people who are cleaning out their stores and have had their stock damaged and you talk to people who might be professionals but they also have a farm on the side and have to work out the losses to their crops and stock. We understand that for you this is not a recovery of hours and days—and the cameras move on and the show moves on—but that, in fact, there will be a lot of paperwork and lot of sheer hard work. I think it will be the first time in recorded history that the schoolkids at home in Queensland right now will be happy to go back to school so that they do not have to do all the cleaning of their houses with their parents.
Nonetheless, it is a serious matter and we understand that, for the people affected, recovery takes a long time. If people are doing it hard, not just financially but also in the sense of how you put things back together again, and it seems such a mountain of work, I would encourage them to put their hand up and ask for a bit of help from their friends—and if people there see them doing it hard please ask if you can help.
The final comment I would like to make is that Australians can vote with their feet to support these people by taking a holiday in the region in the coming months. It is a beautiful patch of Australia, and we should all be getting behind them. Maybe a bit of domestic tourism in the Whitsundays would go a long way to helping the region.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Economy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's approach to generating jobs and growing the economy? How does this compare with other approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for her question. She represents hardworking Australians and hardworking Australian businesses who want encouragement from their government to get ahead. We know that jobs are created by business. They are created by the enterprise, the investment, the vision and the risk-taking of Australian businesses. So how can we encourage them? We know that governments cannot just flick a switch and create strong business conditions. We know that we have to provide the incentives for business to get on and take on new workers and new challenges. That is why we are committed to reducing company tax. It is because we know, as Labor once did and often said, that if you reduce company tax you increase the return on investment, so you get more investment and you get more employment. That is the key.
How are we going to compete in the world for capital, for jobs and for investment when the UK is moving its company tax down below 20 per cent and the United States is heading below 20 per cent? We have one of the highest company tax regimes in the world, but capital is mobile. We have to be competitive. We owe it to Australians to ensure that the businesses they rely on for their jobs can employ them and will invest. That is what we are doing.
At the same time we are cracking down on tax avoidance. Yes, we believe that taxes should be lower—we do—but they are not optional. We do not accept a self-help approach to tax reform. So we have introduced multinational tax avoidance measures, just as we are seeking to reduce company tax. Now, as we seek to stamp out multinational tax avoidance and to lower business tax, the Labor Party oppose both. They will not support cuts in company tax—although they once did—and they voted against the Treasurer's multinational tax avoidance legislation. It is extraordinary. It shows how hopelessly politically partisan they have become.
Then, when it comes to the important issue of energy, everything we are doing is securing our energy future—making gas available, making storage available, and Snowy Hydro 2.0. What has Labor done on energy? One ideological commitment after another and a 50 per cent renewable target. We know where that leads. It leads to the situation in South Australia, with the most expensive and least reliable electricity in the nation.
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:42): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was asked about the government's submission to the review of the minimum wage. Was the reason the Prime Minister failed to answer the question because his submission argued against a fair increase to the minimum wage? Why does the Prime Minister believe that Australia's biggest companies deserve a $50 billion tax hand-out but a worker on $17.70 per hour does not deserve a decent pay rise?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): Let me quote this:
… the [National Minimum Wage] should be set at a level that provides sufficient incentives for people who are not employed, including those receiving unemployment benefits, to enter work. However, the [National Minimum Wage] should not be set so high as to place undue financial burdens on businesses, discouraging them from employing low skilled workers.
… … …
Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the developed world.
That was not from our submission; that was from the Labor government's submission in 2013. The Labor Party, in government, made one submission after another to the minimum wage annual review. None of those submissions recommended a specific increase in minimum or award classification wages.
We know that many Australians are doing it tough. That is why we are seeking to drive more economic activity. I see the member for Lilley smiling. He made the case for cutting company tax, just as the Leader of the Opposition did, again and again, and they said it will deliver greater investment, greater productivity, greater employment and higher wages. It will put wages into the pockets of workers. The honourable member for Lilley, when he was Treasurer, had it in his budget paper. The logic is still the same; the only thing that has changed is that the Labor Party has disconnected from economics. Just like they disconnected from engineering when it comes to energy, they have completely disconnected from it.
Mr Frydenberg: They've got the professor!
Mr TURNBULL: My honourable friend behind me refers to 'the professor'. I think he is referring to the member for Fenner. The member for Fenner, again and again, has made the point. Let me read out this good quote from the member for Fenner:
Given that the typical minimum wage worker lives in a middle-income household, it appears unlikely that raising the minimum wage will significantly lower family income inequality.
He will have to be expelled! Of course, that was when he was at the ANU. We have made a responsible submission to the Fair Work Commission. It is consistent with the submissions made by many governments in the past, Labor and Liberal. We put our faith in the independent umpire; so should Labor. They had done for 120 years and they should do so again.
Budget
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:46): My question is for the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the budget has ensured that the government is living within its means and can the Treasurer explain how this compares with other approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:46): I thank the member for Swan for his question. He is someone who runs a business, understands business, has employed Australians and has made sure that he can support Australians through providing them with jobs and giving them good wages, and I commend him for his contribution. The government's national economic plan was set out in the budget of 2016, and a key component of that budget was that government must live within its means. That means paying for your promises and being responsible about how you manage finances to ensure that when you make commitments you can fund them and you can deliver them, rather than increasing the tax burden on Australians and reaching further into their pockets, which was the practice of the Labor Party.
What we have been doing is what we said we would do when we outlined our plan to live within our means as a government. Growth in spending has fallen from over 3½ per cent, which it was under the Labor Party, to less than two per cent under the coalition in the budgets that we have delivered. The rate of growth in debt has fallen by two-thirds from the almost 34 per cent annual growth in debt which was occurring under the Labor Party when they were managing the nation's finances. Since we handed down the budget and since we won the election that followed that budget we have ensured the delivery of some $25 billion in budget improvement measures that are taking our budget back towards balance. That $25 billion in budget improvement measures barely got any assistance from those opposite. They have worked against us every single occasion where we have sought to bring the budget back to balance.
When you do the disciplined thing of ensuring that you make the savings to support the promises that you make, it means you can do this: you can deliver affordable child care for Australian families. You do not do it by raiding the finances of taxpayers; you do it by ensuring you do it in an affordable way. On top of that, as part of the budget, we said we would deliver $2.9 billion in hospital funding to the states and territories—again, paid for by the disciplined financial management of the budget that we handed down in May. We are also working to ensure that we can fund the NDIS and fill the big black gaping hole left by the Labor Party, who were big on promises when it comes to supporting disabled people but when it came to funding it they left the taxpayer short. We saw this at the last election. The Labor Party went the last election and said they wanted to increase the deficit by $16½ billion—higher taxes, higher deficits and higher debt. The Labor Party are a triple A threat to our triple A economy.
Workplace Relations
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. It is a serious question. The government's submission to the minimum wage review states:
… low-paid workers are more likely to be young, female, single or without children.
It then argues why minimum-wage workers should not get a fair increase in pay. As a matter of government policy, is the government telling Australians, 'Don't be young, don't be female, don't be single and don't have children?'
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:50): The member for Gorton had a preface. He said, 'This is a serious question'—presumably unlike most of the others he asks—but yet again he demonstrated that it was not. The government submission to the Fair Work Commission, consistent with government submissions in the past, puts the economic context before the Fair Work Commission and respects its wisdom and its position as the independent umpire. The key paragraph states:
The Government submits that the Panel should take a cautious approach, taking into account the uncertain economic outlook and the need to boost employment and job creation, particularly for young people and the low-skilled—
the honourable member might note that—
The minimum wage and award classification wages are only part of Australia's comprehensive safety net of workplace relations policies, public services and transfer payments.
Which is all very straightforward. It is a responsible submission—as opposed to the claim by the secretary of the ACTU who, at a time when wage growth is around 1.9 per cent, is calling for a 7½ per cent increase in the minimum wage.
The important thing, as honourable members know, is the Fair Work Commission has to balance the need to provide an increase in the minimum wage to reflect the rising cost of living and other factors but also recognise that, if the minimum wage is set too high, it will be a barrier to people, particularly young people, getting employment. As to the point that he referred to about a large number of people on near-minimum wages being unmarried and young, and female in fact, that is a statistical fact. It is one actually referred to at some length by the member for Fenner in the article I quoted from a moment ago, published in 2007.
Tasmania: Fuel Prices
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Denison has the call, and the clock is ticking.
Mr WILKIE: Prime Minister, you have intervened in the gas market, directed ASIC to look at electricity prices and announced an expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme. But there remains one big energy problem: the absurd difference in the price of petrol and LPG in Tasmania compared with the mainland. This difference is often in the tens of cents per litre and cannot be explained by Bass Strait costs alone. Prime Minister, surely energy security and affordability is too important to leave to the market. What will you do about this? Will you intervene and help ordinary Tasmanians in a way no Prime Minister has ever done before?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question and indeed his confidence. Petrol prices have an enormous impact. As we know, they are a big part of every household's budget, and access to affordable and reliable fuel is vital for families and for businesses. Competitive markets provide us with the means of achieving that, and the more competitive the better, because they bring lower prices and better service. We have to remain vigilant to ensure markets are working in the best interests of consumers, and we are already doing this.
From late 2014, as the honourable member would be aware, the government asked the competition watchdog, the ACCC, to monitor the prices, costs and profits relating to petrol prices across Australia, including in Tasmania. Petrol companies know they are under scrutiny, and consumers can see how they are behaving. Secondly, the government is implementing the Harper competition reforms, giving more powers to regulators to protect consumers. These reforms include amending the law to prohibit corporations from engaging in a concerted practice that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. The honourable member would recognise that the Labor Party is opposed to those reforms. The legislation to enact this has been introduced by the Treasurer.
The honourable member's electorate is in Hobart, which has two of Tasmania's five receiving terminals that then distribute fuel throughout Tasmania. Hobart's prices tend to be lower than the rest of Tasmania's as a result. However, it is without question that Tasmania's prices are among the highest in the nation. That is because of higher transport costs, higher operating costs per litre due to the small size of the market and relatively weak retail competition. The ACCC has found, however, that in Tasmanian cities such as Launceston increased competition has made a positive difference for consumers in petrol prices.
I should add that our government has been very effective in delivering tangible outcomes to the people of the honourable member's state, boosting the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme to reduce the cost of shipping between Tasmania and the mainland. We have provided $22 million towards the Hobart International Airport runway extension, $24 million towards the Hobart airport roundabout upgrade and flyover, and many other infrastructure projects, including the relocation of the University of Tasmania in Launceston and of course the massive investment in the Midland Highway.
Tasmania does have unique challenges—we know that. We are responding. I want to thank the honourable member for his question and for giving me the opportunity to explain how we are working hard to deliver for the people of his state.
Child Care
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's success in providing greater childcare support for Australian families, especially in Redland City in my electorate of Bowman? How does this compare to other approaches?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:57): I thank the member for Bowman for his question. Of course, this week the coalition passed the most substantial reforms to child care in decades. One million Australian families will benefit; 230,000 Australian families will be able to increase their participation in the workforce; and low- and middle-income families will benefit the most. The greatest hours of support go to the families who work the longest hours, and the greatest financial support goes to the families who earn the least.
In the member for Bowman's electorate there are 8,000 families, as he knows, that utilise child care. Just to see the impact of this on the ground, let us look at an average working family in your electorate earning, say, $80,000 a year. Dad is in a trade and Mum is a part-time nurse, with two children aged two and four. That family, under this plan, this reform, will still receive $5,500 in family tax benefits—completely tax free; they do not lose a dollar there. But now that family will receive an extra $3,424 a year to assist with their child care.
I am asked if there are any alternatives. The Labor alternative is to oppose the $1.6 billion worth of investment in child care. Make no mistake: extraordinarily, that is exactly what Labor did this week. They opposed investing $1.6 billion in child care. Instead, they supported maintaining the complicated inflationary system that they limped along with and that Australian families limped along with for six terrible years without any real form. At the same time that they opposed better child care for Australian families, when the media cameras were rolling in the caucus room, this is what the Leader of the Opposition said: 'The clear message we'll be sending to the people, to working and middle class families, is: we've got your back.' The same week they oppose investing $1.6 billion in child care, they tell Australian families they have got their back. Give us a break!
Forgive us for thinking that Australian families are not feeling the warm cloak of comfort at the claim that the Leader of the Opposition has got their back. Give us a break. You can insert the name here: 'I've got your back, Clean Event workers. I've got your back, Chiquita mushroom workers. I've got your back, Winslow construction workers. I've got your back, the member for Fenner. I mean, I've got your back, hardworking Australian families who need better child care to keep that second job and get themselves ahead.' There is one thing I have got to say that you should absolutely do if the Leader of the Opposition says he has got your back, and that is keep looking over your shoulder.
Workplace Relations
The SPEAKER (15:00): I call the member for Gorton.
Mr Pasin interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will pause for a second. The member for Barker will cease interjecting.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House might notice that I am trying to address the chamber. The member for Gorton has the call.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the government submission argue that a pay raise for all workers on the minimum wage should be held back because some low-paid workers have high-income families?
Mr Pyne: What rubbish!
Mr Brendan O'Connor: It does.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:00): That statement is, like so many from the honourable member, completely false. But I will ask the Treasurer to expand on the answer.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:01): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. I will give you a quote:
The Panel should also consider the fact that all low paid workers do not necessarily live in low income households.
That quote is from the Australian government's submission of the Annual Wage Review 2012-13. The employment minister at the time was the Leader of the Opposition.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr MORRISON: Mr Speaker, the hypocrisy is dumbfounding. We have heard the member for Fenner, the 40-year-old intern down there. They really should pay him a proper wage rather than forcing him to work on those sorts of wages, denying him his salary on their own front bench!
Mr Zimmerman interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney!
Mr MORRISON: The member for Fenner has also made, like on so many other things, a contribution on this topic. He has said:
… it is conceivable that an increase in the minimum wage might actually reduce the total market income received by low-wage workers.
He also went on to say, 'Raising the minimum wage may cost jobs.' If those opposite in the Labor Party want to raise those questions, they should just ask them into the mirror. Maybe they could explain their own comments.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: In his answer, the Treasurer referred to the 2013 submission from the government. I seek leave to table the clause that says the Australian government in 2013 'supports a fair and economically responsible increase in the National Minimum Wage'.
Leave not granted.
Budget
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (15:02): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the priorities driving the government's upcoming budget? How will the 2017 budget build on the government's national economic plan to boost growth, create jobs and lift wages for hardworking Australians? How does this compare with other approaches?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Treasurer—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have not called the Treasurer yet. The member for Sydney is warned, as is the member for Gorton. We seem to do this at about the same time every day, but we will keep going.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:03): I thank the member for Chisholm for her question.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: On that note, the member for Lyons is warned, as well.
Mr MORRISON: The member for Chisholm has worked all of her life for manufacturing companies that employ thousands of Australians. Now, she is here as the member for Chisholm working for the constituents of Chisholm to ensure that they can have the jobs, the growth in wages and the investment that goes into those businesses so they can support the many people who work in those businesses that she has been involved with for so long.
The budget in 2016 was a national economic plan for jobs and growth that was positioning Australia for future prosperity. The 2017 budget will continue this task when we come back here in May. Every element of that plan is designed to support our economy to grow through the substantial changes that are taking place in our economy. While there are many regions in this country that are doing extremely well—outside of our capital cities rural and regional Australia has seen some tremendous growth—we know that there are other parts of the country with an old industrial base which are struggling. The sorts of places that we reflect and stand with, in particular, are those around the Hazelwood plant. And there are other major changes that are taking place. It is a plant whose closure the Labor Party cheered on. We understand that there is a disparate experience when it comes to this growth.
Our mission is to support Australians to earn more. We want to see Australians earn more—people who are working for a living. We want to see the businesses that employ them do better so that the people who work in those companies can earn more. This requires our economy to grow. That growth cannot be taken for granted. It does not fall from the sky, as the Labor Party seem to think it does. You have to fight for every inch of growth. Our budget is already delivering: record investment in infrastructure; a defence industry plan that is ramping up. Finally, after six years of neglect by the Labor Party, there is real defence investment that supports our defence industries. The budget is delivering investment in innovation and science and technology.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
Mr Robert interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: It is delivering a trade agenda that is ensuring more money in the pockets of people, particularly in rural and regional Australia, as result of those trade agreements. It is taking the tax burden off middle-income earners so they do not go into the second highest tax bracket. Affordable childcare has been delivered by this government by ensuring the government lives within its means in the budget that we handed down. The funding for schools and hospitals is supported by the same approach.
Now, today, we have the opportunity to support businesses with lower taxes so that they can remain competitive and invest and support the jobs and wages that are there to be had. But you need to grow your economy, and our plan delivers on just that. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Fadden and the member for Eden-Monaro, having interjected at each other through that answer, are both warned.
Workplace Relations
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): My question is to the Treasurer and it refers to his previous answer. In quoting the 2013 submission, why did the Treasurer not refer to the following quotation: 'Low-paid employees are also significantly more likely to live in low-income than high-income households.' And that was used as an argument in favour of a wage increase. Why is the government now claiming that there should not be a significant increase on the basis that some people on low incomes are in high-income households?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:07): That was a pretty poor attempt from the Labor opposition to crab walk away from the clear statements they made, which they are clearly embarrassed about. There is no doubt that, in the submission that was written by the Leader of the Opposition when he was minister for employment, he said—clear as day—'The panel should also consider the fact that all low-paid workers do not necessarily live in low-income households.'
A journalist once asked the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, 'Can I ask you about the national wage case today? The unions are pushing for $27-a-week increase. Do you think that is fair enough?' He said, 'I think everybody needs to recognise the circumstances that we are in at the moment and exercise a degree of restraint.'
The Labor Party, when they come and they talk about wages in this place, have egg on their face because, in their former lives as union officials, they traded away low-income workers' wages in return for the grubby cash payments that they stuffed into the union coffers to ensure that they could put a renovation on, put gold taps in the bathroom or whatever it was they did. But what they did not do—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: The question could not have been more specific to a submission in 2013 that the Treasurer had selectively quoted in his previous answer. It could not have been more precise. There was no preamble in the question at all. And, on direct relevance, the Treasurer has strayed a long way from the question.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Treasurer is entitled to compare and contrast. But he has done that, and he needs to confine himself to the substance of the question, which he was doing, I must point out, for the majority of the answer.
Mr MORRISON: The only people who have strayed in this house are the Labor Party, who have strayed away from the commitment, which used to be held by Labor Party members in the past, to actually support workers. What the Labor Party today is, is a bunch of apparatchik hacks pursuing the interests of big unions doing deals with big businesses. That is what those opposite represent today—themselves and themselves only.
Queensland: Sugar Industry
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (15:09): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on steps taken by the government to secure Australia's $2 billion sugar industry and support cane farmers, particularly those in the Burdekin and Proserpine regions in my electorate of Dawson? How does this compare with other approaches?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:10): I thank the honourable member for his question, and we note also the trials and tribulations the people in his electorate are going through in the aftermath of Cyclone Debbie. We note also how important the cane industry is to that area. The Queensland gross value of agricultural production is about $12 billion, but around Mackay alone, there is about $1.1 billion in agricultural production. The gross value of sugar around Mackay is about $354 million—that was in the 2014-15 year—and there are over 1,000 canegrowers in the Mackay area.
This is incredibly important to a $2 billion-a-year industry, as the sugar industry is, which goes right down into northern New South Wales. It is very important that we make sure that farmers get treated fairly. We believe that we should get a fair return through the farm gate, and to get a fair return, of course, you need a market, and to have a proper market, you need at least two people wanting to buy your product. If two people are going to buy your product then you are going to have the competitive tensions in the market to get the proper transparency to make sure that people are being dealt with fairly.
We have said all the way along that we believe the federal government has a right to be part of this process. We wished for Wilmar and QSL—QSL being the marketer—to come to their own agreement by their own ways. We have been waiting now for a long period of time for them to do precisely that. We actually worked with the state government in Queensland to get through a piece of legislation to try and enforce a better outcome for these farmers. Might I say, the Australian Labor Party up there voted against that, together with a number of independent members including Peter Wellington, Billy Gordon and another gentleman by the name of Pyne, from Cairns—all in cane seats. But we still reserved our right to underwrite this with a code of conduct. We have brought this code of conduct forward, and it will be going to the Executive Council no doubt over the next couple of weeks for important—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: How about the member for McMahon stops interjecting.
Mr JOYCE: Now, what we have seen is that, right to this day, we have this confusion within the Labor Party, with the Labor Party in Queensland voting against trying to get these farmers a fairer deal, and we have Senator Glenn Sterle, chairing a committee in Canberra, suggesting that they do need a code of conduct.
We will make sure that we get the proper market principles in place. We will make sure that these cane farmers are dealt with fairly. We stand beside these farmers. We are still wondering what exactly the Labor Party's position on this code of conduct is, whether they believe in these farmers being treated fairly or whether they have a foot in both camps. Do they have a foot in the Queensland camp and a foot in Senator Glenn Sterle's camp— (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answers. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is no precedent for a formal government submission which tries to justify holding back a pay rise for Australia's lowest paid because of who their parents are or who they are married to?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:13): The honourable member, just like her colleague the member for Gorton, begins her question with a falsehood. The submission of the government does not recommend that the minimum wage should not be increased. It leaves the decision as to the change to the minimum wage to the independent umpire, and it simply makes the point that not all people on the minimum wage live in low-income households.
The honourable member objects to this observation. She could claim—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Well, it is a penetrating glimpse of the obvious. She could also claim it is plagiarism. Labor's 2011 submission: 'Low-paid individuals are also distributed across the household-income distribution and are not necessarily concentrated in the lowest household-income decile.' That was 2011. Labor!
In Labor's 2012 submission, for example, around half of all low-paid workers lived in the top six household income deciles. Of course, from 2013, the panel should also consider the fact that all low-paid workers do not necessarily live in low-income households. That is a fact. The honourable member for Fenner wrote about that. It is one of the factors to be taken into account by the Fair Work Commission. The reality is, as the member for Fenner has observed and previous governments have observed, that our means-tested tax and transfer system is the primary means for addressing income inequality. But, plainly, all of those factors will be taken into account by the independent umpire, and, in the final analysis, the best form of welfare is getting a job. Everything we are doing is creating jobs.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay.
Mr TURNBULL: What is Labor doing? I would like to hear just one thing. I would be happy to hear even one spurious, hypothetical idea they could produce, but they do not have anything. They have not one policy that would encourage one business to invest one dollar or hire one worker. Their position today is thoroughly antibusiness, antiworker and antijobs, and they want to run the nation like a union. We know what the Leader of the Opposition did when he was running the AWU. We know how he represented workers then. They sold them out then, and, as an alternative government, they are selling them out now.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned.
Defence Industry
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:16): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on the government's national defence industry project that guarantees the future security of the nation and supports our economic prosperity? How does this compare with other approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:16): I thank the member for Boothby for her question. The record that this government inherited from Labor in defence industry was one of delays, cancellations and downgrades of projects that had been put in place by the previous government. The arrival of this government in defence and defence industry was akin to the raising of the siege of a city because, under Labor, it was a cash cow for cuts to fund more spending for their friends. That is what they used defence for.
The spending on defence fell to 1.56 per cent of GDP under Labor, which was the lowest since 1938—since the years of appeasement. It was 1.56 per cent! One hundred and nineteen projects were delayed, 43 were downgraded and eight were cancelled. Even worse than that—knowing that a valley of death would result by not making any decisions to commission a ship—they failed to commission any vessels at all to be built in Australia in the six years, throwing those workers at the ASC to the wolves.
They were completely happy to do absolutely nothing to commission one naval vessel and let our naval shipbuilding industry wither on the vine in those six years, which we are left to fix. But we are fixing it, and the story of the defence industry under this government is a polar opposite. We commissioned 54 vessels to be built for the Navy over the next several decades. We are doing the sustainment and maintenance here. We have opened the Centre for Defence Industry Capability and we have launched the Defence Innovation Hub. Last week we launched the Next Generation Technologies Fund. Last Friday we launched the naval shipbuilding college because we actually have to provide 5,000 workers by the mid-2020s in naval shipbuilding because we need to fill all the work that will be created in naval shipbuilding in South Australia and around Australia. We need to find those skilled people apprenticeships in welding and fitting and turning because we are building the defence industry in this country like it has never been built before.
Rather than being worried about industries closing down, we are reopening them. In the last month, Defence repurposed a mining factory at Henderson in Perth as a factory that will produce the Pacific patrol vessels. That is a classic example of what we are doing. A former mining factory will be reopened as a defence industry factory, and there will be more and more of that good news in the months and years ahead under this government.
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. Margarita is a 58-year-old widow and grandmother who works as a housekeeper in a hotel. She is sitting in the gallery today. Because the Prime Minister supports cutting penalty rates, Margarita tells me that she will lose $2,000 from her take-home pay of about $30,000. She says this money is the difference between staying afloat or drowning in bills and costs. She wants to know: why is the Prime Minister doing nothing to stop her pay being cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:20): We understand the battle that Margarita has. We understand that—all Australians do. We applaud her as a widow working hard, as so many Australians do. But I will say this: the honourable member has asserted that Margarita's employer is going to reduce her pay. Is that the case? I will give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to assure us that he has made that inquiry and that her pay will be cut.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has no capacity in question time to answer questions. He only has the capacity—
Government members interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call to continue his answer or we will move to the next question.
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member has brought Margarita here. We applaud Margarita. She has an employer. But we do not know who the employer is. The employer has said he will cut her wages; is that right?
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Oh, no—the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to go that far! The truth is that the one thing I can say for sure is that Margarita is lucky not to have the Leader of the Opposition representing her, because she would be sold down the river like the cleaners at Clean Event. Perhaps the honourable member, who will not tell us who the employer is, might tell us what the money—the $75,000—that came from Clean Event was really for. Those workers' penalty rates were reduced in a deal with the union that the opposition leader led.
Migration
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (15:23): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on actions the government is taking to ensure our skilled migration program serves the best interests of the Australian community? How is the government ensuring that our migration programs put hardworking Australians first, and how does that compare with other approaches?
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce is warned.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:24): I thank the member for Brisbane, a great member for the electorate of Brisbane, representing the people of Brisbane incredibly well. I congratulate him on the great start he has had in this parliament.
We have seen on display today from the Leader of the Opposition exactly what has been on display during his whole working life. There has been one example of hypocrisy after another. We know that when Labor were in government they lost control of our borders—1,200 people drowned at sea and 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats—and this Leader of the Opposition sat around the cabinet table where he made incompetent decision after incompetent decision. But that was not the extent of his hypocrisy and incompetence as a minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd glory years.
We have seen this Leader of the Opposition pretend to be the best friend that workers have ever had. What happened, as the Prime Minister pointed out, was that he was out bargaining on behalf of workers, so it seemed, and yet at the same time the companies with whom he was bargaining were paying secret payments to his union. He failed to disclose that to the workers, and the workers had a reduction in their conditions. He claimed to be the great protector of workers; it turned out that he was a complete hypocrite. It did not stop there—
The SPEAKER: The minister will just withdraw that term.
Mr DUTTON: I withdraw. We know that there is a course of conduct with this Leader of the Opposition because, when he was the employment minister, he pretended that he was the best friend that workers ever had. What we know is that, under the watch of Labor and the Leader of the Opposition in his capacity as the then employment minister, the numbers in the 457 program, where we bring foreign workers to take jobs in this country—
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: went from 68,000 primary visa holders up to 110,000—an increase of 40,000. At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition was pretending to be the friend of the Australian worker. So the Australian public is starting to work out that there is something that does not add up about this Leader of the Opposition.
But it does not stop there. We know that this week the Leader of the Opposition has pretended to be the best friend of construction workers. The CFMEU have put robocalls into the member for Indi's electorate to try to pressure her on how she votes in this place. But, as we know from looking at the figures in relation to the 457 program, the number of construction workers who came on 457 visas when the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister went up. They went up when he was the employment minister. This demonstrates— (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister really telling Margarita that when penalty rates fall her wages will not, because she is actually employed on award terms? What is Margarita meant to do?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:27): The honourable member has a long track record in negotiating below-award rates for his members. He has done very well on that. But it may come as a surprise to him that many employers pay their employees more than the award. The award is the base. If he wants to avoid risking misleading the House, he has to demonstrate that Margarita's employer have stated that it is their intention to reduce her pay to the level set by the Fair Work Commission. Is that their intention in respect of Margarita, who I am sure is a very valued employee? That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition.
Energy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:28): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to help businesses and families by making energy affordable and reliable? How does this compare with other approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (15:29): I thank the member for Hughes for his question and acknowledge his deep concern about the rising electricity prices right across the country, including for businesses such as Patties Foods in the Latrobe Valley. They are a 50-year-old business employing more than 500 people. They make those iconic Four'N Twenty pies. We know what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about hot pies!
Their energy bill has gone up by 100 per cent recently. That is why, on this side of the House, we are absolutely determined to get more gas into the market. The Prime Minister's work with the LNG suppliers played a role in Engie being able to bring on Pelican Point with their announcement yesterday. We are also looking to rein in network costs and retail costs and invest record amounts in battery storage in order to stabilise the system.
But I am asked whether I am aware of any alternative approaches. Well, I am aware of those opposite having a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They do not know what it is called, they do not know how much it costs and they do not know if this legislated, but they have that target. They also have a plan to force the closure of coal-fired power stations. Not content to see the loss of 700 jobs at Hazelwood just yesterday, last Wednesday Labor senators joined with Greens senators to pass a motion. Do you know what the motion said?
Coal has no long-term future in Australia.
Shame on the Labor Party. You would think that with 75 per cent of our power in the National Electricity Market coming from coal it would have a future. You would think, then, that the Leader of the Opposition would be consistent. But what does he say? In a press conference on 26 October last year he said:
Coal has a future in Australia.
What is worse, what did he say when he went to the Latrobe Valley on 14 November last year and fronted up to the workers? He said:
Coal is going to be part of our energy mix going forward…
That is what you say to the workers, but here you allow your senators to vote for a motion saying that coal has no future—hypocrisy by name, hypocrisy by nature.
As you said, Leader of the Opposition, if you do not know where you are going, all roads will get you there. Well, I will tell you where your policy will get you: your policy will get you higher energy prices, fewer jobs, less investment and a much less secure electricity system. Only the coalition can be trusted to get energy policy in this country right, to get the prices down and to get a stable energy system.
Centrelink
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (15:32): My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Can the minister confirm that his office sent separate emails to TheCanberra Times and The Guardian, to which were attached two documents marked 'official use only', containing extensive personal information about Ms Andie Fox, including her relationship and tax history?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (15:32): I thank the member for her question. The member knows that we have dealt with this extensively in this parliament as well as through the Senate estimates process through my department. Andie Fox, as the member knows, wrote a 1,300-word column in the Fairfax papers. That column made several allegations, including that she—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr TUDGE: had been terrorised by Centrelink and that she had been barred from receiving Centrelink payments, amongst other allegations.
Mr Feeney interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Batman!
Mr TUDGE: They were incorrect allegations. On the basis of formal advice from the chief legal officer from my department, we were able to correct the record against those allegations that she made. A very small amount of information was provided in order to correct the record, and it was corrected on the basis of a specific request from a journalist who was about to write a further column referencing this particular article on whether or not the allegations were, indeed, correct.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Human Services might just pause for a second. I am just going to make the point again to those on my left, who have asked the question. I anticipate that, as some point, they may want to raise a point of order. That happens in a lot of answers. I cannot hear the minister when they interject.
Mr TUDGE: On the basis of the legal advice, this was a proper disclosure of information to correct the record. These are laws that have been available to successive governments to correct the record when serious allegations have been made that could end up de-legitimising government institutions. The implication from the member opposite is that they can put up cases in the media, which they have done time and time again—indeed, they have put up dozens of cases in the media—two-thirds of which are wrong. In most of the cases, they may well have known that, because she herself said to TheAustralian newspaper that when she puts up these cases she has no idea about whether these people owe debt or not or whether they are in fact innocent.
Government members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr TUDGE: She stated this clearly to TheAustralian newspaper, and now she comes in here—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein is warned.
Mr TUDGE: she pretends that she is concerned about the private information of individuals. Yet on 50 occasions the Labor Party encouraged individuals to come forward, put their private information into the media, knowing—which she admitted—that they did not know whether those people owed debt or not. She admitted it herself.
We take the privacy of people's information very seriously. It is governed by the Privacy Act, which has very strict provisions. But there is also provision in the law to provide discrete pieces of information to correct the record on certain occasions, and on this instance, with clear legal advice from the— (Time expired)
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker can leave under 94(a).
The member for Barker then left the chamber.
Trade
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (15:36): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the government's trade policies are supporting jobs of hardworking Australians. How does this compare to other approaches?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:37): I thank the member for Parkes for his question because this side of the House has a very strong track record when it comes to delivering for hardworking Australians on trade, tourism and investment, and particularly on trade. It was this side of the House that delivered the three North Asian powerhouse agreements with China, with Japan and with Korea. It was also this government that put in place the comprehensive upgrade to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. So we have a long track record now of putting in place trade agreements that are making a material difference to the exports that Australia is able to ship to the world. We are a government that is committed to making sure that we continue to open up more markets for Australian exporters. The direct consequence of the policy settings and the market access—the world's best preferential access—that we are getting into export markets has been that we have been able to grow the Australian economy more strongly and drive Australian jobs.
Our record stands in very stark contrast to that of that side when they were last in government. When Labor were last in government, their track record on trade policy was very different to our track record. In fact, if you look at my main priority right now, which is to focus on putting in place a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Indonesia, I am having to repair the damage that was done by this mob when they were last in government because no-one over in Indonesia has forgotten the track record of the Australian Labor Party when, overnight, they closed the gates on Australia's live export industry. No-one in Indonesia forgets the fact that, when Labor turned their backs on that protein supply for Indonesia, they not only did damage to Indonesia but also did incredible damage to the livelihoods of Australians back here at home. Those people who work the land, those people who rely on live exports and those people whose mortgage payments depend upon being able to export cattle to Indonesia were the people that Labor turned their backs on because they were more determined to make some point on principle than they were to make a rational, mature decision about the future of Australian markets.
The simple fact is this: you cannot trust Labor on trade policy because they make knee-jerk judgements like calling the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement—arguably the best deal this country has seen for many years—a 'dud deal'. The simple facts are: when it comes to trade policy, Labor cannot be trusted; when it comes to the budget, Labor means black holes; when it comes to energy policy, Labor means blackouts; and when it comes to trade policy, Labor means a black day for our exporters.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:40): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BOWEN: I certainly do.
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon may proceed.
Mr BOWEN: On 2 March on Macquarie radio, in an interview with Ray Hadley, the Treasurer said of me:
Chris Bowen was the Immigration Minister and, remember, he was the bloke who renewed Alex Vella’s visa.
The House might recall that Mr Vella was associated with the Rebels motorcycle gang, so this is a very serious allegation. Accordingly, I subsequently wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in accordance with my rights as a former minister under the Archives Act 1983 and requested to be provided with all documents that were provided to me or my office in relation to Mr Vella during my time as minister. The secretary has today written to me indicating that no such documents exist and no decision-making material was provided to me during my time as minister. Accordingly, the allegation made against me by the Treasurer is false and I invite him not to make it again.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:41): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr MORRISON: I do.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer may proceed.
Mr MORRISON: To the comments that the member refers to, where he claims that I was making the assertion that he says, when I was minister for immigration, I called up Alex Vella's visa to make sure it could be cancelled. As a minister, when you want to chuck bikies out of the country, you take action, which you did not do. As a result, by implication, you renewed Alex Vella's visa.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides of the House.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer and the member for McMahon are interrupting me.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I am seeking to address the House. If the Treasurer and the member for McMahon want to continue their argument, they can do it outside of the House. We have other business to move on with.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Matter of Privilege
The SPEAKER (15:42): Yesterday the Manager of Opposition Business asked me a question in relation to a Senate committee of privileges report presented in the Senate on Tuesday. The Senate dealt with the privilege matter involving search warrants and a senator. Overnight, I have carefully considered the member's question to me and in particular paragraph 3.37 of the Senate report. Given the significance of the issues raised and the overlap of the Senate report with the matter of privilege concluded by this House late last year, I will be taking further time to consider the report and any aspects of relevance for this House. I also propose to take advice on the matter before determining my view. I will report back to the House in response to the Manager of Opposition Business's question during the budget sittings.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:43): 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.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 45 of 2016-17
The SPEAKER (15:43): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 45 of 2016-17 entitled, Replacement Antarctic vessel: Department of Environment and Energy.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Turnbull Government
The SPEAKER (15:44): I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government looking after the big end of town and hurting ordinary Australians.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:44): As this parliament rises after two weeks of sitting, the last sitting before the next budget, we have learned, and Australians have learned, several things about the Turnbull government. We have learned that the Turnbull government do not support a decent increase in the minimum wage. We have learned that they support unilateral cuts to penalty rates. We have learned that they support cuts to people's take-home wages, their pay packet, the way that people get by. We have learned that they do support a $50 billion tax giveaway to big business and that they do support a tax reduction for millionaires. What we have learned and what Australians have learned is that the government have no idea about how ordinary Australians live their lives.
We have also learned something else: they are obsessed with Labor and with me. Every question time these days, the Prime Minister reminds me of that famous Ronald Reagan quote about Jimmy Carter in the 1980 debate, where Ronald Reagan said about Carter, 'There you go again.' There the member for Wentworth goes again, talking about Labor, talking about unions and talking about me. But Australians have worked out the government and this Prime Minister. They know that the louder he shouts, the more pressure he is under. They have learned that the more he yells, the worse it gets. They have learned that the government wish to shout down their critics, not focus on the issues of everyday Australians.
In the last eight question times, in the last two weeks, the government have referred to and spoken about Labor more than 400 times, they have spoken about me more than 250 times, and, other than one mention about the European Union, they have attacked unions on 150 occasions. Let me say this to the government and the Prime Minister: the more you talk about me, the more you show you have no vision or idea about the future of this country. You are not interested in the needs, the dreams, the hopes and the desires of ordinary Australians and the manner in which they are constructing their lives.
Let me also put on the record that I am proud of the Labor Party's record of standing up for workers. I am proud of the union movement's contribution to standing up for workers. I am proud of what I have done in standing up for workers. We will never accept lectures about outcomes for workers from people who have never negotiated on behalf of workers. I have never got stuck behind a fleet of Liberal government limos on the way to a picket line or to support people who have been sacked or unfairly dismissed. I have never tripped over a Liberal politician on the way to visit the bed of a sick worker. I have never tripped over a Liberal on the way to fighting for better wage increases, better deals and better job security for workers.
These are the people who argue against defending penalty rates. The government are the people who argue against increasing the minimum wage in a decent fashion. They vote against increasing compulsory superannuation, and they deeply oppose the role of unions to organise and collectively bargain. When did it become wrong in this country for unions and employers to negotiate with each other for win-win outcomes for workers and their businesses? One of the things this nation needs is increased productivity. It needs better-paid, secure jobs for its workforce, and it needs profitable businesses. Unions and employers negotiating in the interests of people is what this movement that I am proud to lead always stands for. It is right down the line of what people outside parliament think should occur.
For the Prime Minister and his cronies on the front bench to attack Labor and the unions for negotiating good outcomes for employees and good outcomes for business makes no economic sense whatsoever. It is a most strange line of attack from the government. Why do they do it? We know why they do it. It is because this is the last line of defence for a desperate Prime Minister in survival mode. We know what his backbench privately say. They have to tar Labor and smear Labor because, when that fails—as it inevitably will—this Prime Minister will fall, as he should.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Mr SHORTEN: He is terrified of his backbench. What an unpleasant Sunday evening it must be as they wait and scan for the latest poll or whatever. The point about this nation is that you do not govern from week to week or from fortnight to fortnight. You set your directions, you go the distance and you stand up for what you believe, like my united team do. What a joke it was yesterday when the Prime Minister, puffed up with his righteous indignation, said, 'I've stood up for the battlers, and I've stood up for the big end of town.' We buy the second part of it; I get that. But how can the Prime Minister say he is standing up for battlers when he is prepared to stand by and see the penalty rates of nearly 700,000 people covered by awards cut? How can you say you are standing up for battlers when you cut pensions? How can you say you are standing up for battlers when families on $60,000 have their family benefits reduced? How can you say you are standing up for battlers when you freeze the Medicare payments going to the patients, when you do nothing to stand up for our Medicare system?
You judge a Prime Minister in office by what they do, by the choices they make. This Prime Minister always chooses the big end of town. Only this Prime Minister could have dreamed up giving millionaires a tax cut by getting rid of the deficit levy when he has tripled the deficit. Only this Prime Minister could have an unfunded corporate tax giveaway of $50 billion, which will see $7½ billion go to the banks' profits and bottom lines. Only this Prime Minister will fight so hard against trade unions but fight tooth and nail to stop a banking royal commission—and that commission will come. This is a government that chooses the big end of town over working families every day.
Just when I thought the government could no longer surprise me, I scanned their minimum wage case submission—and I lost half an hour of my life I will never get back! It is 85 pages—25,000 words—and there is not a single argument, not a single line, to argue for a decent increase in the minimum wage. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was so proud that he could reel off the weekly minimum wage rate. What he does not understand is that he may know the price of the minimum wage but he does not know the value of the minimum wage. He knows the cost, but he does not understand the meaning it has in the lives of everyday Australians. It is a disgraceful submission—and I am not surprised that the cabinet ticked it off, because it has got the hallmarks of the Turnbull government. But they have a line: 'Low-paid workers are more likely to be young, female, single and without children.' This is the government's message: 'Do not be young; do not be a woman; do not be single; do not be low-paid.' As to the fact that many low-paid people are young, are women and do come from low-income households, we in Labor do not see that as a reason against the minimum wage increasing; we see it as a reason to increase the minimum wage.
Then, of course, we saw this notoriously feminist government run an argument which I have not seen in a long time. What they said was that, actually, people on the minimum wage are all secretly hiding in rich households! They almost implied, somehow, that they are gaming the system—like a nice offshore bank account—and that somehow it is a strategy to be poor, because you are actually secretly rich. Well, that is not the case. This is a Prime Minister who once famously said to Jon Faine: 'What you've got to do if you want to sort out housing affordability is get rich parents.' But today we have seen this government say to working women: 'If you want to be rich, just marry rich people.' This is not a strategy for wages or economic justice in this country.
On the way into this chamber today, I met Margarita. Oh, and our great barrister Prime Minister says: 'Well, if this happens and that happens then maybe Margarita won't get a pay cut.' What the Prime Minister does not understand about low-wage workers and people on awards is that they do not have individual bargaining power. Why should Margarita have to negotiate to keep her penalty rate? Why does she have to front up to her employer and say, 'I know the award has gone down, but please can you keep me at the higher rate'? Why do people who have a minimum wage and a penalty rate as a right have to renegotiate for something that was already theirs to begin with?
When we take on this government on the penalty rates issue—and we will take them on every day—every day this bunch of blackguarding smear merchants attack the Labor Party, attack the unions and attack me. Play your best shot, because once you have played it and you have failed, your Prime Minister will be out and this government will soon follow him to the electoral pages of history, with very little to show for it, other than standing up for the big end of town. We stand up for ordinary people.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (15:54): I would advise the opposition leader to go and have a Bex and a lie down, because we have just heard 10 minutes of yelling—angry; rattled. Member for Maribyrnong: fair dinkum! I mean, anyone watching would be wondering what on earth they just listened to. They would be wondering: 'What on earth was he talking about?' All he did was rant and rave for 10 minutes. Ordinary Australians are people the opposition leader would have you believe he is sticking up for—ordinary Australians; mums and dads; those who work hard to get ahead—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Could members on my left, please, if you are leaving, leave quietly, and if you are staying, remain quiet.
Mr McCORMACK: Or they could just go and have another yelling session with the opposition leader. As I was saying, the member for Maribyrnong, this opposition leader, reckons he is the champion of ordinary Australians—unless, of course, they run a small business. The Leader of the Opposition said a lot today about how he, apparently, cares. But he left out one critical sector which drives one of the greatest contributions to the Australian economy. Just as he does every day, he forgot those ordinary, everyday Australians in small business—those ordinary Australians who run 2.1 million small businesses and employ almost five million ordinary, everyday Australians.
Every day in this country, ordinary Australians wake up and they go to work in small businesses, building the economy and creating jobs. Every day, those ordinary Australians take risks. We heard the Prime Minister in question time today talk about those risk-takers. He talked about their enterprise. He talked about the need for investment. He talked about small businesses. But we never hear too much from the opposition leader about small businesses. Every day this government is backing those small businesses. Those opposite have no plan for ordinary Australians, because there is one key thing about our economy they simply do not understand—
Mr Brian Mitchell: Do you support pay cuts or not?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is out of his place and is disorderly; he will be removed if he continues.
Mr McCORMACK: It is business not government which creates jobs. Our economy needs more people in work. It needs cities and towns, big and small, with opportunities for jobs and investment, whether it is metropolitan Australia, the outer suburbs, or regional, rural or remote Australia. The answer is small business. That is something that this government understands. We back small business because we know what it is like to run one. We back small business because we know what it is like to employ people. We back small business because we know that that is the sector which will make this economy grow.
Today, of all days—the second-last sitting day; it was to be the last, but we are coming back tomorrow—we want to deliver those ordinary Australians in small business a tax cut. Those opposite could make it really simple. They could have got on board with our plan. They could have got on board with our policies. But oh no! Typical obstructionists: they stood in the way—a roadblock to, a handbrake on, small business and the tax cut that they tell me that they desperately, seriously need, want, deserve, demand and expect.
Long before I spoke in here of the need for tax cuts in small business, I understood the issue personally. Unlike so many of those who sit on the opposition benches, to me a plan for small business is not theory. It is not something I have used as a pawn in my lifelong game of politics. It is not something on which I have written a book; it is something I have actually experienced. I ran my own small business—a family-run publishing company in Wagga Wagga—for eight years. And those opposite might like to know that, before that, I worked on a newspaper where I was actually a member of a union for 21 years. So I understand the balance. But those opposite get all too consumed with unionism. They get all too consumed with taking the little backhanded pays.
More than anything, I know what it is like to take a risk. That risk-taking spirit is why the government has a focus on small business, because it is not a small ask of anyone to take a risk and start a business. It is not a small ask. But there are millions of ordinary Australians who do, and there are millions more who will do just that if they are given half a chance. We are here to champion them. We are here to be their advocate.
Mr Hart interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I can't hear you; you're too far up the back! Today in Australia, no matter your location, your income or your background, the spark of an idea and the energy to work hard can start an international sensation—and it happens. I have seen it. I have been to forums where there were hardworking women who had an idea around the kitchen table. They focus-grouped it, and now they are globally exporting all manner of things. Today in Australia, there is an ability for those people in small business to take the risk and to back themselves, and we want to back them as well. We want to back their vision, but those opposite stand in the way.
The best support for an ordinary Australian is a job. We heard the Prime Minister say it today: almost five million jobs in Australia come from small business. Whether it is in the electorate of Lyons or the electorate of McEwen, those people want to be backed. They want to create the opportunity for their kids and their kids' kids, and for them to understand that their parents had a go. I am on a nationwide small business roadshow at the moment. I went to the electorates of the member for Mackellar and the member for Brisbane—he had 150 people turn up. He understands small business—a great retailer. He gets what we are trying to do; I just wish those opposite did. I have met with some wonderful, ordinary, everyday Australians who understand why they need a tax cut. I met them in Brisbane, and I am looking forward to going to Western Australia to visit the electorate of the member for Durack. One of the people I met along the way was Andrew from Nomadic Cafe in High Street, Berwick, with the member for Latrobe. He is a good member. When we were talking about our tax plan and our tax cut for small business Andrew said that that would be 'awesome'. He is an inspiration. He has this coffee shop. He could not understand why Labor and those opposite are standing in the way. He just could not get it. He is absolutely right. Ours is a plan backed by small businesses. Here is what some of them say, in their own words:
Defining small enterprises as those with turnover under $2 million a year is seriously out of step with the rest of the world and significantly limits Australia's potential.
That was said by John Pollaers, who the Australian Advanced Manufacturing Council chairman. Another said:
I'm confused why they're doing it. The $10 million threshold picks up so many small businesses, and it's like they want us to stay small. At the moment, I'm not sure what Labor are doing with small business.
That was from Peter Strong, the chief executive of the Council of Small Business Australia. And another:
The idea that the definition of a small business should be limited to those with a $2 million turnover is quite frankly outdated; there are many mum-and-dad operated small businesses around the country that are turning over well in excess of that figure, but they are by no means a 'big' business.
That is from Kate Carnell, who is the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman.
Mr Rob Mitchell: An independent voice!
Mr McCORMACK: At least she knows how to run a small business. At least she knows what it takes to back herself. At least she knows what it is like to take a risk. I do not know whether you have taken too many risks, but you are probably picking it out of a few businesses with your union mates. And that is the problem with those opposite: they do not want to get on board with our tax plan. Oh, here we go! The member for McEwen—this will be good.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The minister will resume his seat. The member for McEwen on a point of order?
Mr Rob Mitchell: Perhaps the minister, in his outrageous, spittle-filled rant, might want to actually refer through the chair, as he is supposed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for McEwen may raise the point. The minister will refer his comments through the chair.
Mr McCORMACK: James Pearson, Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, said:
We look to our government and our Parliament to show leadership and make it easier, not harder, for business to get on with the job.
Andrew Conway, Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Public Accountants, said:
Despite Labor’s opposition, we support the government proceeding with the bill and continue pragmatic negotiations to ensure it passes.
So, all of those people know that when small business is strong so too is our economy. This is something those opposite used to understand, but they now simply stand in the way. I do not get why they want to stand in the way, but I would love to see them come on board on this day of days, when they could actually get on board. I look forward to seeing the tax plan pass through parliament tomorrow. When the opposition leader, the same man who just railed against tax cuts, actually had to make decisions and actually had to stand for something—when the Labor Party was in government—he said:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate. We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in every three Australians.
He said that. It is actually four out of five, but we will forgive him for that. When he was in government, the member for Maribyrnong also spoke about 'reducing the corporate tax rate, seeing more capital flow into our domestic economy, which will then flow onto workers in the form of higher wages, thereby improving standards of living'. That is what the member for Maribyrnong said when he was in government. I do not know why he does not back us now. After all, he does have 12,951 small businesses in his electorate. It is time he backed them, and it is time he backed the 2.1 million small businesses across the nation.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:04): Labor has a vision for a strong economy and a fair society—an Australia that is safe and prosperous with an economy that is growing strongly, generating quality, well-paid jobs, and an Australia where that economic growth is shared. The Liberals do not share that vision. Their vision is very different. Their vision is tax cuts for the rich that, maybe, trickle down to the rest of us. Their vision is for a $50 billion tax cut that goes to the biggest businesses, including the four big banks, including overseas shareholders, but that does not drive economic growth in this country. Their vision is for a $16,400 tax cut for someone on a million bucks a year and a wage cut for ordinary workers.
This morning we heard a train wreck of an interview from the Minister for Industrial Relations and, incidentally, the Minister for Women. When asked about the government's own submission on the minimum wage, she could not answer a question about what was in her own submission, where it said that low-paid workers tend to be young, female and single. She could not answer how many, what proportion or what numbers were being talked about. Her own submission to the Fair Work Commission said:
Increasing the national minimum wage is not an efficient way to address relative living standards. Low-paid employees are often found in high income households.
As if my wage should depend on my parents' wage or on my husband's wage.
We are going back to medieval times when we say that a woman's wage should depend on what her husband earns or what her parents earn. It is an outrage, especially at a time when this government also supports cuts to penalty rates. We had Margarita up in the gallery before, and I met with her earlier today. She told me her story—how she came here in the early eighties and from 1996 onwards she was working in the hotel industry—as a widow trying to raise her young children. The youngest one was three years old.
She was having to work Sundays and be away from her family, because that extra 50 bucks a week made all the difference to her family and being able to put decent food on the table and a roof over the heads of her children and being able to get shoes and school books and all of the things a family needs. She could not live without those Sunday penalty rates. And this government says that she does not deserve those penalty rates and that 700,000 workers like her do not deserve those penalty rates for being away from their children on weekends. Her son asked her recently, 'Mum, why were you never there when I was eight years old?' She replied, 'Son, I was working to put food on the table and a roof over your head,' and he hugged her and said, 'Mum, you did a great job.' Can you imagine what it is like to be asked by your children why you were never there on a Sunday. Her daughter said to her, 'You are a grandmother now.'
Mr Laundy: I worked Sundays for most of my life.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Oh, the member for Reid says that he worked Sundays all his life. How much did you get paid for working Sundays? I will tell you: it was not the minimum wage, was it? It was not $17.70 to work on Sundays for you, was it, son? No, you did pretty well out of working on Sundays, didn't you? But you do not want to pay your workers for working on Sunday.
Mr Laundy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Sydney will direct her comments through the chair. The member for Reid will sit quietly. The member for Sydney has the call.
Ms PLIBERSEK: That is exactly what is wrong with the Liberal Party. We had the Prime Minister saying earlier in question time, 'Oh, Margarita, I understand your pain,' and we heard the immigration minister saying yesterday, 'The Prime Minister, he started with nothing and he built up his wealth over the years.' Started with nothing? In a log cabin at Vaucluse—he really started with nothing! When this government says that they understand your pain, the simple fact is that they do not, because they are populated with people like the member for Reid and this Prime Minister, who do not get what it is like to earn $17.70 an hour and to be told you are going to get paid less per working on a Sunday—the difference between putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of your children. They are pretending that they understand what that is like. This government are so out of touch and that is why their solution is cuts to big business— (Time expired)
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:09): I think the member for Sydney needs to hear that many small business owners, including members of my own family, have worked for extended periods for less than the equivalent of the minimum wage. Labor have had a bad day here today and they have had a bad week. The one little problem with Labor trying to bring together all these disparate issues into one silly line in one silly MPI with one misleading theme is that on any of these topics the easiest way to undermine them is simply to point out what they themselves were saying a short while ago. On energy, on wage decisions and on tax they are damned by their own quotes, sometimes from only a couple of months ago, if not a couple of years.
This topic today is actually the perfect showcase for us to demonstrate issue by issue the sheer hypocrisy of today's Labor Party, which, I have to say, seem on occasion to be a shadow of their former selves. They say one thing out on the streets and they do the opposite here.
Mr Swan interjecting—
Mr EVANS: I will get to you, Member for Lilley. I had to hold my tongue earlier this week in the Federation Chamber when I heard the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, trying to explain why he was voting against tax cuts for medium and small businesses around Brisbane. Small businesses, he was saying, just needed to see higher demand. What he meant by that was demand driven, ultimately, by government spending. In other words, Labor believes that small businesses would be much better off today and tomorrow if only Labor were at the helm blowing all of the money. It was a Keynesian inspired delusion of the highest order, and it completely ignored the real problem of competitiveness in Australian businesses, which is the real underlying issue of so many of these topics we are talking about in the House today, because, of course, you do reach a point where Labor runs out of other people's money.
The highlights for me was when the member for Lilley actually invoked the concept of trickle-down economics. The irony appeared to escape him that he was simultaneously talking about how he wanted to sit, as Labor, on top of the economy raining borrowed money down from above, turning on the fire hose of borrowed money, spilling bucket loads of other people's money, but accusing others of trickle-down—versus our approach, this government's enterprise tax plan, aiming to let millions of small businesses each keep a little bit of what is ultimately their own money, which will drive economic growth and jobs from the base of the economy up. Letting small businesses keep a bit more of their own money is the opposite of trickle-down. Small businesses, after all, are the very base of our economy, not the top of it.
Cuts to company tax rates are exhibit 1 when it comes to Labor's hypocrisy. For decades, actually, Labor used to come in here and back tax cuts for businesses. It was the long-standing aspiration of Labor leaders, heading back the generations—
Ms Price: They have written books about it.
Mr EVANS: They have indeed written books about it. In fact, in the last five years or so four of Labor's shadow ministry—the opposition leader, the member for Rankin, the member for McMahon and the member for Fenner—talked about the need to cut taxes. They spoke about it on at least 18 separate occasions that I can find. It really does cause you to lament the current state of Labor. Exhibit 2, I would say, is Labor's hypocrisy this week on child care. How, I wonder, will Labor explain to low- and middle-income families out there why they voted against reducing childcare costs for the most needy and deserving in our society?
Exhibit 3 is Labor's hypocrisy on multinational tax avoidance. This government has passed the first tranche of multinational tax avoidance laws already, and over the past year those laws have clawed back $2 billion, and counting, from multinational companies—taxes that would otherwise have fallen unfairly on the shoulders of local and small businesses. But Labor did not support those multinational tax avoidance laws when they had the chance. Small businesses, our strong focus, are so many and varied that they are difficult for centralised decision-makers to engage with. Small businesses exemplify reward for effort; they refuse or are unable to accept one-size-fits-all solutions. One of the two major parties in this country—Labor—cannot help but think first about big union and big business deals.
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (16:15): The politically inspired inequality of the Liberals is poisoning our society, and the power of big money is crowding out our democracy. Exhibit A of that is an unfunded $50 billion corporate tax cut, where the Treasury modelling shows it will not have the power and the influence over jobs and growth that the government claims it will. Common sense tells you that it will not either. Exhibit A here is really tax policy more broadly. Really what the $50 billion corporate tax cut is about is furthering wealth concentration in our society. When you combine their approach on tax with their approach on wages, what you are seeing is that the Liberals will try to shift the profit share up and the wage share down. But what that does is increase inequality. More and more people at the top have more and more wealth and more and more money, and more and more people in the middle and further down have less money and they consume less, and that is a basic Keynesian fact. We have a set of policies in place which are actually going to constrain growth; they are a handbrake on growth.
But we have a Prime Minister who believes that inequality is good for us. The whole range of their policies across tax and industrial relations are designed to make our society more unfair, but they will also make it in the long run less prosperous, because we know you cannot build a prosperous economy and a fair society if a shrinking share of the income in that economy is going to working people. That is why we in the Labor Party argue the point here very strongly. The logical way to grow our economy is not through massive tax cuts which will simply be funnelled back to shareholders and not invested in our economy. Exhibit A here is the $7.4 billion going to the four big banks. Their own economists said in the papers during the week that the money would not be spent on further investment and new jobs.
The effective tax rate paid by companies in Australia is something like 24 per cent or less. If we are not getting the investment with an effective tax rate of 24—six points below the nominal rate—how can we expect to get more investment through a tax cut? If one-third of all companies in the country are paying no tax, what is a tax cut going to do for them? The truth is that people will invest in an economy where there is strong demand, where there are good economic institutions, where innovation is happening and, yes, where it is competitive. But competitiveness is more than tax rates; it is your preparedness to invest in your capital and in your workforce. One of the reasons why our economy is one of the strongest in the world is that over a long period of time we have got the balance right. But now, sadly, we are becoming a much more unequal society and we are becoming that unequal society because of the politically inspired inequality being forced on Australia by those opposite.
We had a perfect example of that. We had seven CEOs out here yesterday making a plea for their self-interest and for the government: 'Please pass this $50 billion unfunded corporate tax cut. By the way, we happen to believe that a deregulated industrial relations system is a good thing and we happen to believe that lower wages are a good thing.' The combined salaries of the CEOs here yesterday totalled $65 million. Is it any wonder that the business community and this government are on the nose with working Australians when these people are standing there, on salaries of $5 million, $7 million and $12 million each, recommending that we cut the guts out of health and education with a $50 billion unfunded corporate tax cut in the name of jobs and growth? It is surely absurd.
We are becoming much more unequal and we are becoming that way because of government policy. The truth is that in Australia we increasingly have an overpaid and overpowered corporate elite. We now have an economy run by the rich for the rich, and the rest can get stuffed. That is actually where this government has got to. We have to have a suite of policies which reward everyone in the economy, labour and capital. If we continue with this trickle-down agenda, we will fracture our society, we will polarise our society and we may preside over the corpse of democracy in this country.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:20): What a very disappointing speech we just heard. It was very disappointing. We have heard the former Treasurer of this nation rant a disgraceful incitement of class warfare. There could be nothing more irresponsible than the billions of dollars of debt that you left this country! There are some young kids up there watching at the moment. I hope they understand that, in years to come, when they wonder why they are paying higher taxes, it is because of the debt from when that man was Treasurer in this nation. He ran up billions and billions of dollars of debt. We in this nation now have to pay $1 billion a month in interest because of the recklessness, the waste and the mismanagement of when that man who just spoke was Treasurer. He talks about 'Keynesian facts'. We should write that down—that is one we will always remember. Keynesian facts—that simply says it all! Look at the wording of this motion, talking about looking after the big end of town; no-one looks after the big end of town more than the Labor Party. The way they govern is with big unions, big business and big government all together, all three of them.
Let us look at a couple of examples. Who can remember the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal? Remember that one? It was a creation from the glory years of the Gillard-Rudd governments. Let's go through what Labor's Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal did—talk about looking after the big end of town!
What they did is force all small, independent truck drivers to charge a higher rate for their service than the big end of town, to drive the small guy out of business. When we tried to fix that, the Labor Party stood against it, because they wanted to look after their mates in the big end of town at the expense of the small, hardworking truck drivers in this nation. What a disgrace that was. We will always remember that.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Another example is the grubby union deal that was done with Coles. Even the Fair Work Commission, stacked with Labor Party appointees, found that that failed the better off overall test. It took a young guy working for Coles to take them on in the courts to show what a crooked and dodgy deal that was. Let us look at a couple of the other dodgy deals showing how Labor look after their mates in the big end of town. Let us take some of the dodgy deals they have done on Sunday penalty rates. KFC is one of the largest multinational corporations. They get to employ staff on a Sunday for $21.19, but the small business that competes against them is forced to pay $29.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The member for Hughes will resume his seat. There is a general warning in this House. I have let the discussion flow and it has got out of hand. Everyone is warned. I call the member for Hughes.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I was going through some of the dodgy deals where the Labor Party and their union mates looks after the big end of town at the expense of small business and at the expense of workers. There is another example. Dan Murphy's, part of the Woolworths Group, have a market capitalisation of $34 billion. Labor looked after them. On a Sunday their workers get paid $30. In comparison, a small liquor merchant, a small business, has to pay $37. That is another dodgy deal—looking after their mates in the big end of town. Why do they do this?
Mr Laundy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Reid will leave under 94(a).
The member for Reid then left the chamber.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: They want to line up the workers. They know it is easier for the big end of town to line up the workers so they can shanghai them into the trade union, which means they can get a lifeline into their pay packets, sucking away part of their pay as union dues, which then feeds into the Labor Party machine.
It is the coalition that looks after the small business community. When it comes to looking after the workers, one of the biggest expenses for workers in this country is electricity prices. Every part of Labor Party policy is to drive up the cost of electricity prices for the average worker in this country. You lot are a disgrace. You should drop this class warfare act you are going on with, because it is totally against the interests of our country. It is against the interests of our nation. It is about time you lot woke up to yourselves.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:25): If you had to sum up what this government is in one sentence, the words, 'The government is looking after the big end of town and hurting ordinary Australians' is a pretty good description. It encapsulates so much of what is wrong. Wages are going backwards while company profits are surging. Let us look at the Bureau of Statistics data: a 20 per cent surge in profits in the last quarter, while wages fell—
Mr Craig Kelly: Why is that?
Ms TEMPLEMAN: I am going to tell you why it is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Member for Hughes, the warning I issued earlier goes for you as well.
Ms TEMPLEMAN: Wages fell by 0.5 per cent. Yet the government is hell-bent on giving big business an unfunded $50 billion tax cut. Where is the wages surge? In the mining sector, profit is up 50 per cent in the December quarter; in construction, profit is up 32 per cent; and in professional services, profit is up 31 per cent. 'What is behind it?' those on the other side ask? Well, a combination of weaker wages growth, people working fewer hours, and higher underemployment. So companies are thriving, and the workers are paying for it. Customers are paying for it too—ordinary Australians, banking customers.
Research from the interest rate comparison website Mozo shows the big banks increased their margins above the cash rate across virtually every retail bank product last year, while at the same time the RBA cut rates by 50 basis points, from two per cent to 1.5 per cent. So ordinary Australians are paying higher interest rates to help the banks create higher profits. And still the Liberal government is desperate to give the same companies a $50 billion tax cut. Forget any delusions that somehow ordinary Australians will benefit from some so-called trickle-down effect—not if they are investors, because, thanks to franking credits, Australian residents who own shares in companies are effectively taxed only once, at their personal income tax rate, and most profit from big business is not reinvested; it is paid to shareholders, so it will not help local investment. What is more, a third of the tax cut that this mob wants to give will flow offshore. A fat lot of good that is going to do the average Aussie! This government puts big companies ahead of small and medium businesses every single time.
I grew up in small business. I ran a small business for 30 years. I have spent a lot of time talking to other small businesses. Many of the small businesses in my electorate of Macquarie are unincorporated. They are sole traders. Some are micro-businesses paying tax at their personal rate. Ninety-eight per cent of small businesses will not benefit from this big business tax cut. It is not going to help their cash flow and it is not going to help demand. In fact, all it is going to do is lead to the big companies having more money in their pockets. And, as always, it is the workers who are going to pay the price. There are plenty of Australians who are being hurt by this government.
In the same breath as pushing this tax cut, I am stunned to hear this government not wanting to lift the minimum wage, to give anyone a decent wage rise. In its minimum wage submission, the government makes it clear it simply is not interested in there being a decent wage rise for those low-income earners on $17.17 an hour. The government say the minimum wage and award classification are only part of a safety net of workplace relations policies, public services and transfer payments. But, bit by bit, those are the very things they are stripping away.
On workplace relations, they are undermining penalty rates for 700,000 people in the hope that it will flow through to every single award in every single sector. They have policies like freezing the Medicare rebate. There are little things that they think they will get away with, like freezing the amount of money the unemployed or pensioners or carers can earn before they start to lose some of their pension. In public services, there is the cut in health and the cut in education, refusing to fund things properly. Everywhere they can, they cut, cut, cut. Transfer payments are another area. These are things that help to make this a more equal society. They are a safety net. With family tax benefits, all they want to do is freeze them. And they would do more if they thought they could get away with it.
Low-paid workers who will benefit most from a rise in the minimum wage are going to be young, female and single. You only need to look at the other side to see where their priorities are. If you are a family, you are hurting because of freezes on family payments. If you are young, you are hurting because you cannot afford a house. If you get a pension, you are hurting. Every single thing that those opposite do is about hurting ordinary Australians.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:30): I rise today to talk about the critical importance of the tax plan—the company tax cuts to all large and small businesses across Australia. Firstly, I must say that those on the other side really are clutching at straws. They simply do not recognise and understand that the company tax cuts benefit all businesses and, therefore, all Australians. To be fair to those on the other side, very few of them, including the Leader of the Opposition, have actually worked in business. Most are trade union professionals or political hacks who really have not worked in business. They have never had a real job. They have never really employed people themselves. They have never been enterprising and developed businesses.
Dr Aly: Are you kidding me? That is an absolute insult!
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will cease interjecting. The Deputy Speaker has issued a general warning.
Dr Aly interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Well, I know. I do not think the member for Cowan knows—the television I watch when I am not in the chamber.
Ms BANKS: To be fair to those on the other side, very few of them, including the Leader of the Opposition, have actually worked in business. Most are trade union professionals or political hacks who really have not worked in business. They have not had a real job. They have not really employed people themselves. They have not been enterprising and developed businesses which underpin the growth of Australia. The simply do not understand why the tax plan is good for all business and all Australians. Moreover, they really do not respect the intelligence of Australian people in their pure misrepresentations and falsehoods that these company tax cuts are a handout for big business.
For businesses large or small—and to put it in simple terms for the benefit of those on the other side—I say this: during my entire working life before I came to this place, I worked in both small and large businesses. I worked largely in manufacturing business that make products which we buy from our supermarket shelves every day. These businesses employ and continue to employ thousands of Australians around the country—be that in retail shops, in the factories, in the head offices or out in the field in sales. Moreover, across Chisholm are thousands and thousands of people who get up every day to work in small businesses—be that to open their shops, cook food in their restaurants and cafes or sell consumer products to their customers. Those on the other side do not seem to understand that businesses employ thousands and thousands of Australians. The vast majority of Australians work in the private sector—unlike those on the other side—for companies large or small, or their own business. Every day, Australians all over the country get up in the morning to go to work—be that working on the production line, travelling in a car as a sales rep, sometimes very large distances because of the sheer size of this great land, working in administrative areas or as middle managers, junior managers and senior managers, or to work in their small businesses. They all understand that when companies sit down to map out their plan and consider whether they are going to continue to operate in this country, open a new factory or create new products, if it is cheaper to operate somewhere, what do they do?
Mr Taylor: They go somewhere else.
Ms BANKS: They go somewhere else. And what happens here? Factories and workplaces in Australia will shut down and businesses will take their work somewhere else. And guess what that means? No jobs for Australians. Anyone who has ever worked in business, or who works in business, understands this. Whether they work on the production line or in the office, they all feel the pain when businesses take their business elsewhere.
The Turnbull government's tax plan is a measured and constructive plan designed to drive jobs, growth and investment throughout Australia. Cutting the company tax rate to 25 per cent by 2026-27 and easing the tax burden on small businesses are central parts of the plan to keep the factories here, the offices here and the sales here. And that means to keep the jobs here. Fundamentally, these Turnbull government reforms will drive employment and wage growth, which will support ordinary Australians and Australian households. Australian workers will benefit from greater business investment and be able to become more productive.
Former Prime Ministers and Treasurers in this place, across both sides of politics, have advocated a cut in company tax because they know that a competitive tax system is necessary to drive economic growth, lift wages and create new jobs. It is about time that those on the other side stopped their antibusiness sentiment, stopped their politicking approach and agreed to the implementation of a plan that will benefit all Australians, create jobs for Australians and create a future for generations of Australians to come.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (16:35): I rise to speak about the continuing hypocrisy of this government's attacks on the lowest paid and most vulnerable in my electorate, whilst helping out big business and the highest earners. A lot of people in my electorate and across the country are still waiting for the 'jobs and growth' that they were promised at the last election. So where is it? And they may well ask. While they feel the pain of continuing cuts, unemployment, record-low wages growth and the highest levels of inequality that we have seen in 75 years, they switch on the news and see a government telling ordinary Australians that it is really interested in their problems, on one hand, but in reality it is either helping the big end of town or focussing on itself. It is the height of arrogance.
People in my area see a government that is attacking working conditions and reducing the take-home pay of one in seven workers. They see a government that has continued to prevaricate on issues like housing affordability, a government that continues to undermine the fundamentals of affordable health care in this country and a government whose ministers, when asked about the solution to many of these problems, seem to think the answer is that this is what ordinary Australians deserve and it is really easy to get a good-paying job. Statements like this exemplify this government's arrogance.
Like much of Western Sydney, my community saw through this government at the last election. They were not fooled by the three-word slogans and arcane trickle-down promises. They sent a clear message that they had had it with the arrogance that they had seen in 2013. Of course, it would be too much to think that these people on the other side would have listened. Instead, this government remains determined to reduce services that our most vulnerable rely on, like schools, pensions and health, while also directly attacking wages by cutting penalty rates to our lowest-paid workers. People are being sold short by this government, and they know it. These pressures are being felt every day in households in my area. People work hard to put food on their table and send their kids to school, spending long hours in distant commutes and missing out on the simple joys of spending time with them. Yet this government is increasing that pressure. It thinks that it is reasonable to expect them to lose more of their precious time at home. Families are already being hurt, and this government is now seeking to make it worse.
The consolation that struggling families will be given for their pain is the knowledge that a tax cut in the order of $50 billion is going to the top end of town. This government thinks it is reasonable to make life worse for so many in my electorate and reward the big banks, who have been consistently caught out in scandal after scandal, with bad investment advice and nonpayment of life insurance. I do not think a single parent trying to put their children through school, or a TAFE student who relies on penalty rates, would agree—for example, in 2017, results for the CBA show a half-yearly profit of $4,895 million, an increase of six per cent on the previous year. Similarly, ANZ and Westpac are up by eight per cent when compared to previous results. Yet these are all the same banks that have raised their home-loan interest rates outside the Reserve Bank decision and that have credit card interest rates that have been widely cited as being well above anything that would pass a pub test.
What will a tax cut like this do for families, pensioners and the unemployed in my electorate? Nothing. Just bigger profit margins for the banks and big business and a higher return for their shareholders. What it will not do is put food on the table, pay for school books, help people get to work or make housing any less expensive. What it will do is exacerbate inequality, accelerating the already widening income gap. Quite simply, ordinary Australians are being made worse off so that this government can help their mates at the top end of town.
To make matters worse, if my constituents do not have any money left over after they pay their bills, school fees, rent or mortgage and other essential living expenses, the lower wages resulting from the cut in penalty rates will mean that the economy is not going to get any better. Businesses both large and small are not going to grow if we have nothing extra to spend. Money does not trickle down, as the Treasurer would have you believe. We have to support the people who need it because that is what a compassionate society does.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (16:40): When I read today's matter of public importance, I thought I was reading an old MPI from the Labor government. The work this Liberal-led government has done to improve ordinary Australian lives is very clear. So what are we doing? We have heard today that we are working towards getting the federal budget back into surplus to pay off the debt that, as we have heard numerous times, those opposite created and expanded, which, as at February, is costing each and every working Australian an amount of $27,166.
As of the 2016-17 MYEFO, this shows that, despite the new global economic headwinds and the revenue writedowns, the country's budget trajectory continues to improve over the forward estimates because of the work we continue to do to control growth. The savings the federal government has made for Australians have been profound, and, overall, government expenditure over the current forward estimates is now $18.5 billion, lower than anticipated at budget time. Of course, it could be more if those opposite cared about reducing the debt and ensuring that the debt was not a noose around the neck of future generations. In addition to budget repair, we have assisted ordinary Australians and their families enormously, with the creation of 534,400 new jobs since this government was elected in 2013. With significant job creation on the federal government's watch, employment is continuing to grow.
As I have just outlined, the Liberal-led government is backing hardworking Australians with more jobs and less debt, unlike those opposite, who left every man, woman and child in this country paralysed with debt. But as we know, that is the Labor way. Labor strangled Australians through higher taxes and more taxes, as well as creating an incredibly negative economic climate where the jobless queues grew by around 196,000 under their management.
To give a local perspective with respect to Durack, what I do know is that, over the last 3½ years, services and infrastructure have improved. In the southern part of the electorate, the Wheatbelt has undergone enormous development. One example is the New Norcia bypass construction. New Norcia, some 130 kilometres north of Perth, is a popular tourist destination, as it is Australia's only monastic town. The New Norcia bypass project will allow heavy vehicles the opportunity to bypass this historic precinct, which will both help preserve the town's many historic buildings and allow for future development of the town.
Only last year I attended the opening of the revitalised West End precinct in Geraldton, which was developed with the help of this federal government. This precinct is a great chapter in the development of Geraldton's foreshore and the city's future. It will help boost tourism and be another space where local families can spend their time.
I do note that this MPI is all about the big end of town. I think those opposite know a thing or two about the big end of town. One of the most disturbing developments from the Heydon royal commission—and we have heard a bit about this over the last week—was the payments made to AWU Victoria, the member for Maribyrnong and Leader of the Opposition's very own union. This is the man who is styling himself as the alternative leader of this country. The man who leads those opposite thinks that he could possibly one day be the representative of Australia on the world stage. As the man who has orchestrated the taking of secret payments from Cleanevent, he has sold out the workers he claims to represent. That is what I call getting in bed with the big end of town. These are the people from Cleanevent. They are hardworking people who work in the most difficult of conditions. That does not look like he is backing the small man on the street; that just looks like he is in bed with big business.
That is why we are introducing legislation to ban the secret payments between business and unions, and we are requiring disclosure of the illegitimate payments. This is a simple and efficient measure, as recommended by the Heydon royal commission, to make unions more accountable and also more accessible, and I sincerely hope that those opposite will support this. So it is pretty clear, from this week, who is supporting the big end of town. We on this side are backing small business and looking after the workers of Australia.
MOTIONS
Productivity Commission
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:45): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That this house move that a Parliamentary Inquiry be immediately undertaken into the Productivity Commission and its reports, questioning its wider functions as well as reviewing a series of reports that have been prima facie culpably erroneous and misleading.
And that this:
1. Inquires into:
a. Whether the Productivity Commission has misled the Parliament of Australia.
Whether the Commission's advice has continuously failed to achieve even the most minimal standards of objectivity.
Whether in fact it has repeatedly worked within an ideological framework that has led to continuously and culpably biased outcomes. And that such outcomes have done serious structural damage to the Australian economy.
b. The Productivity Commission's recommendations have resulted in serious destruction to a number of Australia's major strategic industries, namely the motor vehicle, white goods and clothing industries.
c. That the inquiry inter alia evaluates the extent of the misleading and erroneous information and the necessity for abolishing the Productivity Commission and the recommendation of parameters for instituting a new commission that is:
i. Non Canberra based
ii. More widely representative of the Australian Community
iii. Made up of Commissioners that are properly qualified and with 'hands-on' experience in the field of production and commerce
2. And that the house takes note that the Commission's most recent report on Agriculture prima facie, contains the most patent and demonstrable errors of facts, says that Ethanol will add to the cost structures of farmers and will not reduce Co2. Clearly when a hectare of sugar cane absorbs each year 73 tonnes of Co2 from the atmosphere and puts around 20 tonnes of burnt ethanol Co2 back into the atmosphere. And whereas Co2 from the burning of the residual sugar cane fibre will into the future feed ponded algae then clearly this report is at worse erroneous, at best fatuous. Its remarks on the sugar industry are quite extraordinary since their proposed "Free Market" regime imposes a monopoly buyer upon almost every sugar cane farmer in Australia. A recommendation that clearly could not come from anyone but the most ignorant and irresponsible of commentators.
Leave not granted.
Mr KATTER: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Kennedy from moving the following motion forthwith:
That this house move that a Parliamentary Inquiry be immediately undertaken into the Productivity Commission and its reports, questioning its wider functions as well as reviewing a series of reports that have been prima facie culpably erroneous and misleading.
And that this:
1. Inquires into:
a. Whether the Productivity Commission has misled the Parliament of Australia.
Whether the Commission's advice has continuously failed to achieve even the most minimal standards of objectivity.
Whether in fact it has repeatedly worked within an ideological framework that has led to continuously and culpably biased outcomes. And that such outcomes have done serious structural damage to the Australian economy.
b. The Productivity Commission's recommendations have resulted in serious destruction to a number of Australia's major strategic industries, namely the motor vehicle, white goods and clothing industries.
c. That the inquiry inter alia evaluates the extent of the misleading and erroneous information and the necessity for abolishing the Productivity Commission and the recommendation of parameters for instituting a new commission that is:
i. Non Canberra based
ii. More widely representative of the Australian Community
iii. Made up of Commissioners that are properly qualified and with 'hands-on' experience in the field of production and commerce
2. And that the house takes note that the Commission's most recent report on Agriculture prima facie, contains the most patent and demonstrable errors of facts, says that Ethanol will add to the cost structures of farmers and will not reduce Co2. Clearly when a hectare of sugar cane absorbs each year 73 tonnes of Co2 from the atmosphere and puts around 20 tonnes of burnt ethanol Co2 back into the atmosphere. And whereas Co2 from the burning of the residual sugar cane fibre will into the future feed ponded algae then clearly this report is at worse erroneous, at best fatuous. Its remarks on the sugar industry are quite extraordinary since their proposed "Free Market" regime imposes a monopoly buyer upon almost every sugar cane farmer in Australia. A recommendation that clearly could not come from anyone but the most ignorant and irresponsible of commentators.
The first serious commission report was on the motor vehicle industry, and it was a report to the Hawke government, if my memory serves me correctly. The Hawke-Keating government proceeded to abolish quotas and to cut motor vehicle tariffs from 57.5 per cent in 1983 to 22.5 per cent by 1996. The Productivity Commission called it the ORANI model. It was named after one of their wives. The Productivity Commission projected that a decrease in motor vehicle prices would take place because the cheap imports would be allowed in with no tariffs. Well, just the opposite occurred. The average price of a standard Holden and Ford rose from $13,268 in 1983 to $26,000 in 1996. It was a 100 per cent error factor. That was their first foray—a 100 per cent error.
In 1987, 86 per cent of Australia's motor vehicles were Australian made. By 2009, only 21 per cent of Australia's motor vehicles were Australian made. Again, the Orani model said that over 10 years there would be a 20 per cent intrusion. Over five years, there was a 63 per cent intrusion. They were out 300 per cent. The Orani report was named after the wife of one of the senior departmental officials. She would be well advised to sue for divorce with punitive damages claims for defamation thrown in!
That was the start of the Productivity Commission's advice to Australia. It was 100 per cent wrong on one element and 300 per cent wrong on another. It advised Mr Keating to abolish the wool scheme. I remember vividly when it was introduced. It took the price up 300 per cent. Every year for the next 20 years we saw something we very seldom see in Australia—a nice production line with a nice acceptable price. That enabled us to have 20 years of untold prosperity in inland Australia. We thank the great Doug Anthony and the Country Party for what they achieved.
Mr Keating abolished the wool scheme, and he completely destroyed the wool industry. The Productivity Commission's advice was, 'Deregulate.' There are people on this side of the House who know what happens when you deregulate the labour market. I can inform them that the same happens to a farmer. When the wool industry was deregulated, we dropped to 30 per cent of our income. Wool was bigger than coal. In 1984, Mr Keating abolished the scheme and deregulated us. That was 'Mr Free Market' himself. It was the biggest export item that this nation had and he completely destroyed it. Today we have 72 per cent fewer sheep than we had in those days when the wool industry was earning us $6,000 million a year—in today's money about $20 billion a year.
I will just reel off the great advice the Productivity Commission have given us in the field of agriculture. They advised that there should be a deregulation of the sugar industry. Well, Woolworths and Coles wrote them a letter of thanks because the price went up 20 per cent to the consumers and the price went down to the farmers by 25 per cent. Good ol' Woolworths and Coles, the boys in the middle, picked up $350 million a year in extra profits. Then they deregulated the egg industry. The price went up to the consumers and the price went down to the farmers and good ol' Mr Piggy in the middle got an extra $350 million. Just from two deregulations alone, the benefit did not go to the consumers. The price went up for the consumers. There was terrible detriment to the farmers. Piggy in the middle got an extra $700 million.
Next comes the big one—dairy. They said, 'Let's deregulate the dairy industry.' In this case, the price to the consumers went up considerably and the price to the farmers went down. I carry around this wonderful history of Australia. In this history book it delineates what happened to the dairy industry. It quotes the letter that was sent to the North Queensland dairy farmers that said: 'We are paying you 59c a litre, but tomorrow, after deregulation, we will pay you 42c a litre.' That was a wonderful outcome! Piggy in the middle got $1,200 million a year more and half the dairy farmers in Australia went bankrupt. We had 15,000 and now we are down to about 6,500. I had 240 farmers in probably the most prolific concentrated dairy industry area in Australia—we now have 36, the last time I looked—and a lot of them exited the industry in the most terrible way.
This Productivity Commission has been an absolute disaster for this country. We now have no manufacturing base. The motor vehicle industry is gone. The whitegoods industry is gone. I might add, the last factory was in Orange. The conservatives have held that seat since it has been a seat in parliament, and they have lost it. Two years ago the last factory of one of their major employers closed. It was the last whitegoods factory in Australia and it closed. I feel sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia because I am sure that he actually agrees with everything I am saying here, and God bless him for it.
We now, this year, have no motor vehicle industry. Thank you, Mr Productivity Commission, for your advice! We now have no whitegoods industry in this country. Thank you, Mr Productivity Commission, for your advice! We have virtually no wool industry left. Thank you, Mr Productivity Commission, for your advice! In the giant sugar industry that rescued Australia from the Great Depression and is still one of our four major agricultural export items, we are down 20 per cent of our production. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms Sharkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (16:59): I am not as au fait on the sugar industry or the Productivity Commission's report as the member for Kennedy is or certainly the Deputy Prime Minister is, so I will defer to the Deputy Prime Minister to speak on behalf of the government in the near future on that. But in terms of this actual suspension of standing orders motion, the government will not be supporting a suspension of standing orders to debate the member for Kennedy's motion because we have our own significant legislative agenda that we want to keep debating in the House of Representatives tonight. Of course, the next item of business to be debated is the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, with puts into effect the recommendations from the Heydon royal commission. The member for Bendigo knows all about corrupting benefits, because she is a CFMEU member in this House. I am not sure of the union of the member for Bass, but he is certainly a former union leader and delegate who supports the union movement. I certainly would not make any accusations against the member for Bass about taking corrupting benefits, but he supports a leader, as does the member for Rankin, who was knee-deep in corrupting benefits issues when he was the secretary and the national secretary—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr PYNE: The member for Rankin interjects on me, but the simple reality is that the member for Rankin, the member for Bass and the member for Hunter sit quietly on the benches while the government gives example after example of the kind of corrupting benefits that we would outlaw through the legislation that is the next item of business on the agenda. That is why standing orders should not be suspended, because we want to move to the corrupting benefits legislation to ensure that people like the member for Bass, who is now leaving the chamber, hanging his head in shame—the member for Bass is running out of the chamber, embarrassed by his association with the Leader of the Opposition, as should members of the Labor Party on the frontbench be embarrassed about their association with the Leader of the Opposition, because the next item of business is the corrupting benefits legislation.
The government would much rather talk about the corrupting benefits legislation and deal with the issues raised by the member for Kennedy around the Productivity Commission in due course than allow us to be thrown off course when we want to deal with the corrupting benefits legislation. There are litanies of examples—the member for Bass knows what they are—where the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the secretary of the AWU in Victoria or the national secretary of the AWU in Australia, was involved in negotiations and signed enterprise bargaining agreements with businesses that were close to the AWU. He did not personally take money, but his union took money and benefited from those arrangements that they had with various businesses when he was in charge of the AWU.
Let's have a look at a few of those. One of those, of course, was Visy Industries—a very good business. It gave $200,000 in 40 payments to the AWU in the period when the Leader of the Opposition was the state secretary in Victoria. Now, why were they in 40 payments? Can the member for Bass explain why they were in 40 secret payments to the AWU? Why were they being disguised? If it was all entirely above board, if there was absolutely no reason to hide these particular payments, why were these payments made secretly from Visy Industries to the AWU in that period? It might have had something to do with the fact that they were negotiating six enterprise bargaining agreements at the time. But that is not the only example. There was also, of course, Alcoa. Alcoa gave $90,000 in eight secret payments to the AWU between 2005 and 2006, while the Leader of the Opposition was the state secretary or the national secretary. The member for Bass might want to explain why those payments were disguised in eight small payments that were made to the AWU, without being revealed to their members, while they were negotiating five enterprise bargaining agreements.
The House should move on to the government's business, in this case, the corrupting benefits legislation, rather than deal with the motion moved by the member for Kennedy.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (17:04): I have nothing but the greatest respect for the member for Kennedy. Over 24 years in this place, and before that in the Queensland parliament, he has been a great champion for the people of north central Queensland and, indeed, all of that state and, indeed, all of the country. I should say that, throughout the course of the sugar debate—which I think is what this motion is largely about—it is only the member for Kennedy who has serious conversations with me as the opposition spokesperson. It is only the member for Kennedy who has been lobbying me on behalf of canegrowers. I have not heard from One Nation and I certainly have not heard from Minister Joyce or anyone representing the government. There has been no greater fighter for Queensland canegrowers than the member for Kennedy.
But the opposition will not be supporting the suspension, because we cannot support the motion in these terms. I am not sure what has brought this unusual motion on at this unusual time, but I have no doubt that more than anything else it is about the current debate in the sugar industry and this particular report, which the minister for agriculture finally released this week. He received in November. It was his initiative—one of the initiatives of his white paper—but having received it in November, he snuck it out only this week without any response whatsoever. Why is that so? Having commissioned the report, the minister now finds that the commission has been broadly critical of just about everything he has done in agriculture. It is pretty voluminous; there is a lot of reading in there and a lot to learn about how Minister Joyce has made a mess of his portfolio. Of course, we now learn through the newspapers that, having wrecked the joint, Minister Joyce plans to flee the portfolio and leave it for someone else to clean up the mess.
This report is specifically critical of Minister Joyce's intervention in the sugar market. Indeed, this report is critical of the Queensland LNP's intervention in the sugar market. This report says that the Queensland legislation is flawed and a re-regulation of the sugar industry in Queensland, or anywhere in this country, will be a bad thing for growers, millers, people who work in those mills and the broader Australian economy and, therefore, a bad thing for the broader Australian community. The Productivity Commission—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The member for Kennedy, on a point of order.
Mr Katter: It is just a reasonable request that I am putting in, that you say whether you are for arbitration or whether you are for a monopoly. That is all I am asking you.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I am very happy to answer that in one moment. The Productivity Commission is not always right. No-one is arguing that it is, but we want evidence-based policy in this place, and it is the pre-eminent adviser and the body that gives guidance on microeconomic policy, including regulation.
I will answer the member for Kennedy's question. I am against precipitous compulsory arbitration without notice or without consultation. In an attempt to grab back the initiative from One Nation Queensland and having had the Treasurer say on Monday that the Queensland dispute is all fixed—the Treasurer has fixed it; it is in hand; it will just take another couple of weeks to cross the t's and dot the i's—last night, the Minister for Agriculture, no less the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Treasurer walked out to the cameras and said, 'We are going to have a sugar code. We are going to have a code of conduct under the Trade Practices Act in the sugar sector.' There was no code released, no consultation undertaken, no speaking with the millers, no speaking with the growers; we are just going to have a code of conduct. Extraordinarily, we learned today, confirmed by no less than the Minister for agriculture on Sky News only an hour or so ago, that this code of conduct will go to executive council without being seen by anyone in this place or in the other place, and without being seen by the millers, the growers or any member of the Australian community.
There are two precedents being set here: this will be the first mandatory code of conduct containing compulsory arbitration; and this will certainly be the first code of conduct to go to executive council without any consultation with anyone, sight unseen. This is extraordinary and will send a chilling breeze through the business community right across this country. Every sector tonight, as we speak, will be asking themselves: is this how this government works; are we now going to have mandatory codes of conduct with compulsory arbitration without any consultation or warning? This is economic vandalism at its worst. Those who will be hit most will be the growers of Queensland.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (17:09): I think this is incredibly important. The member for Kennedy and I clearly understand that in some instances we do need regulation. We need to make sure that we do not just have a monopoly reign supreme over the welfare of canegrowers. We heard what these canegrowers said. I went to North Queensland. I went and had meetings with the canegrowers. I went to a meeting where they expected 20 to turn up; we had 450. At the next one we had 450. What goes wrong in this place is that so often people go out and listen to the concerns and then come down here and do something else. We heard the concerns and we acted on those concerns. I know they are the same concerns held by the member for Kennedy and rightly so; we are on the same page.
The Productivity Commission tells us in this report that they believe in more regulation in the live cattle trade. That is another thing the member for Kennedy and I are on a unity ticket about—we do not want further regulation on the live cattle trade after the Labor Party absolutely decimated it. There is not one of them here. There is not one person from the Labor Party here. That is the sort of respect they have for the farming community.
We on this side have turned the farming community around. There has been 23.7 per cent growth in agriculture to December 2016. We made sure that we looked after these farmers, made sure they did not have a foot on their throat and made sure they had a choice in who they could sell to so they got a fair deal through the farm gate and a better return for them. We made sure the live cattle trade was open so those people doing it tough up in the Gulf got a fair return. But the Labor Party person cannot even sit on the benches. They are not even here. They desert the working men and women of Australia.
And here we have this ridiculous scenario as well where the Labor Party with the Greens moved a motion that there is no future for the coal industry in Australia—no future for those AWU workers, no future for those CFMEU workers. The Labor Party have forgotten about a group of people. They have forgotten about labourers. They have forgotten about the group that they were initially formed to serve. No, they have evolved. They have evolved into St Kilda. They have evolved into Paddington. They have evolved and moved away from what was started at Barcaldine. No, that was in the dim dark past. There is not a labourer amongst them, not one person who has actually gone out and done a day's work. Have you gone out and done a day's work, Member for Rankin?
Dr Chalmers: Yes.
Mr JOYCE: Where? What did you do?
Dr Chalmers: I painted a basketball stadium.
Mr JOYCE: He has painted a basketball stadium—there you go.
Ms Madeleine King: What have you done?
Mr JOYCE: I have still got a farm. I work all the time out there drenching my sheep. I will be doing cattle work in the next couple of days. You see, you have got to keep your hands to the actual core of what people are. That is the issue. That is what is missing here.
What we have over there, Member for Kennedy, is a heap of spivs who are standing by, wanting greater regulation on the live cattle trade. They believe that tree-clearing laws are not much of an issue and they do not have to worry about it. In fact, Member for Kennedy, in their 100 positive policies for agriculture, they recommend greater controls on tree clearing. That is where they are; they are with their Greens mates. They are supporting them. They are run by the Greens. They are so worried about the preferences in Annandale that they have forgotten about the timber workers in Heyfield—250 timber workers. They do not care about them; they care about the possums. They put possums before people. That is where it is.
Now we have the member for Gorton's brother running around this building, as he well should, trying to protect those jobs and nobody from the Labor Party is in this chamber standing up to protect those jobs. They will not go into bat for those jobs. They will not stand up for the people of Hazelwood. They will stand up for the people of Heyfield. They stand behind a report that says 'greater regulation for the live cattle trade'. This is what they have evolved into. This is where they belong; they belong with the Greens. They should just join up with them and pay the membership.
People in the past, the Mick Youngs, once great members of the Labor Party, would look in horror at what the Labor Party has evolved into. He was a former shearer. You do not have any of those, do you? There are no former shearers. We have got 'Wacka' Williams. We have got former shearers but you do not have them. The member for Rankin is another one. Those opposite believe in 'spivdom', but we are proud of what we have done in agriculture. We have turned it around. We are proud to stand behind building dams. Do they believe in building dams? No, they are going to take the money out of the dam fund. They do not believe in building dams.
Ms Madeleine King: Why?
Mr JOYCE: Why? Because it will affect Greens preferences. We are building the inland rail; they just talk about it. We actually do the things. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for the debate has expired.
Question negatived, Mr Katter dissenting.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (17:15): Given we are now past the time that we would normally adjourn on a Thursday night and given that the Senate is not making any progress that would cause us to need to stay here, I suggest that the House be suspended until the ringing of the bells, which I recommend not be before 9 am tomorrow in order to give colleagues some certainty about when they need to be back in the building. My recommendation is that we suspend the House and return at the ringing of the bells, no later than 9 am tomorrow.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House. The chair will be resumed tomorrow at the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 17:16 to 09:00
Friday, 31 March 2017
The House transcript was published up to 17:16. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.
The ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.
The ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
McGuinness, Mr Martin
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:00): Before I go to the matter I want to speak on, I just want to reinforce our condolences and concerns for the people of Queensland. As I understand it, the cyclone is heading south and there are more endangered communities. Queensland members are returning home today, and we just hope that everything that can be done is being done to help those communities.
I want to reflect upon the passing of Martin McGuinness, who was instrumental in forging peace in Northern Ireland. Martin McGuinness had a very controversial background. He was in the IRA in the 1970s, and in 1972 he, along with Gerry Adams, met with the British government in secret after 14 people were killed in the Bloody Sunday protest. From that point on, they were seeking to find a pathway to peace. In those circumstances, it was sometimes harder to forge peace and find a parliamentary solution to the troubles in Northern Ireland than it was to take up the option of sectarian violence. No-one is pretending that there were not misgivings about the conduct of Martin McGuinness in his life. But it is true to say that his life's journey—from being in a conflict in Northern Ireland to finding, oddly, a remarkable relationship with his nemesis, Dr Ian Paisley—says something about what can happen to people in their lives. In fact, Martin McGuinness had a very close relationship with Dr Paisley, who was also a firebrand but on the other side and who showed very little tolerance to republicans and Catholics for many years. Nonetheless, the two became close and worked together on trying to develop an ongoing peace in that ravaged part of Ireland.
You could say, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that the troubles in the 1970s and beyond were a manifestation of a conflict between two countries that, arguably, stretched back 800 years. And yet Martin McGuinness—as Bill Clinton said in the eulogy he gave at McGuinness's funeral—said that he had fought, and then he made peace, and then he sought to make change. Perhaps the most instructive comment that I have heard was made by Ian Paisley's son, who said that Martin McGuinness 'not only saved lives but made the lives of countless people better'. That came from Dr Paisley's son, and shows us that, ultimately, Martin McGuinness made a very important contribution to Northern Ireland.
Banks Electorate: Netball Facilities
Banks Electorate: Girl Guides
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:04): I want to speak this morning on the important issue of access to netball facilities in the southern Bankstown region in my electorate. We have a lot of great netball clubs in the Bankstown region: chief among them in my electorate are the East Hills Bullets, the Padstow RSL Demons, St Christophers Netball Club in Panania and the Picnic Point Pumas. The issue we have in the Bankstown region at the moment is that there is only one hardcourt facility for netball players. It is located up at Condell Park, which is part of the Bankstown region but not an easy place to get to from the southern part of Bankstown, particularly during the week, when teams want to train. Getting there through peak-hour traffic is often not easy. What we need is a hardcourt training facility in the southern Bankstown region. We currently have a number of grass court facilities. Whilst these were good in an earlier era, the reality is that these days netball is pretty much exclusively played on hard courts, and we need to convert one of these grass court facilities to a hardcourt facility.
I have been in touch with the Canterbury-Bankstown council about this issue. To date, the council has unfortunately not agreed to do that, and I think that needs to change. I would certainly encourage the netball community to continue to work on this issue. I, for my part, believe that this is certainly a project worthy of funding support, and I will advocate for funding support for this project not only at the council level but potentially at other levels as well. We need a hardcourt training facility for netball in the southern Bankstown region.
I also want to acknowledge the great work of Diane and Natalie Albrecht at Revesby Girl Guides, which has been in operation for over 50 years. In a community that has a very strong guiding tradition, Revesby Girl Guides is one of our strongest groups. Natalie was recently nominated for the Banks Volunteer of the Year Award for her great efforts over the past 12 years. She was also instrumental in setting up the Gumnut Group, which is for the very young girls around five to six years of age.
Revesby Girl Guides does a tremendous amount of work in our area helping out with things like Clean Up Australia Day and many other important projects. My own daughter has benefited greatly from the Girl Guides movement, and it is tremendous to see people like Diane and Natalie Albrecht doing such fantastic work and helping the next generation of young girls to get the benefit of the great tradition of Girl Guides.
Cyclone Debbie
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:07): Sadly, the people of Queensland are too used to floods, cyclones and all manner of natural occurrences tragically impacting their country towns, rural communities and cities. Today the people of Queensland face a great challenge. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people in Mackay and North Queensland, and also people in South-East Queensland.
My electorate has in it Wivenhoe Dam, Somerset Dam and Lockyer Creek, as well as the Bremer River and the Brisbane River. There is an obelisk in Goodna in the electorate of Oxley, just outside of my electorate, which has the flood levels from year after year, ranging from the 1893 flood, which devastated Ipswich and Brisbane, to the 1974 flood, in which my parents' house was eight feet underneath the water. We saw the devastation, the loss of life, the damage to property, the mental health issues, the loss of business profits, the loss of businesses, and the tragic impact on people's lives—on their livelihoods, businesses and communities—in the 2011 and 2013 floods.
My thoughts and prayers are with Mayor Graeme Lehmann and the Somerset Regional Council and Mayor Paul Pisasale and the Ipswich City Council. I will be with the councils as much as I possibly can; I am leaving today to go home to Queensland. I have been in regular contact with Councillor Cheryl Bromage, who is in charge of Ipswich City Council's disaster management. I want the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region to know that we are with them.
I thank the Prime Minister and the government for their commitment with respect to the application of Centrelink and Human Services resources. People on the ground can make a big difference in terms of mental health assistance and social work help and counsel. There has also been the application of military resources and the ADF. When I was there in 2011 in Karalee State School, they called it 'Karalee Island' because they were cut off for such a long time. When the military finally came to relieve the flood evacuation centre at Karalee State School, the relief on the faces of people at the time was extraordinary. I know how beneficial the application of ADF personnel has been in my region.
I want to give a big shout out to the SES, the rural fire brigades, the police, the council workers and all those people who will be working so hard over the next few days. As Cyclone Debbie comes down as a depression and hits south-east Queensland and as we face other challenges in that region, those workers will be put to great use and under great strain and stress. I want to let them know today that I and the member for Oxley will do all we can in our region, the western corridor, west of Brisbane, to make sure we support them. My thoughts and prayers are with all those workers who are working so hard.
Crawley, Ms Kara
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (10:10): Five years ago I spoke in this place to bring awareness to the plight of those suffering from mitochondrial disease. This is a disease which affects one in 200 Australians. It is commonly misdiagnosed, and it has no cure. Mitochondrial disease is a genetic disorder robbing the body of energy, causing multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Mitochondria provide our body with over 90 per cent of the energy it needs to sustain life. The disease reduces the ability of the mitochondria to function and to produce this energy, resulting in cells slowly dying until the organs fail. It is a life-threatening disease, and young Kara Crawley from Yowie Bay in my electorate was diagnosed with this disease at the age of eight after suffering a stroke. On Sunday evening, young Kara passed away three weeks after celebrating her 18th birthday. This is a terrible and horrible loss for her parents, Craig and Karen, her sister, Samantha, and her brother, Braden.
Kara touched our lives. She was a beautiful young women. She knew what all of us would hope to know, and that is to love and be loved, which she did in abundance. She was extremely bright. She loved playing the flute. She was at the top of the class. She loved playing with her friends and her brother and her sister. She wanted to study medicine at university and become a doctor like her mum. This is the way we wish to remember her. The funeral will be held tomorrow.
Kara suffered the symptoms of mito for many years prior to her formal diagnosis, which only came about through the sheer determination of her mother, Dr Karen Crawley, a general practitioner and an absolutely extraordinary individual. It was my privilege, a few years ago, to present Karen with our Cook Community Medal for her tremendous service to our community and to the community more broadly as part of the Australian Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, of which she has been a volunteer and leader, manning their helpline and assisting by holding fundraising events and, in so many ways, supporting many other families who suffer in this way.
Those of us who can be there tomorrow will gather together to remember Kara and remember her vivid and vivacious life and the way she was able to inspire all of us. She came along to our Cook Community Classic each year with her mum, where they would man a stall and talk to people about her condition. I know Karen and Craig would want us to remember Kara but, at the same time, remember all the families who suffer with this terribly debilitating disease. God bless young Kara. God bless her family. Our prayers are with them and with her brother and sister.
Road Safety: Cycling
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:13): On the 13 March I rode with my family and the cycling community of Melbourne's west in the ride for Arzu to demand that all levels of government deliver save cycling infrastructure for our cities. The ride was held in memory of Arzu Baglar, who was struck and killed by a truck while cycling to a friend's house in my electorate in preceding days. Arzu was travelling to Williamstown when she was hit by a truck at the intersection of Whitehall Street and Somerville Road in Yarraville. She was heading from an off-road bike path to an on-road bike lane at the intersection when she was killed. As a member of a cycling family in Melbourne's west, I was particularly distressed by this tragedy. Ms Baglar's death is representative of a broader issue with the safety of transport infrastructure for cyclists in Melbourne's west.
Melbourne's west has a relatively low utilisation of active transport. For example, three times as many Brunswick residents cycled to work each morning in 2011 as Footscray residents, despite the two suburbs being a similar distance from the CBD. The quality of cycling infrastructure and the safety of cyclists on roads in Melbourne's west is, no doubt, part of the reason for this relatively low cycling rate. Cycling in Melbourne's west can be a challenging experience, with cyclists regularly sharing roads with large numbers of trucks, on-road cycling lanes that funnel riders into heavy traffic and separated bike paths that end abruptly. The safety issues posed by these challenges will only become more acute as the population of Melbourne's west grows.
Melbourne's west has been one of the fastest growing regions in Australia over the last decade, and this growth is forecast to continue apace over the next 10 years. As population grows in Melbourne's west, so too does pressure on our transport networks. Melbourne's west needs a sustained increase in investment in active transport infrastructure to complement the major investments being made in both roads and rail by the Andrews state government. The low level of cycling in Melbourne's west relative to comparable suburbs in the north and east highlights the opportunity that investments in active transport offer for increasing the overall capacity of our transport network. In this regard, the new cycling infrastructure being proposed as part of the Western Distributor Project is welcome, but it is important that these plans offer comprehensive, linked-up travel pathways for cyclists and that these much needed infrastructure improvements are delivered as quickly as possible.
Labor understand that our cities face challenges of increased congestion, which is why we will prioritise a cycling strategy. A Shorten Labor government will require that all projects submitted to Infrastructure Australia add another criterion to their assessments: the inclusion of active transport modes, including cycling and walking. We will also continue to work with states and territories to consider establishing a new walking, riding and access to public transport council, as outlined in the 2013 report Walking, riding and access to public transport.
Given population growth in Melbourne's west, safety issues for cyclists are only likely to become more acute. The clear message from my community is that Ms Baglar's death should spur all levels of government to make infrastructure investments to ensure that, as far as possible, future tragedies of this kind are avoided.
Farm World
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:16): One of the most strategic and important events across Gippsland and Australia will happen this weekend with the 50th staging of the Lardner Park field days. This will be the 50th year that Lardner Park has hosted the four-day Farm World event. The emphasis this year will be on food and fibre and food and fibre's importance to this nation. There is a great history to this event but this year there will be a first also: this will be Nicola Pero's first year as the CEO at the Lardner Park field days.
In many ways, this event mirrors the progress of Gippsland and the way we have worked within our farming community and the part of our business community that affects agriculture. One of our great firms, Vin Rowe Farm Machinery, mirrors the history and success of Farm World itself. More than 50 years ago, together with local agricultural machinery dealers John Woods and Earl French, Vin Rowe founded the Warragul Field Days, now known as Farm World, one of Australia's largest farm machinery exhibitions.
Being part of Farm World has a great history. It was Gough Whitlam who went to Farm World and told the farmers they had never had it so good, for which he copped the opprobrium of many right across the nation at the time. The now Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has presented as the guest speaker at the Farm World luncheon. The luncheon will be held tomorrow, but it looks like we will be held back in this place and will not be getting to that luncheon. I think every Premier of Victoria has presented. John Brumby was so impressed with Farm World that after he went there as an official guest at the luncheon he went back next day to have a look around. That was really nice: seeing John Brumby with his family just wandering round. The day before he was being the Premier, but on this day John Brumby was, just like the rest of us, there to soak up the atmosphere and note the innovation and opportunities in agriculture, which has changed so much. New types of grasses are planted now, there is new machinery that puts carbon into the soil—there has been a whole shift away from the fifties and sixties Farm World that we knew.
I congratulate all of the people who have been connected with Farm World over the past 50 years. I congratulate them and I encourage them in continuing for the next 50 years because they showcase Gippsland and they showcase farming, particularly dairying. Their focus on enterprise and innovation is very well received, and we thank them for it.
Chifley Electorate: Waste Incinerator
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:19): Having grown up in Western Sydney, we have learned the hard way that it often takes ages to get the things we need, but super lightning-fast speed to get the things we do not want. It is certainly the case in the matter that I want to raise today and that has also concerned my friend and colleague the member for Lindsay and the member for McMahon. It is the proposal to establish a new energy-from-waste incinerator planned to be built at Eastern Creek. The reason why three federal members have decided to put in a submission opposing this incinerator is that it is such a massive proposal that it will impact a wide area of Western Sydney. It warrants us speaking up very forcefully, very loudly, on this matter and to represent the concerns of the community. Many have already started speaking out about the construction of this incinerator, whose EIS has not forecast emissions that are considered valid or attainable, and it plans to consume over one million tonnes of waste per year. It is a largest of its kind in the country and it is right in Western Sydney. We never asked for it. It is being considered to be built at lightning-fast speed. Construction impacts are hard to assess when compared against this. It is a massive issue and we are certainly not satisfied.
In the joint submission that we put in, we said we are not satisfied that the potential health impacts of this plant have been adequately identified and addressed. We certainly support Blacktown City Council, led by Mayor Stephen Bali, and their call for New South Wales Health to undertake a review of this plant to ensure there will be no impact on the health of residents. This thing will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with approximately 168 trucks used every day to deliver the waste there. It will place pressure on already resource-starved infrastructure in Western Sydney.
Constituents have been writing to me and are very concerned about this. They are saying that they want us to speak up on their behalf and to highlight, just like I have here in an email from Maynard Borbe, who said:
I am sure that majority Western Sydney residents feel the same way that we are sick of being the dumping ground for the junk and rubbish that other parts of Sydney don't want in their areas. We deserve better and we must demand better. Please be our voice.
That is why I am here today with the member for Lindsay: to say that we are very concerned about what is being proposed. We never asked for this facility to be built, we want other things to be done first and we want to make sure that the community's voice is being heard and, importantly, responded to and acted upon.
Hazelwood Power Station
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (10:22): Tomorrow many workers will leave the Hazelwood Power Station for the last time. It is in, any sense of the word, the end of an era after 52 years for the people of Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. It will be quite an emotional day for many people, obviously for the workers themselves and their families but also for the small businesses and contractors in our region. We stand together as a community in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley and it is good to be joined here today by the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent, whose electorate is also going to be adversely affected by the closure of Hazelwood.
I want to direct my comments today to the workers and the families themselves. On behalf of a grateful community, I simply want to say thank you—thank you for the work you have done. You should be proud of what you have contributed to the great state of Victoria and to the regions of the Latrobe Valley and the broader Gippsland community. When you walk out tomorrow, walk out with your heads held high. This is a difficult day for you and your families, but it is no time for politics. In the past people who work in the power stations in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley have been unfairly vilified. They have been vilified by some sections of the community because of their association with what is allegedly the world's dirtiest power station, but they have been doing a job that our nation wanted them to do—a job that has kept Victoria prosperous and successful for generations. The criticism of the Hazelwood workers needs to stop tomorrow. We need to simply gather around that community and support them in their future aspirations.
Hazelwood has been not just a provider of base load energy; it has been a provider of base load jobs. It has been important to the Greater Gippsland region. I am determined to work with all community members and urge that we remain as united as we possibly can as we face the critical challenges in our region. The member for McMillan and I will be fighting together to ensure we receive the support we need in critical infrastructure and support services that will help to create jobs into the future.
I have designed some T-shirts which have been printed and will be made available in my community which simply promote our pride in being part of this great region of Victoria. I know T-shirts are not going to change outcomes for people. They do not create jobs, but they will create an atmosphere of confidence and positivity about the future. Again, I simply say to those Hazelwood workers, to the contractors and to all other power station workers in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley: you are a passionate, proud and positive people. We need to work together in the future—and we will work together in the future. We are determined to make sure that the Latrobe Valley becomes the great community it needs to be in the future as well. We have a rich and proud history, and I am very confident that we can have a safer, stronger and better Gippsland and Latrobe Valley into the future. I have no doubt whatsoever that the best days of the Latrobe Valley are ahead of us.
Devil Facial Tumour Disease
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (10:25): Only two years ago the Tasmanian devil was chosen as the state's official animal emblem. I was going to bring a Tassie devil in—not a real one, of course; maybe a toy one. For those who may not know what a Tasmanian devil looks like, I have with me a likeness of one that is at the Tama zoo in Tokyo. It is important that these devils—two females, Maydena and Murdunna—are in the Tama zoo in Tokyo as they are part of an education and awareness program to save the Tasmanian devils. This is important because it is estimated that 80 per cent of the wild devil population has been wiped out by the deadly and infectious devil facial tumour disease since it was first identified in populations in 1996.
It is thanks to many hours of work put in by the community and all levels of government that we are beginning, hopefully, to find a cure for these magnificent creatures. From the establishment of insurance populations protecting isolated devils to the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, there has been widespread and monumental effort to address this issue. The fight for the Tasmanian devil, which is now listed as endangered, is as important as ever. Earlier this month, we heard about an international study involving multiple institutions over six years which has shown that immunotherapy can cure Tasmanian devils of this deadly disease, and that is fantastic news for Tasmanians.
Led by the University of Tasmania's Menzies Institute for Medical Research, with input from the School of Medicine, this latest finding has involved the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and the universities of Sydney, Southampton, Southern Denmark and Cambridge. This great discovery has been described as a 'eureka moment' by Menzies research team leader, Professor Greg Woods. He said:
Building a good understanding of the devil's immune system, which goes hand in hand with the development of a vaccine, involves years of painstaking laboratory work. The process is incremental, but with each step scientists are closing in on the disease. This breakthrough is the next step on from work published in 2015 that showed that the devil's immune system was capable of mounting an immune response to DFTD.
This research could lead to the development of a vaccine and ultimately help in the devil's survival. This is an extremely exciting development and one that the whole Tasmanian community will no doubt be watching very closely. I look forward to updating the House when we have more to say about saving the devils.
Cyclone Debbie
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (10:28): Currently in Queensland we are experiencing some abnormal weather conditions from Cyclone Debbie. My home town of Rockhampton, in central Queensland, has been inundated with higher than average rainfall. My heart and thoughts go out to family members and friends in that particular community as they go about their day doing business. Closer to home, as we come down the coast to my electorate, based in the south-east Queensland corner—the Gold Coast hinterland, Tamborine and the Fassifern and Lockyer valleys bordering Toowoomba—we are also now experiencing higher than average rainfall.
Having spoken to a number of people in my electorate this morning, looking for updates, I can say that the state of preparation and readiness is high. I spoke this morning with Alan Smith, the Beaudesert State High School principal, who has shut down the school. I think all of the schools from Central Queensland down to the border are shut today. So there are no children being educated, and that is not a bad thing, because with these unprecedented weather conditions keeping kids at home, whilst it may be a temporary inconvenience, is possibly the safest option for the kids. We are waiting on advice as to whether or not they are going back to school tomorrow, which will depend on the damage. Heavy rainfall is expected in the south-east corner this afternoon and it will strengthen until this evening.
That gives me the opportunity to suggest to people that if they have to be on the road, for whatever reason, and they used to drive at 100 kilometres per hour on a highway, because they have driven that highway every afternoon for the last 10 years at 100 kilometres per hour, if it is raining and there are many inches of water on the road then do not make the assumption that you can drive at 100 kilometres an hour. I remember a very effective drink-driving campaign that we had in Queensland. It was, 'If you drink drive, you're a bloody idiot.' Well, today we see a campaign which is not that different: if it is flooded, forget it. I want to reiterate that: if there is a swollen river with floodwater across the road do not attempt to go through it. If you do that you are fool. If you drive into flooded waters you are a fool, because you put the lives of emergency services personnel—who potentially live in my electorate—and council workers at risk. They will then have to endanger their lives to go out, save you and pluck you to safety. Yes, whilst they train for it, they do not look forward to it. A good flood is a flood where there are no deaths. My electorate has unfortunately not had good floods all the time. I hope that this is a good flood.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the following Address in Reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament—
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:32): I want to use this opportunity in our nation's parliament to not only give an understanding of what it is like to live in the electorate that I am proud to represent, Chifley, but to also extend my heartfelt thanks to the electorate for the faith that they have put in me to allow me the opportunity to serve. Being able to represent any area of this fantastic nation of ours is a great honour and I cherish every single day that I am here, in spite of the highs and lows. We try to recognise that we have been accorded a very rare opportunity to stand in this place, to work for the people we represent and to also, potentially, make a mark on the nation in our own individual ways and, in spite of what people see on the TV, to find ways to work with people that we would not normally work with. Differences of view, strength of feeling and a particular focus on your own passions and interests may collide with competing passions and interests of others. In this day and age, I do feel that our political and media systems tend to value division and put more focus on disharmony because, let's face it, it makes for interesting news. I am one person who would certainly hope that when people reflect on my time here they do not reflect too unkindly, and I hope that they reflect on the fact that I have tried to find ways in which to work with others of whatever political view, because I think it is incumbent on us to find a way to do that. In doing so you want to be able to put your best foot forward with the electorate that has given you that terrific chance to represent them. In the broader experience of life in Western Sydney, I certainly recognise the people across Mount Druitt, Blacktown, Marsden Park, Blackett, Doonside, Emerton, Rooty Hill, Whalan, Shalvey—there are a stack of different suburbs—and Quakers Hill. There are so many great suburbs. For those that I have omitted, please do not read too much into that. All the people that live in those suburbs are hardworking and industrious and do their best to get ahead. The same is true for people in other suburbs across Western Sydney, so it is a pleasure to represent those who put in so much. They do so in their workplaces. They do tremendous work volunteering, in organising so many wonderful events and in being part of community groups and clubs that all add to the fabric of the neighbourhoods that make up the Chifley electorate. But it does frustrate me—it does, I suspect, fire up a sense of indignation—that sometimes people in our area tend to get overlooked and stereotyped. I think that it is important that governments should, and I certainly think that governments always can, do more to help out and combine with the efforts of people on the ground in our area.
I find that Sydney is a city of two halves: the east and the west—and often it is the east making decisions about how the west lives. People say that that is some sort of unnecessary division in Sydney. Clearly the people that are uncomfortable with that observation are the ones who are uncomfortable with the reality that it is the case that decisions are made on the other side of town. The other side of town does not necessarily have to contend with clogged roads that are always tolled; schools that are becoming run down; feeling the ignominy of being put on some of the worst backlogs for school maintenance that are around; overburdened hospitals; overcapacity on train services and facilities around those train stations that basically make them less attractive to use and therefore push people onto already clogged roads.
I will use a local example of how Western Sydney gets the raw end of the deal and how that impacts on people's lives. Once the M7 motorway was opened disused land in the north of the electorate that I represent, in Marsden Park, suddenly became fertile for development, and the Sydney Business Park was established. I have spoken in this place many times about some of the great work happening there. It was exciting to have large, new businesses move into Chifley—big players coming in to our electorate. But what often happens is that businesses move in, but the job opportunities go to people outside that area. So, the managers of the business park and the developers, to their very great credit, agreed to get as many locals as possible into new jobs, with a focus on people currently out of work. They worked with a number of local not-for-profit organisations to identify local talent, train them up and make sure they were job ready to take those jobs.
The program was very successful. The majority of more than 300 jobs, for instance, at the massive new IKEA store in that park took on local applicants—about 75 per cent, I am led to believe. The not-for-profits specifically targeted the unemployed and engaged with organisations working with students struggling at school. But, when it came to continuing this process, they hit a hurdle. They put a modest proposal together to this federal government to help fund the nonprofits to keep training young people in our area and give them support to be job ready. They were denied funding. So we have a government that says it wants to reassess the way it is providing welfare in this country and make sure that it actually invests now to avoid people being stuck on welfare later, but when a proposal lands on their lap to do just that, they reject the proposal. Denying funding to Marist Youth Care was, I think, a massive tragedy. But this also highlights the fact that this government is all talk and no action when it comes to getting people off welfare to work.
Mr Wood interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: It is hard to be nice, Member for La Trobe, when you do try to do the things on the ground in your local area and you do not get support from the government who you believe, based on their own outward rhetoric, would support this type of activity but do not. So it is hard to just sit here. I refuse to remain quiet—I do not apologise for that—and I will raise these types of things in my address-in-reply.
The other thing is penalty rates. Of the people who do have work in our area, I have 10,224 people who are likely to be affected by the decision to move ahead with cutting penalty rates. In an era where there is underemployment and people feel like they are not working enough and where they feel like, for instance, their wages are not growing fast enough—it is not a feeling; it is the fact that they are—those people who live between Mount Druitt and Blacktown now have to contend with the prospect of losing 77 bucks a week as a pay cut. In some cases, people argue that this will be good for jobs, but, as someone pointed out to me, in the hospitality sector the job growth there is in double digits. So it is not like the current arrangements have prevented people from being employed in that sector. A significant number of people will now be stressing about how to balance their budget. I know that in my electorate and across Western Sydney 77 bucks is a big deal. It is fuel in the car or, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it could be the case of whether or not you are able to buy a new pair of shoes for your primary-school child. It is a big deal.
Talking of schools, I think one of the ways people in Western Sydney are being let down right now is a failure to invest in their future, with a government at the federal level that are not committing to the full needs-based schools funding program they signed up to before the 2013 election. They said that they were on a unity ticket, and, as soon as they got in, that ticket was torn apart. Chifley is going to miss out on $37 million in local schools funding. It is one of the biggest keys for people in my area to get ahead. People from very modest backgrounds are being denied the chance to go on and do great things because we are not investing in them enough in schools. Needs-based funding makes a difference in my area, and I hear this when I visit schools, for example, on presentation days. I remember when I went to Crawford Public School last year they talked about how the addition of a maths teacher had made a huge difference to the outcome and the performance of young people in that school. It makes a difference. Directing extra resources based on socioeconomic disadvantage is a real key to giving kids what they need, and it gives teachers and school staff the extra support they need to help improve results. So I think that is a big deal, and it is certainly something that I intend to continue to raise during the course of this parliament.
Another thing about schools is that, if the federal government denies school funding in one area, it cascades to through to another. In this case, state governments that feel they are not getting the funding support then look at targets to cut funding from. One of them is maintenance in local schools. There is a backlog in maintenance in schools across Mount Druitt and Blacktown that is worth millions of dollars. Some Chifley college campuses have had a backlog of over a million dollars each. Rooty Hill High School needed over $700,000 to catch up on their repairs. We are talking about basic work, like fixing torn carpet, replacing broken windows, fixing toilets, replacing guttering and repairing footpaths. Children who go to run-down schools are made to feel like their school is second rate. That should not happen. I will continue to raise that matter as well.
Infrastructure is a big deal for Western Sydney. It is one of the massive things that is a bugbear for people across our region. After having paid our fair share of tolls on one of the critical motorways, the M4, we are now looking at a state Liberal government putting tolls back on the M4. It is a horrible decision. People in Western Sydney know how grindingly, frustratingly slow the M4 is. A minor respite was the fact that they no longer had to pay tolls for the fact that they were sitting in congestion. Now they will not be left with just a slow motor way; they will be charged again, thanks to the premiers from the east of Sydney. Again, east v west. The biggest joke being played on Western Sydney residents is that one of the people supposedly standing up for them in state parliament is now out their way. Stuart Ayres, recently named Minister for Western Sydney, is 'minister for the tolls' more like it. People out our way are already paying by having to spend invaluable time away from family through delays, and now they have got to pay a toll for it.
Talking of motorways, there is the M9. This is a massive road that should be built but is not being built; it is not being funded. I hear all sorts of talk about creating jobs for Western Sydney and how investment in the south-west will make a difference. There is no investment being made in this toll road or in this motorway, the M9. It will make a huge difference between the M7 and the M9 in opening up lands for economic and employment growth development—and it is not being done. It is time the state and federal governments bit the bullet, secured the land and started drafting plans. We have seen how the M7 is on locked-in land for new businesses. Businesses are looking for better access. They are looking for opportunity, and the M9 is a project that will help them invest. I intend to keep raising this matter, again, through this term of parliament. This road needs to be built because the jobs and the economic activity flowing from it will be huge.
Talking of infrastructure, I think much of the talk about future of rail in Western Sydney has focused on what sorts of connections should be made to that horrible idea of building an airport in Western Sydney or whether the CBD of Parramatta is right for fast rail. But most Western Sydney residents would see an improvement in another project: fix the western line—do it. Either duplicate it or put more regular, faster trains on it.
It is 2017 and people should not have to spend almost as long on the western line to get to the city for work as commuters did back in the days of the red rattlers. This is especially true on the stretch from Blacktown to Richmond. That line runs through the heart of the north-west growth sector and is going to get busier and busier. And, by the way, we need parking stations that do not see lines and lines of street-based parking, because people cannot get a park close to a railway station and be encouraged onto public transport. This has to be fixed too.
New estates are isolated without public transport in our area. The problem with poor infrastructure, as people across Chifley and Western Sydney know all too well, is new estates springing up across the region are underserved. In Marsden Park I have seen tens of thousands of new homes either being built or in the pipeline to be built. How many new highways are being built to get to and from these suburbs? Very few. Making one-lane roads two-lane roads is not necessarily going to cut it. They are already full and the estates are not even done yet. We are not even talking about the schools going in. The rail services need to be sped up. Hospital services and healthcare services are required to support that population.
One of the great levellers, besides education—which I mentioned earlier—is technology. People in Western Sydney were looking forward to better internet speeds with the announcement of the National Broadband Network. It is not just about numbers; fast and reliable internet does do a lot to reduce the tyranny of distance and it would allow more people in my electorate to work from home or stagger their work times and ease the impact on roads. It is not insignificant. It would also help many small businesses do more without feeling the pressure to relocate to places that are better served.
Unfortunately, Malcolm Turnbull has stuffed up the NBN rollout. It is overdue, over budget and underserving. It is not going to be fast or reliable. We have heard that some suburbs in the electorate of Chifley are going to be connected by 2019—if they are lucky—and some of them will be using substandard technology, such as what is delivered through cable broadband. It is not good enough. The Prime Minister is not Santa Clause; he is the anti-Clause. He certainly made this big deal about faster broadband and has failed to deliver. He has stolen the gift that people were expecting right from underneath their noses.
The same person, Malcolm Turnbull, along with his Assistant Minister for Cities, launched the Western Sydney deal. Whereabouts? In Redfern—over 35 kilometres from Western Sydney. What a great plan! It was 50 kilometres from Mount Druitt. What a mockery that a plan that has very little detail to it gets launched outside the region and has very little impact on the region it is supposed to help! The only thing that they can point to in that plan is the development of an airport that I think will become a white elephant in time. Frankly, you are not going to have the majors moving out there, you are not going to have the support of it, and governments of respective sides of politics are going to be pumping money into that facility for years to come—instead of putting money into, for example, better health care.
Mt Druitt Hospital needs to be significantly upgraded to meet the growth of the region. Then there is Nepean Hospital, one of the most stressed hospitals in the state, right in our backyard in Western Sydney—again a victim of failed funding by the federal and state Liberal government. Mt Druitt Hospital lost a cardiac ward under the Baird government through a so-called relocation—we did not lose it; it was relocated. It was a cut in an area where a lot of people suffer from heart disease. It is just wrong to put that type of impact on people. The administrative trick of putting Mt Druitt Hospital under a banner with Blacktown Hospital has not hidden the fact that services and capability have been reduced. It is wrong. There are fewer beds and there is less ability to treat people coming through the front door.
It drives me nuts to see that health, roads, schools and broadband are all underfunded, yet money can be found for an airport—$8 billion worth, not being directed into our region. This airport will suck up money from federal budgets for years to come. Watch every single federal budget from hereon in. When they talk about the spend in Western Sydney, it is all going to south-western Sydney. That $8 billion could build five to 10 hospitals; it could hire 70,000 graduate teachers; it could go towards speeding up the Western Rail Line. It could go towards connecting infrastructure into those new estates that are being build right on our doorstep. It is just not happening. I just think it is wrong. As I said in an earlier speech: the things we need, we do not get and the things we do not ask for are lumped on us. I think that is frankly a crime and should not be tolerated. That is why Western Sydney MPs are speaking up more and more on this.
As I said at the start of my address, I was very grateful for the opportunity to be elected. As we all know as members of parliament—there will be some MPs who think it is by the power of the individual personality—the reality is we have a lot of people who support us to get there, be it family, friends and, importantly, the people who work with us, who either volunteer or are in our office. I just wanted to thank, in the last campaign, people like Nicole Seniloliand Rosanna Maccarone. I also wanted to thank Mel Mahmutovic, Kara Hinesley and Brad Bunting. There were a lot of people who helped out of my office in particular: my FEC, Gayle Barbagallo, and also Geeth Geeganage, who is a CFEC secretary and who also helped out in the campaign as campaign director. I thank all the people who staffed the booths and the members of the local Labor Party branches who put in so much.
It was a tremendous result off the back of a huge performance by opposition leader Bill Shorten and the entire Labor team. It has reflected the work of some my colleagues here, such as the member for Corio, who has been a longstanding member of this place. I also welcome the member for Bass as well. I am seeing many of the class of 2016 come in, who in a short space of time are clearly making a mark for themselves and making a massive contribution to the national parliament. We all feel very strongly about the special opportunity to be able to serve in this place. I know Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou speaks up very strongly for multicultural communities across our nation. The Labor team is full of ideas and full of energy, wishing to put all of that forward in this term of parliament to be in a position to take government at the next election and to make a meaningful difference to communities across this great nation. I thank the parliament for the opportunity to provide these words today.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:52): I thank the member for Chifley for those kind words. Addresses in reply in the life of an MP are a moment to take stock and, in a sense, give thanks to people who have helped us get here. The member for Chifley is somebody who I have known for a long time; indeed, prior to coming into this place, both of us worked in the union movement. We are about representing people and that is what we have devoted our lives to. I am very proud of the time that I spent in the union movement, and I know the member for Chifley is as well. It was there that I first met him. The member for Chifley is making a fantastic contribution in this place. Not only is it in terms of this policy areas around innovation and technology, where he certainly is making a contribution, but he makes this a more fun and better place to be when we come here to sit. I thank him for that.
If I can focus on my side of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, you have been somebody who has been here since the moment I arrived. I very much thank you for your fellowship. The member for Bass is someone who has arrived in the last election, so in a sense we have got the spread here of people who have been here for the journey and what the future holds. It certainly makes me feel good about sitting on the Labor side of the parliament.
I also want to echo the comment that the member for Chifley made: we are really the beneficiaries of so many other people's work. I would not get elected my own. The thing that mostly gets me elected is the Labor brand; I will be a lifelong member of the Labor Party and ever thankful for that. There are so many who have worked in my office, who have volunteered around the election campaign, and I want to take the opportunity of thanking them in this speech today.
I will start with my office. In no particular order, I acknowledge: Saverina Chirumbolo, Catherine Bergin, Lidija Ivanonski, Zachery Power, Haley Bamford, Geraldine Eren, Simon Furey, Michael Tate, Bec SmithandSophie Andrew, all of whom worked with me during the last term of this parliament. I am nothing without them. They do so much of the day-to-day work which enables me to stand here on an occasion like this—to articulate the policy of the Labor Party, to come up with good ideas about how we can contribute in the various portfolios that I have worked in and, of course, to represent the people of Corio and the people of Geelong in this parliament, which is such an honour to do. I am enormously grateful to all those people who have worked in my office over that period of time. They make it fun to go to work. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for all they have given, and at the same time give an enduring apology for me on my worst occasions—which I hope are not too frequent.
In Geelong we are part of what is very much a Labor team, and that goes beyond just the federal sphere. There are a number of state MPs who I work with on a day-to-day basis. We see ourselves as a team representing Labor in the region. In that vein, I would like to acknowledge the Hon. John Eren who is currently the Victorian Minister for Sport but is also the member for Lara; the Hon. Lisa Neville, who is currently the Victorian Minister for Police and the member for Bellarine; the Hon. Gail Tierney, also a member of the state cabinet; and Christine Couzens, the member for Geelong. We are well-represented within the Victorian Andrews government; indeed, there are three MPs from Geelong sitting in that cabinet. It is an unprecedented level of representation at the highest level of the state government, and that is because of the quality of those people. They do an incredible job representing their constituencies within the state sphere, and I am thankful for the support they give me.
It is great to be part of that Geelong Labor team, representing the people of Geelong at every level. All of us share the experience of doing street stalls and meeting constituents. Constituents should not be expected to know, necessarily, whether the problem that they are raising with you is a state problem or a federal problem. They may have an issue with their dealings with government or with society, and they come to speak about that to you as their representative. But, in order to respond to it, often it means calling a state colleague and getting them to follow through on an issue—if it is a state issue that is being raised with you—and equally, a state member will call me, if one of their constituents has raised an issue which is a federal issue. It requires cooperation and teamwork, and we certainly display that.
During the last election, we had more than 370 volunteers. They helped by working on street stalls, doorknocking, phone banks, putting up yard signs, and handing out leaflets on pre-polling and election days. It was a Herculean effort across the entire electorate. I would like to name all 370, but I think I would be stretching your courtesy, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, if I did that. However, I do want to mention a number of people who particularly helped during that period of time: Stephen Hogg, Lena De Rosso, Vlad Selakovic, Gail Cook, Wayne Mader, Leonie Sheedy, Tegan Whitten, James Koval, Jett Fogarty, Rachel Penny, Ellen and Alex Csar, Lex Chalmers, Tony Kelly, Wendy Jones, Owen Sharkey, Rodney O'Brien, Cameron Granger, Chris Kelly and the entire Port Arlington branch of the ALP—who did a sterling job out on the Northern Bellarine. I thank also Chris Van Ingen, Roger Lowrey and Jill Peterson—long-time friends, Craig Meddings, Joe Pavlovic—who is an icon of the Croatian community in Geelong, and a really big supporter; I appreciate his support, Kelly Toyne, Desiree Balaburova, Ali Heydari and the team of volunteers he brings to bear—I was with Ali a couple of weekends ago celebrating Nowruz; Ali is a member of the Iranian community in Geelong and a very significant contributor at whole levels of Geelong society. I also want to mention Darren and Natasha Lamont, who are old friends, and Glenn and Russel Menzies—Russel used to work for me, a long time ago, and Glenn and Russel and their families are such supporters. Thanks also go to Sam Lynch and all those from Young Labor who came down the road from Melbourne, Julie Field, Wendy Jones, Fred Bree and Robyn Davis, Rosemary Nicholls, Tristan Groegar, Yunxiang Zhu, Sharon and John Mitchell, Sue Thompson, Steve Bellis, Hendrika Markevitch, Geoff Fary, Zoli Lucso, and Mick Kremer. I could mention so many more, but I wanted to get those names on the record because each one of those people devoted significant amounts of time during the election campaign. Again, as the member for Chifley said, we are but the consequence of the efforts that they put in, and I know very clearly that the incredible privilege I get to enjoy as being a member of this place is in large measure because of the work that they put in completely freely and in their own time.
I particularly want to mention William Reeves, who came down from Melbourne and handed out for me on the day. I have known William since I was 11, I think. He is a school friend of mine. He does not live in Geelong but has always made it a point on election day to come down and assist me, and there is something wonderful about having friends over that journey. Both of us are witnesses to each other's lives. I have many other friends of that duration, but I particularly wanted to mention William, who made the time to come down on election day. I am very grateful to him.
Geelong is blessed with a significant and active civic leadership. G21, an organisation which represents five councils in the greater Geelong region, is in fact in Canberra in the last sitting week, so many members on both sides of the House got to meet them, and that is a frequent occurrence, as it is to meet those from the Committee for Geelong who come to Canberra and advocate on behalf of our community. They obviously do the same in Spring Street in Melbourne. The level of organisation and commitment that we enjoy in Geelong from those groups is really important, and they are, of course, bipartisan and work with all sides of politics, as they should. I am indebted to them for the sorts of ideas that they put forward. In terms of having an understanding of one's community and knowing what it is that we in this and my colleagues in Spring Street should be advocating for, the work that those organisations put in is hugely influential. I think it is important in the context of the last election to acknowledge them, not as partisan supporters of mine in any sense but as people who influence the scene and do so in a really positive way for our community. I acknowledge Bill Mithen and Elaine Carbines from G21. I mentioned Dan Simmonds and Rebecca Casson from the Committee for Geelong and Kylie Warne and Bernadette Uzelac from the Geelong Chamber of Commerce.
I would also like to acknowledge Geelong Trades Hall, who play a very significant role within our community as well. There are many from Geelong Trades Hall who I mentioned in that long previous list who have been assisting me. They also play a very significant role in the ideas and the advocacy that they mount on behalf of our community.
There are four people I particularly want to mention who, if I can put it this way, are a source of personal advice for me about Geelong. I know that these people give advice to all sides of politics, and they do so with the intention of trying to put the representatives of Geelong in a better position to do their work: Frank Costa, Andrew Balaam, Brian Cook and Peter Dorling. Each of those people is so important to me in giving me guidance, advice and mentoring, and I am very indebted to them. They are great people, and they are great people on the national stage. We are really lucky in Geelong to have them living in our town, and I cannot give enough thanks for all that they do for me but, much more significantly, for the region. It is an appropriate time to acknowledge them as well.
I want to mention Richard Lange. Richard was the candidate from the Liberal Party for the seat of Corio. Richard ran a very impressive campaign. He worked hard. He did it with an enormous amount of honour. Representing one of the major parties in a federal election is a huge thing to do. It is essentially a volunteer act; he was not paid for a moment of his time. He participated in the discussion with me about the future of Geelong, and we are better for the fact that he did that. I do not know if it is the right thing to say I enjoyed working with Richard, because I do not think that is the way one puts it when we were competing with each other for a seat, but the truth is I did really enjoy getting to know Richard. He is a really good person, and I thank him for the time that he put in in this election campaign. I really do wish him the best for the future. From where stood, I thought he did a great job in the role that he performed.
The seat of Corio is intimately connected by geography with the seat of Corangamite. We are the two seats which represent Geelong and inevitably I do a lot of work with the member for Corangamite. I very much congratulate her on also being re-elected at the last election. In the context of that election, I worked very closely with Labor's candidate for Corangamite, Libby Coker. I want to acknowledge Libby as well for the work that she put in. She did a sterling job and got a swing to Labor in that seat. It is a really hard and thankless task. I know that she knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of phone calls and spent the better part of 18 months working on this. It did not go unnoticed. It was not the result that Libby hoped for, but it is a really significant contribution to fly the Labor flag in the seat of Corangamite, and we certainly have hopes at the next election. It is important to acknowledge the work that Libby put in at the last election.
I want to thank my family and my extended family, a number of whom came down and helped on election day: my sister, Liz Marles and her husband, Ken Quail; my other sister, Vic Marles, and her partner, Geoff Westcott; and my third sister, Jenny Green, and her partner, Sue Doust. I am so lucky to have three elder sisters. I often say that I feel like I have been raised by a tribe of women, with three elder sisters and my mother, who was the first Equal Opportunity Commissioner in Victoria. I want to acknowledge her, Fay Marles, and my father, Don Marles. We are a very close family. There are some challenges that we are all facing together at the moment, but it is a joy for me on election day to see all of my family participating in this. I also want to acknowledge my wife's family, Vince and Judy Schutze, my wife's brother, Jason Schutze and his partner, Wayne Norman, and my wife's sister, Mel Schutze and her husband, Albert Landman. They are a great source of friendship to me and support in what I do. My children, Sam, Bella, Harvey and Georgia all played a role during the election campaign, including Georgia who was six at the time, so we are working on her early. Most of all, I want to acknowledge Rachel in this context who is an ongoing support. Her support was incredible during the election campaign. I am not here but for her. I want her to know that, but also know that whatever I do here and whatever significance is attached to that in my own life, it does not bear comparison with the importance that Rachel has in my life and the future that I really look forward to sharing with her, as we have shared our past.
There were a number of significant regional issues which came up during the election campaign. I was pleased that we were able to make announcements within the Geelong region. There was a $16 million regional innovation fund which would have seen 20 new regional innovation hubs around Australia and part of that would have been in Geelong. Indeed, the member for Chifley came to Geelong to participate in that announcement. We announced a $5 million pledge to AnamCara, which is a community hospice, together with a lot of private money that has been raised. It would have made a significant contribution in putting in place a hospice. That understates the significance of it. It is a new form of end-of-life care which really is state-of-the-art in how that should occur. We made announcements in relation to Avalon Airport to ensure that the airport was deemed as a regional airport and, in the process, that classification would delink it from Melbourne and, as result, would not be constrained by air service agreements with international airlines that apply to Melbourne. This is important because we need to see Avalon become an international airport, and we are all working very hard on that endeavour.
We announced $59 million for a Manufacturing Transition Boost jobs package. That would have applied across Australia, but a significant component of it would have applied in Geelong. That is important as well because we are a community that is going through a transition with a number of difficult decisions that have been taken around manufacturing, most notably the decision by Alcoa to stop the Point Henry smelter, and the decision by Ford back in 2012 to stop manufacturing cars in Australia; they indeed stopped manufacturing cars in October 2016.
I was really proud that just about the first announcement that was made across the country during the election campaign was a $2 million contribution to the GROW project being run by G21, which I mentioned earlier. GROW is a project that is focused on dealing with disadvantage in the areas of Geelong, and the region, that are doing it toughest; places like Norlane, Corio, Newcomb and Whittington where we are seeing a divide grow, which worries me greatly. People often ask me how Geelong is doing in the face of decisions by Alcoa and Ford. At one level across the region we are doing okay, but it is in suburbs like Norlane and Corio, where a lot of those who worked at Ford and Alcoa live, where you do see an added layer of disadvantage occurring. The GROW project is about targeting in on that, and I was very proud that we made a funding commitment to that. It is sad that that did not eventuate by virtue of the election result, but I really hope that we can do something if ever we come back to power, and that we can focus not only on suburbs like Norlane and Corio in Geelong, but indeed on suburbs like that around Australia.
That then speaks to the national effort, and I want to thank Bill Shorten for the incredible role that he played. Throughout the last term of the parliament, we were policy-brave in the kinds of things we were talking about. We did not shy away from things like negative gearing and tackling issues like that. We also articulated our core values around making sure that there is a strong social safety net—I notice the member for Ballarat is here, and she did a sterling job in relation to the Medicare campaign—and focusing on jobs and making sure that we as a country are not going to leave anyone behind. Bill was fantastic in the way that he did that, and that was certainly a message that resonated in Geelong.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (11:12): In this address-in-reply, I want to do a couple of things. I want to acknowledge the terrific efforts of the campaign committee in Ballarat for their work in retaining the seat of Ballarat for federal Labor, and I also acknowledge the many volunteers throughout the community who have worked on my campaign for a long period of time.
I also want to focus on some of the contemporary issues that are happening right at the moment. We are obviously some months on from the election now—it is the uniqueness of this place that it takes quite some time for us to actually get to the debate here—but I want to reflect on some of the current issues. On Saturday I held one of my regular mobile offices. I have been doing these on a Saturday morning for the past 16 years. This time I started in Sebastopol. It is an area of higher disadvantage than, for example, Central Ballarat, and it is largely characterised by people who have worked or are working in trades, labouring, retail and health services. Sebastopol also hosts a number of retirees, mainly on the age pension but also, reflective of its long working-class history, on part pensions.
Generally at mobile offices, I get two or three people mostly just wanting to pop by and say hello, but on this weekend there was a queue of 20 people. The sorts of issues being raised ranged from people waiting long periods of time to get an outpatients appointment to get on the waiting list for general surgery at our hospital, to an older couple with diabetes who wanted me to ring their GP to see if they could get waived the $70 fee that they now have to pay for every visit that they had not been paying before. I had someone who found that their blood pressure medication had doubled in price and was worried that they could no longer afford it. Another local reported that a cancer skin cream that they had used had also substantially increased in price. A young woman with three children with disabilities said that, as a result of now having to pay a disputed Centrelink debt, for the first time she was having to use emergency relief to pay for food, and also had to use that to pay for her kids' uniforms.
The reason I am raising this as part of my contribution this morning is that I think that my small snapshot of a mobile office on a Saturday morning is reflective of a broader and deeper problem that has emerged since the Turnbull government came into office. That is the problem of growing inequality and deep poverty, particularly amongst groups who were previously managing to get by—if only just. That inequality is particularly evident when it comes to health care. Without a doubt, this government has been systematically unravelling the universality of Medicare.
What do you think happens when you try to introduce a fee for people to go to see a GP? What do you think happens when your next attack is to freeze the patient rebate to doctors and basically force a situation where doctors have to either introduce fees or up the fees that they are charging? What do you think happens when you increase the amount patients have to pay to fill a prescription? What do you think happens when you cut incentives for pathology companies and diagnostic imaging companies to bulk-bill their patients? What do you think happens when you basically say to the states: 'We're not going to pay the agreed share of growth in activity that is occurring in our public hospitals. We are going to pay you a lesser share'? What do you think happens when you cut money to improve emergency department and elective surgery waiting times and to boost subacute care? What do you think happens when you cut funding for aged care? It hurts patients. That is the legacy of this government every single day. And it not only hurts patients, it also hurts some of the most vulnerable patients in our community. That is what happens when you make those decisions.
The latest health minister, in his attempts to establish some credibility, likes to point to savings that Labor made as some evidence to justify the harshness of his own government's decisions. But, frankly, he completely misses the point. Labor was able to find savings in the health portfolio to reinvest in important social safety nets, like increasing public hospital funding and funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we did that without hurting patients. The means-testing of the private health insurance rebate, which is something this government went to the 2013 election saying that they would reverse—well, we are yet to see that—was reinvested in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Savings in pathology were accompanied by a bulk-billing incentive—something that the government wants to cut—that was designed to keep bulk-billing rates high for pathology, and that is what it did.
It is around nine months since Australians cast their votes and they sent the Prime Minister, and I quote, 'a very clear message'. It has been nine months since an election which taught this government a very clear lesson but, with so many cuts to health still on the table, it is hard to see what they have learnt. Some four days out from the election, the member for Wentworth feigned contrition and said, 'We have to do more to reaffirm the faith of the Australian people and our commitment to health and Medicare.' He promised to work hard to regain trust and to reassure Australians that the commitment to Medicare was a bipartisan one. It never has been, so that would be something new. As always with this Prime Minister, you have to look at what he does, not what he says.
How many health cuts has the Prime Minister actually reversed in the nine months since he allegedly learnt his lesson? None; not a single one. Indeed, every single health cut this government took to the election remains on the table. They are as committed as ever to gutting Medicare and making Australians pay more and more for their health care. The GP tax by stealth is reducing bulk-billing and driving even more patients into already overcrowded emergency departments—nothing has changed; making Australians pay more for vital tests and scans, including pap smears—nothing has changed.; hiking the costs of prescriptions, making even vulnerable patients pay more—nothing has changed; ripping $421 million from the pockets of patients through cuts to the Medicare safety net—nothing has changed. This is not a government that has learnt its lesson. This is a government that simply does not get the impact that its continued cuts are having on our healthcare system and on patients.
For many general practices, the freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule has been the final straw. We are already seeing clinics abandoning bulk-billing altogether and being forced to charge patients $10 or $20, even for children and concession card holders. This confirms, as the AMA president on budget night said, 'The poorest, the sickest and the most vulnerable will be the hardest hit.'
We will shortly reach the one-month mark until the government's next budget is due to be handed down in early May. It is a clear test for this latest health minister and the government: will they finally admit that they got it wrong and that their health policies are hurting Australians and drop them all, including the six-year freeze on the Medicare rebates? Keep in mind that so far they have failed the test at every turn; at every opportunity they have had to reverse the freeze, they have done nothing—in fact, they extended it. In 2014 they introduced the freeze, and in 2016 the Prime Minister himself extended it out to 2020.
This latest health minister is keen to pretend that there is nothing to see here and that he is going to fix all of this. We know that he sat at the cabinet table and signed off on every single one of these decisions that have such a negative impact on our health system. For years, GPs, specialists and health experts have been sending a very clear message to this government: the freeze is hurting, and it should have been dropped a long time ago. This is what the AMA president said during the election campaign:
We know there are some GPs that are already changing their billing practices, and that commences today, on 1 July. The reality is that there are a lot of GPs who've decided that they could probably take the hit for a couple of years, but they are saying enough is enough.
But did the government listen? No, of course it did not. It had an opportunity during the election campaign to admit that it got it wrong and to reverse the freeze.
The fact is that, under the government's freeze, years of damage have already been done. For years the Turnbull government has made health care less affordable for every Australian and has made out-of-pocket costs even higher. Australians are seeing the impact of the government's cuts every time they need health care, whether it is during a visit to their GP or at the hospital. This government simply has not made health a priority, and patients are having to pay.
We do not want to let the Prime Minister forget this pre-election promise: that no Australian would pay more to visit the doctor as a result of his Medicare freeze. That is what the Prime Minister said. The government's own statistics show, in black and white, what a complete and utter lie that was. And let us remember in the days after the election when the Prime Minister feigned contrition, cried crocodile tears and said that he had heard the message and learnt his lesson. Again: how many health cuts has he actually dropped? None.
Beyond the freeze, the health approach has been characterised by cut after cut, which has made health care less accessible and less affordable. They still, as I said, have on the table the cuts to abolish bulk-billing incentive payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging. And let us be clear again as to who is the target of that decision: it is the sickest Australians—the Australians with chronic conditions, the Australians who need blood tests, ultrasounds, mammograms and PET scans to diagnose and treat potentially life-threatening conditions. That decision is all about making patients who are being treated for cancer and other serious health conditions pay hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars up-front for their scans.
They also have legislation, as I said, to cut the Medicare safety net. The evidence against that decision remains. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners warned of significant concerns that the proposed changes would leave all patients with greater out-of-pocket costs. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists told the inquiry into the safety net cuts that the college was very concerned about the impact the proposed new Medicare safety net would have on vulnerable people with mental illness who require long-term intensive psychotherapy. Radiation oncology providers warned that the changes would, on average, more than double patient out-of-pocket costs for radiotherapy. The Department of Health admitted that, based on the current arrangements, certainly for assisted reproductive technology:
… our analysis says that the second and further cycles may leave a patient around $850 out of pocket …
Of course we also know that the government has some further cuts in radiation oncology on the way.
The government also has a measure on the table to increase the PBS copayment by up to $5—the biggest price increase for prescription medicines in a decade. Pensioners and concession card holders will pay more than $7 for each script—an increase of 80c. Everyone else will pay an extra $5 for prescription medicine. The more expensive medicines become, the less likely it is that people will fill these scripts. Around 1.8 million Australians already say they avoid filling prescriptions because of cost, and of course this will only get worse.
Then there are public hospitals. Labor had to bring the government kicking and screaming to accept that they were wrong to abandon Labor's long-term funding formula, which rewarded hospitals for doing more operations and seeing more patients, provided they did this at an efficient price. But the government did not do this properly. They did not put in the money, and in fact short-changed the states and territories substantially. That is why Labor promised in the election to fully restore the National Health Reform Agreement for the next four years, at the originally agreed funding formula of 50 per cent of growth in costs based on the national efficient price. We also said we wanted to provide additional support to public hospitals, to the states and territories, to specifically reduce waiting times in emergency departments and for elective surgery. That boost in funding would have seen an extra $2 billion over the next four years, on top of what the Liberals have promised, to drive efficiency by funding the states and territories on the basis of their actual services performed. This would mean reduced hospital waiting times, more beds, and more doctors and nurses. We encourage the government to do what it promised to do: to match Labor's policy and deliver on the original agreement.
As I said, nine months after the election, the government have done nothing to show that they have listened to the millions of people who voted against every single one of their cuts. We are now close to this Prime Minister's second budget, and we can only hope that it is better than his first. But, at the end of the day, no matter what the government do in the budget, the damage to our Medicare system has, unfortunately, already been done. On Saturday I saw people waiting just to get into an outpatients appointment—let alone get on the waiting list for surgery at public hospitals—people having to pay more as they go to see a doctor, people who were previously bulk-billed, people worried about whether they can afford the price of their medicines, and people worried about whether they can feed and clothe their children. All of that damage is happening now, and we are seeing it every single day in our communities. This government have done that damage, and they have a legacy that will go on for years and years to come.
Rather than develop a decent health policy or a new agenda in health, let alone reverse their billions of dollars of cuts to health care, the government like to spend quite a bit of time focussing on Labor's campaigning tactics, which somehow or other they think were not what the standards of campaigning should be. I am going to use a swear word, which will be bad, but bugger me—that is the worst I can do. I mean, seriously! This is really what this government says. But, frankly, what this government have done when it comes to our health care is absolutely appalling. They attempted to privatise our Medicare payments system, which we stood up and stopped them from doing. They had every intention of sending it out to the private market. The private market were telling us very strongly that they had had indications from the government to put their tenders in, that they were very keen to outsource that payments system and that they were ready and gearing themselves up to wait for the government to release the tender process. Labor stood against that and stopped that happening, making sure that the Medicare payments system stays in public hands and that we have a government that will invest in that payments system and bring it into the 21st century.
But they have also forced patients to rely more and more on their own private means to pay for their healthcare costs. There are many people in this country who firmly believe that they cannot afford health care. When we think back on when Medicare was developed, we remember the words of Bob Hawke, who said there were two million Australians who, in the event of becoming unwell, would face bankruptcy because they could not afford health care. I am very worried that, under this government, this is the pathway that we are now starting to head down again, as they try to shift costs away from the Commonwealth to states and as they try to shift costs away from the Commonwealth to individuals. We have to stand up for Medicare and against this government.
As I said at the start, I want to say thank you to the many people who assisted me throughout the campaign. Nationally, having the role as the shadow minister for health, I particularly want to thank one my previous staff, Alex White, who now works in the leader's office; Andrew Garrett; Stephen Spencer, who now works in Penny's office; and Jo Cleary, who works for me and worked with our national secretariat on the health media. They are an amazing group of people who love health policy and are deeply committed to equality and getting good policy outcomes. I thank them every day for the amazing work and effort that they put in.
In my own home town, the staff in my electorate office, who for many it was their first time through a federal campaign, worked incredibly hard. The volume of work that they were able to get through: the doorknocking, the mobile offices, the staffing of street stalls everywhere—they worked very, very hard. The volunteers in my campaign, again too numerous to mention, are people who each and every single election campaign step up, do the work and stand out at polling booths.
I have to give a particular shout out to Andrew Boatman and Emma Harding, who set up the pre-poll booths. People know Ballarat is a bit cold. In winter it was really cold. It snowed. We were on pre-poll in snow for days, basically. We were freezing. Ballarat is cold, but you normally do not stand out in that weather for hours and hours. So, the setting up of those pre-poll booths by Emma and Andrew every single morning, making sure that our bunting was out, doing all of that work and then staffing those booths was a fantastic effort.
To the Ballarat Regional Trades and Labour Council, to Brett and his terrific team there, again I am enormously grateful for your support and your constant guidance not only as we head into election campaigns but also every single day. We know election campaigns are not just won on election day. It is the work that you do year in, year out that really does make a massive difference in terms of whether you deserve people's votes. I have always said in my own electorate that you have to deserve the votes of people, and that means you have to work hard.
I want to particularly thank the people of Ballarat for again putting their faith in me. Ballarat is an incredibly beautiful and complex place to live in. It is my home. It is where we live, work, our children go to school, and we love the diversity of it every single day. I am very grateful to be able to continue to represent them in this place and to every single day honour their commitment in electing me to make sure that we get the resources that we need to develop and grow our great city.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:32): It is always a great pleasure to deliver an address-in-reply. If you are doing it, it means that you have been re-elected to your job, because that is what it is. It is a job that I very much enjoy. I do want to thank the member for Ballarat. She and I share the privilege of having come into this place at the same time. It is fabulous that she is now at the forefront of defending Medicare, and I certainly stand with her in that effort. I know how important Medicare—and bulk-billing, in particular—and affordability of health care are to the people that I represent in this parliament.
I am very privileged to have been re-elected as the member for Calwell. It was my sixth election, and I feel a great debt to the people that I represent in this parliament. I have gotten to know them very well over the years. For new members: Dr Anne Aly, the member for Cowan—and the member for North Sydney—you will come to realise that eventually you build a very strong relationship with the people that you represent. It is a relationship that is based on friendship, in many ways, and trust. They place a lot of trust in us as their elected representatives to be here to advocate on their behalf and certainly to be vigilant on their behalf when policies are being implemented, or seeking to be implemented, that would be detrimental to their daily lives.
I have indeed formed very strong relationships with my community, and I want to talk about that community today. I also want to spend quite a bit of time—and I do not normally do this—to thank the very many people who, in the time that I have been in parliament, have come with me and have helped and assisted me, and who I have the great pleasure of working with.
I have often said that my electorate is probably one of the most culturally diverse electorates in Australia. It is also an electorate that is quite happy to re-elect Labor members of parliament. After being their Labor federal member of parliament and talking about my relationships with them, I have come to understand why it is that they have placed their faith in the Australian Labor Party. I am very privileged to be the Labor member for Calwell. As other colleagues have said before me, I do not get elected as Maria Vamvakinou the individual, I get elected as the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Calwell. I acknowledge that and appreciate it.
Mr Zimmerman interjecting—
Ms VAMVAKINOU: They have come to like me. I think they have realised that I share a very strong identification. Thank you for prompting me, member for North Sydney. I share a very strong identification with the people that I represent, and I think that is why we have such a bond and an empathy.
Calwell is predominantly migrant community. It is a community that has the same experiences that my own family have had. I arrived here as a four-year-old child in 1963—that gives my age away, but it does not matter when you get to this stage. I came here under the Arthur Calwell migration program. It was an expansive, massive migration program that was deliberately designed to set the foundations for modern Australia. It was a nation-building exercise.
My family and I were—as I am sure Dr Aly's family was—a part of that. I can reflect back on it now, 60-odd years later, after Arthur Calwell, Australia's first migration minister, literally went out and sourced migrants from war-torn Europe, as I have said in this place before, from the UK and even from the United States. He sourced them because, as he said—and I think it is very important for us to know our history—we could not hold this continent with 7½ million people. Today, this continent sits at 23 million people. Those politicians of that time, and the Labor government at that time, had envisaged a bigger Australia. They set the foundations for it. There are many people in my electorate who came here under those programs in subsequent decades, in particularly the Turkish community. After the official abolition of the White Australia policy, we saw the great migration of people from Turkey. They settled in Calwell. They came to Australia, got off the plane at what was known as Tullamarine Airport—today it is the Melbourne Airport—and were driven some 10 minutes down the road to the Maygar Barracks, which at that time were similar to Bonegilla, but in inner Melbourne, and were used as hostels hosting newly arrived migrants from Turkey. Then they just left the hostels and moved up the street. They have built a wonderful community. As a result of the Turkish community being in the federal seat of Calwell, when I describe the seat I can say that it has the largest constituency of Australians of the Muslim faith in Victoria. When I first came here I believe we had the largest in the country, but some seat in Western Sydney, that I will not make reference to, holds that record now. In any case, it is a wonderful and vibrant community.
We have people from 100 different ethnic groups. We have the established communities: a very large Italian community, a very large Greek community, a very large Serbian-Croatian community. We have emerging communities from the subcontinent. We have quite a number of people coming and settling in our region from Nepal. But my biggest emerging community of all is the Chaldean Christians from Iraq. They have been settling in the area over the last 25 years since the two Iraq wars. Recently they celebrated 25 years since they began coming to Australia as refugees. They are a growing community and they face lots of similar issues that migrants and refugees face when coming to Australia, especially those who have been quite forcibly and unexpectedly dislocated from their homes. They will face the same sorts of problems in many ways that perhaps a lot of the migrants and refugees who came to Australia in the sixties did, which is why we have this empathy. I can identify so strongly with them and that makes my job all the more rewarding.
In the time that I have been a member, I have forged a very strong relationship with the Iraqi Chaldean community and the Assyrian Eastern Orthodox Christian community—I have both in my seat. I have watched them grow, especially in the last decade, and build the foundations and the infrastructure that any community needs that moves into a particular area. Some people like to call that kind of congregation a 'ghetto'. It is not a ghetto, and I reject that term outright. They are communities that live in an area where they share a common identity and a common language, and in most places it is their places of faith that are established first. In the case of the Chaldean community, we have about four Iraqi Christian churches in my electorate. It is the natural progress of a community. To refer to it as a ghetto is an expression of utter ignorance. I know it is used in contempt and it is often used against my Muslim community in Broadmeadows, and I have had to stand up and defend them. The communities do their own infrastructure building and they support each other in a way that assists the government's overall settlement program. So I see it as a settlement issue not an issue of banding together to exclude everybody else. And this is how it is with the Iraqi Christian community.
I want to thank Father Maher Gurges from St George's Chaldean Church. I work with Father Maher often. He is one of our local priests, a Chaldean Catholic priest who is charged with the pastoral care of the young members of the community. He does a fantastic job and I like working with him and being able to help him and them in the settlement process. I also thank Father Kamal Bidawid from the Church of Our Lady Guardian of Plants, the Chaldean Catholic church in Campbellfield. We had a very special visitor in November last year. The Governor-General of Australia, Sir Peter Cosgrove, and Lady Cosgrove attended the advent mass service, which marks the beginning of Christmas. They came down to my electorate and attended that service and the community was very, very honoured to have had them. From my perspective, the presence of the Governor-General in particular is a very positive sign—a sign of acceptance, embrace and recognition of a new community. It goes a long way to assisting the settlement process and that sense of belonging and being part of the Australian community. I want to thank his excellency in particular for coming to Calwell to Our Lady Guardian of Plants.
The community recently celebrated its 25 years of migration to Australia. They are doing a wonderful job and I continue to work with them. I look forward to the submission that they are going to be making, or I understand have tabled, to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and our inquiry into the settlement services. I am very pleased my community is able to participate in the process. I also want to acknowledge Father Korkis Tuma from Saint Abdisho's Assyrian Church of the East and Father Youkahana Matti from St Mary's Church, the Ancient Church of the East, and Mr Elias Saliba and Father Aphram from Mor Yacoub Syriac Orthodox Church in Mickleham. I visited that church on a number of occasions. I have actually conducted an immigration clinic there after service on a Sunday because such is the number of people in that community who are waiting for outcomes for family members under the additional 12,000 places for refugees from Syria. It is just an indication of how much is going on in my electorate. In addition to having virtually every Christian from Iraq living in Calwell, I also expect some 2½ thousand or three thousand from the 12,000 intake from Syria. So we have a lot going on in the federal seat of Calwell, but I think we are a well-placed community to help and receive those newly arrived.
Often the stories you hear are actually quite heartbreaking. I want to pay tribute to my local schools, in particular, who will receive children who have just come out of a war zone. I have wonderful teachers and wonderful principals who go out of their way to ensure that those children and their families are assisted in a way that makes them feel welcome. Often a lot of those families are just left to find their way home in the streets of Broadmeadows and elsewhere, and they have trouble doing basic things that we just take for granted, which can frighten people even more. So thank you in particular to Good Shepherd Catholic School in my electorate.
I also want to talk a little about the Oromo community, which is also settling in my electorate, and especially the women from that electorate, who I love to sit and have coffee with and share their cooking advice. It is part of the wonderful things that we do and are exposed to as members of parliament. I feel, at this point, that I had better start thanking a whole series of people that I often forget to thank, because, as other members have said, you do not do this on your own. You certainly do not get through an election campaign on your own and you certainly do not work in the community on your own. And, like all other members of parliament, I certainly do not.
I want to begin by thanking my core staff: Paul Caruso, Emma Ioannou, Marianthi Kypuros, Stephen Fodrocy, Carole Fabian and Aniela Kociuba. They do a tremendous amount of work. They put up with a lot, but they also have a wonderful manner with our community. It is really important, when you are not there, that your staff have the same sense of empathy and the desire to help people that you do, because that reflects on you as well. Our staff really are at the door when we are away, and the community feels that it is being heard, even though you are not there. So thank you to all my staff.
I have picked up a lot of members of the community along the way who have become my friends, and I want to try and thank as many of them as possible. I may try your patience, but I think it is really important to let people know that they are important to us, and that we mention them when we are up here. I want to start by thanking Michael Shergill; Hamza Wariyo, who runs the Oromo community; Irfan Hassan and Samet Istar, who are wonderful friends, wonderful Labor Party members and wonderful community members; Phillip Di Biase; Belal El Baba; Ryan Moore and Justin Barbour; Draga Atanasovski; and Madonna Awad, from the Coptic community.
I want to thank Walid Hanna, from the local Iraqi community, who also runs our annual soccer tournament—the Iraqi Unity Cup. He does a tremendous job in terms of social cohesion. I also want to thank Ali Awan, from our local Pakistani community, who is also responsible for organising the Multicultural Eid Festival—I look forward to attending that again in June this year; Joseph Todaro; Karen Sherry; Louie Josef, from the Chaldean community—Louie is a wonderful supporter of the work that we do and a conduit into the Chaldean community, and I want to thank him for making my job much easier; Thomas Keplar; and Thekla Scarcella. Thekla is one of those wonderful migrant women who has managed—apart from working in factories—to write lots of stories, again indicating that those migrants who came here did have skills other than the ones that were put to use in a factory. So thank you, Thekla, for being who you are.
Thank you to John Patsikatheodorou, Anthony Calfapietra and Upul Chandana, and to Joseph and Sheena Haweil. I want to congratulate Joseph Haweil, in particular, who was recently elected to the Hume City Council. Our council has changed, with lots of young people replacing the old guard, and Joseph is going to do a great job as a local councillor. Thank you to Peter Perna, a stalwart of the Italian community and one of the founding fathers of the Italian club in Sunshine; to Terri McNaughton; and to Chandra Bamunusinghe, who is from the Sri Lankan community—and I look forward to attending their annual oil lamp ceremony in a couple of weeks time, which usually takes place on a very cold morning in April.
I want to thank David Carroll; Cheryl Woods; Peter Ryan; Ted Haydon; Jana Taylor and Geoff Porter, both councillors at Hume City Council; Ray Gorman, an old postie and someone who fought very hard for the rights of post office workers; Ramazan Altintas, who is very well known in the community as the founder of the Turkish RSL Club; John Walsh, the founder of the Bridge of Hope Foundation; Kathleen Wallace; and Saqib Awan and Uzma Rubab, who are members of the newly emerging international Pakistani students community and who are teaching me a whole new world about the thinking and psychology of newer migrants to this country, who come here as international students and choose to stay as residents.
My thanks to Peter Massey and Daniel Grayson. Thank you, Daniel, for being so passionate and caring about refugees. Daniel visits some of the people who have been in our local Melbourne immigration transit centre for a long time. I would also like to thank Richard Donaldson and Sarah Angus; Jess Awad; Sam Caruso; Fatima Hoblos; Yousef Alreemawi; Troy Atanasovski; Burhan Eren; Paskal El Ali, Don Townsend; Janet Curtain—my Janet Curtain, who is an advocate for people with disability. I want to thank her for her brightness, positivity and optimism. I thank Meni Malkos, also a great crusader for animal rights and Amnesty International; George Johnson; and Chris and Despina Havelas, in particular Despina, who established Autism Angels and works hard for children with autism.
I really need to thank my family—my husband, Michalis, and my children, Stavros and Stella—who have been with me on this journey. I know we do not often talk about it, but balancing family life and this job is very, very difficult. My children were six and eight when I came here. They are now adults. I know that we all reflect on how that impacts on our families, but I have a wonderful community that understands that. I can talk to them about it and feel supported, not only by the community but by my family as well. I want to thank them very much.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (11:52): The member for Calwell has reminded me that family and kids are so important to all of us. The longer you are here, the more you realise that. This is the seventh time that I have risen in this chamber to give a speech in the address-in-reply debate. I am blessed by the continuing support of the good burghers of Melbourne Ports, who have once again entrusted me to be their representative in Canberra.
Election campaigns in winter can be a trial, particularly in Melbourne. The 2016 election was long and difficult. I want to thank all of the people who worked tirelessly on my campaign in Melbourne Ports, led by my valiant wife, Amanda Mendes de Costa; our campaign director, George Droutsas; our office manager, Natalie Gonzalez; staff and numerous volunteers, including Tonya Stevens and Belinda Neal, who specially came down; our stalwart treasurer, Dr Henry Pinskier; state minister Martin Foley; Sylvia Freedman; Ronnie Aseraf; Simon Cosma; Prasad Gunaratna; Simone Kotlyar; John Dyett; Zach Littman; Dean Sherr; Andrew Landeryou; Josh Spiegel; and Ari Suss.To my two kids, Laura Danby and Byron Danby, who stood with me on election day: I am so grateful that you in particular were there at pre-polling and on election day.
I wish to outline two competing visions, which I think is appropriate in this address-in-reply debate. One is of an inclusive Australia, which the Labor Party fights for. It is a vision of Australia where people are free to marry whomever they wish, where workers receive decent pay for the work they do, where home ownership remains a realistic dream for the many, and where minorities have the tools to fight prejudice. This stands in stark contrast to the current government, which is led in name by the member for Wentworth. Its vision of Australia is a return to the 'good old days' pre Malcolm Fraser, where privilege remained concentrated in the hands of the few.
Labor's vision, which I was elected to further, is not universally shared by all of the people in this parliament, particularly in the Senate. I respect the diverse range of views expressed by other parliamentarians, as I do those on Sky News. However, those opposing views should not come at the cost of freedom, livelihood and the happiness of others. We are here to vote on marriage equality, 18C or the Chinese extradition treaty; we should not outsource our views to plebiscites. The purpose of representative democracy is to be here and work as hard for the interests that we represent as we can and, in normal political debates, the answers to these questions will come out if people do that faithfully and with respect for each other.
When it comes to protecting Australians, times have turned for the worse. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen the failed foreign policies of the Obama administration, in my view, leading to the rise of Daesh. To quote Cato the Elder's famous 'Carthago delenda est' dictum, Daesh must be destroyed. Four hundred great Australian servicemen, the second highest number of people from any country in the world, are in Iraq—together with our people are the Air Force—doing just that.
The problem of Daesh should not be seen through the prism of Middle East affairs. I wanted to look at that issue, because I believe the outpouring of refugees all over the world, including 12,000 were coming here to Australia, is the result of us acquiescing to Putin backing the dictatorship of Assad. Now we have Russia, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia all playing proxy wars in Syria. The men, women and children of Aleppo were subjected to the worst kinds of misery over the last six months of last year. There were no street demonstrations in the street by the Green political party or the socialist alternative. I think it is appalling that such a crime could be committed against 300 people and there be so little protest around the world.
I am very proud to say that my website was the first place in the world where the maps of the concentration camps that exist in North Korea were published. We cannot say that we do not know. We also pay great tribute to Justice Kirby, who led the international campaign to expose North Korea's appalling human rights record. Now their geostrategic is threat not just to the United States' west coast, Japan and South Korea but even to Australia, where their missiles could now hit as far as Darwin. The poor North Koreans, like the people of Tibet, suffer at the hands of an oppressive government. Beijing offers an Orwellian style guarantee of religion, language and customs in a fake constitution to the seven million poor souls of Tibet, who peacefully resist them.
I am proud to sometimes be called the member for lost causes and to stand up for the Muslims of Darfur, who are oppressed by the government; the Baha'is of Iran and many other minorities who need a voice in this parliament, because Australia is such a respected country around the world. To my dismay, the Foreign Minister clings to our faux friendship with Iran. I disagree with nearly everything that President Trump says and stand for, but on this issue he and the American Congress are right: the agreement with Iran remains one of the worst international pacts ever concluded. It provides far too many concessions for those currently in power in Persia. When it launches ballistic missiles, which says it is going to wipe out a member of the international community, our Foreign Minister will not say anything. It is very, very un-Australian and uncharacteristic of Australia's attitude of speaking out on these kinds of things, as other members of the international community do.
We have also seen from this government what can only be characterised as paralysis on the aggression being shown in the South China Sea. We have an international law of the sea, a judgement that is absolutely clear on where international legality stands. The existence of militarised islands in the South China Sea jeopardises 65 per cent of Australian maritime trade and 50 per cent of international trade. I had a very cheeky chairman of the National People's Congress once stand up very recently before the foreign affairs committee and assure me that, despite the fact that China had unilaterally announced that the South China Sea was one of their core interests, Australian ships, Indian ships, Korean ships and Japanese ships could peacefully transit through the South China Sea despite these militarised islands. I said, 'What about navies?' He said, 'Oh, yes, navies too.' I said, 'What about submarines?' He said: 'Oh, yes, submarines too. All they have to do is surface and fly their flags as they transit through the South China Sea.' Well, that is hardly the purpose of the protection that submarines offer and it is an indication of the arrogance that we are facing with this difficult issue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): It being 12 o'clock, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day at a later hour. The member will be given permission to continue his contribution then.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 12:00 to 12:14
ADJOURNMENT
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:14): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Keep Me Posted Campaign
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:14): On Friday, 24 March, I held a community forum in Belconnen Library on the Keep Me Posted campaign. I told my own story of travails with paper bills. I signed up for a credit card offered by a major retailer, and was told that the statements would need to come electronically unless I wanted to pay a fee. I said I would do that, and was somewhat puzzled when six weeks had gone by and I was yet to receive an email setting out how much I should pay. I phoned up the credit card company and was told, 'Oh, yes, we emailed it out to you.' They had sent it in a particular attachment format. It turned out that that attachment format was one which my email provider, the Parliament House IT services, automatically consigned to the trash, where I could not see it. I went back to the credit card provider and said they would need to send the statements in a different format. They said that they were unable to do so. I said: 'Well, I now owe you not only the bill but also the overdue fees. Could you tell me how much I owe and how to get it to you?' They said: 'Certainly. We'll send you an email.' I explained to them that such an approach would not work because the email would not get through. They said: 'Well, we can send you a letter. It'll take a few days and you'll pay interest until it gets there, and then, after that, you'll have to pay a little extra to sign up for paper statements,' which I did.
My story is not unique. Across Australia, a large share of the population are frustrated by their inability to get paper bills without paying more. One survey found that 76 per cent of Australian customers are unhappy if asked to pay a premium for paper bills and statements, and that 69 per cent want the option to continue receiving printed information, as it provides a permanent record. This is fundamentally an issue of equity. If we look across the population, 38 per cent of Australians feel that they are being left behind by modern technology. If you have a disability, if you are in a low-income household or if you are dependent on a government support payment, then the likelihood of having no internet at home is two to five times higher than the national average.
Kellie Northwood, from the Keep Me Posted campaign, explained that charges from firms to receive paper statements can be well above the cost of providing those statements. Research done by Keep Me Posted estimates that, for a large-scale mail-out, the cost per unit is between 88c for a standard bill and $1.02 for a personalised, marketing-style invoice. Keep Me Posted notes that a range of organisations charge considerably more than that. They note, for example, the charges from the Commonwealth Bank of $2.50 per monthly statement to receive hard copies; from Origin Energy, $1.75 for statements; Telstra, $2; and Optus, $2.20. Coles charge 50c, but it is one of the rare examples of a firm which charges less than the cost of providing the statement, with many firms charging considerably more. Indeed, the Keep Me Posted campaign has identified firms that charge as much as $6. There is some irony in the fact that exemptions tend to exist for the high-fee cards.
Colin Ormsby, from the Fair Go for Pensioners campaign, spoke about older Australians' concern about vulnerability to scams and their desire to get paper statements. Among the nearly 100 attendees was the wife of a man with dementia who was late paying because the bills went only to his email address. There were people who spoke about their concern about phishing scams, which tend to come in attachments. Attendees commented that the desire of large firms to charge extra for paper statements reflected an unwillingness of those large firms to engage with customers and a desire to pass off work, such as scanning your groceries and entering your data, to customers but yet an unwillingness to provide customer support by phone. Many of those present acknowledged that they do many of their transactions online, through direct debit and receiving statements electronically, but that they supported the right of people to receive paper statements without paying an additional fee.
This is an issue which disproportionately hits the vulnerable—older Australians, Indigenous Australians and Australians with a disability. I commend the Keep Me Posted campaign and thank the many attendees who came to our Canberra forum, one of many that have been conducted across Australia. Keep Me Posted and Labor will keep up the pressure for customers to get a fair go.
Victorian Opera
Goldstein Electorate
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:20): In agreeing to the motion that the Federation Chamber adjourn, I want to reflect on some of the wonderful work that is being done in Victoria, and particularly within the Goldstein community. First, I pay tribute to the managing director, Andrew Snell, and the board of Victorian Opera for a wonderful opening of The Princess and the Pea last weekend. In just 10 years, over 300,000 audience members have experienced a performance by Victoria Opera, and over 20,000 of them attended regional performances. During their short history, Victorian Opera have created 14 new Australian works and collaborated with some of Australia's leading companies, venues and learning institutions. That is why the Turnbull government have recognised them as a major performing arts company. We are committed to the accessibility of opera and the arts through tactile tours, and audio-described and relaxed performances that are accessible to the Australian community. Through their Youth Opera Program, Victorian Opera have inspired over 500 young singers and developed over 30 emerging artists. Congratulations to them.
I also acknowledge the Royal Brighton Yacht Club, which on Sunday, 26 March opened its new Olympic lounge and terrace. Commodore Paul Jackson and his team of volunteers, sailors and staff should be applauded for their hard work on this important project. It brings the yacht club not just closer to the water but also closer to people through a public facility that can be enjoyed by everybody. On the occasional Sunday afternoon, when the weather is nice, it might be the perfect place for a relaxing Sunday session for any member who wants to come to the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. I also pay tribute to the work of past commodores David Atkinson and Alan Woodward and acknowledge the support of many of the government agencies, including Parks Victoria.
Last weekend I was thrilled to attend the official jumper presentation for the 2017 season of both the men's and women's—very proud to say 'women's'—teams of Old Brighton Grammarians Football Club, particularly as it was in my new capacity as their No. 1 ticketholder. I am incredibly honoured. It is a title I share, with joy and pleasure, with my friend Felicity Frederico. The passion and commitment demonstrated by so many is evident, particularly by the president, Shane Young; the vice presidents, John Rawlinson and David Paterson; the committee, comprised of Sam Claringbold, John McKell, Phil Anthony, Jack Geddes, Dave Fallon, Ben Verney, Louise Graham, Rosie Jakobi, Leanne Sargent, Michael Wood, Alan Fisher, Frank Cavallaro, Andrew Mullett, Greg Hutchison, Ross Stewart and Ray Joseph; and the coaches of the new women's side, Peter Grant and Andrew Grant, who between them have four of their six daughters playing—Madeline, who is the captain, Emily, Sophie and Andrew's daughter Katie.
I also acknowledge the incredible work and contribution of the Brighton Sea Scouts. I was thrilled to attend their community day for KIDS Foundation on Sunday, 26 March. Established in 1908, the Sea Scouts is the largest scout group in Australia, with 248 youth members and 43 volunteer leaders. Their community activities support the KIDS Foundation by providing a water activities day as part of their KIDS Foundation recovery work, along with supporting Melbourne Legacy by providing the same type of service and assistance for people suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. Established in 1993, the KIDS Foundation takes its acronym from 'kids in dangerous situations' and is dedicated to injury prevention and injury recovery. I thank and pay tribute to Russell Burton, the group leader; Janet Cardell, the chair; Gerry Lambourne, President of Brighton North Rotary; and Matt Thiele, who is the Youth Ambassador for KIDS Foundation.
I reiterate my congratulations to the Moorabbin Scout Group, who I spoke about recently, on their community fun day and the opening of their new scout hall a couple of weeks ago. I was honoured to be part of a presentation in the form of a 'scarf up' from some community leaders. I am now able to lead a patrol. I pay tribute to Group Leader Geoff Gartly and his band of volunteers and scouts of all ages. I also thank Peter Fowler, scout leader and national commissioner for the youth program. I am proud to see them continue to do important work in our community in bringing young people together.
Finally, I want to reiterate my congratulations to Bayside Church on its 25th anniversary recently.
Bayside Church was founded by Rob and Christie Buckingham. I first met Rob through my good friend Rory Grant. Rory has been a friend for many years through his shared involvement with me and his long-term involvement in advocacy, the values of the Liberal Party and campaigning in marginal seats. At Rory's 30th birthday, I met whom I have come to know as 'Rock Star Rob' because he is somebody who inspires so many people towards Christ's mission. At the 25th anniversary, I was honoured to be able to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that the church meets on, but also to celebrate its mission around its future and a culture of freedom through love of fellow man. (Time expired)
Turnbull Government
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:25): Today is the last sitting day of parliament before the budget—the fourth budget of this Abbott-Turnbull government. The people of Australia have every reason to be worried. The people in my electorate of Paterson have every right to be worried because this government has its priorities all wrong. Today, and all this week, it has been squabbling and horse trading in the Senate trying to pass $50 billion worth of tax cuts to big business. At the same time, it is leaving 1½ million Australian families and millions of children worse off by freezing the family tax benefits payment rates. That means payments to low-income families will not keep pace with the cost of living, which we know is going up all the time. The government has swaddled these cuts with child care, trying to pretend that these cuts are about helping families with the cost of child care, but no-one is buying that story.
These cuts will come into effect on 1 July, the same day the Turnbull government intends to abolish the deficit levy to high-income earners. Abolishing the deficit levy will mean a tax cut for a millionaire of $16,400 a year. That equates to $315 per week. If the government had kept the deficit levy, it would have found $4.4 billion in savings from one-third as many families with a far greater propensity to afford them than our poorest families. So, on one hand, this government wants to give $315 a week to a millionaire and take $440 a year from a family on $60,000 a year with two primary school aged children and take $540 a year from a single-parent family on $50,000 a week with two high school children. Talk about having your priorities absolutely wrong.
It has cut pensions. It refuses to stand up for our lowest-paid workers. It wants to cut money from community legal centres which help the most vulnerable in our society to access justice, all the while handing out money to millionaires and promising tax cuts to big business and overseas shareholders; all the while watching our economy grow below trend, watching unemployment increase and watching underemployment reach record highs. This government thinks the answer to record low wages growth is to cut them further. This government thinks robbing poor Peter to pay rich Paul is the answer. I do not believe that the Australian people are going to wear it any longer.
I read an interesting piece on The Conversation this week about inequality. It was written by Professor of Psychology Nick Haslam from the University of Melbourne and is aptly called 'Distress, status wars and immoral behaviour: the psychological impacts of inequality'. In the piece, Professor Haslam writes:
It is well known that economic inequality is rising … that rising inequality is associated with a range of economic and social ills.
In addition to the better known effects of inequality, such as worse health and more violent crime, inequality also has profound psychological effects. These include lower life satisfaction and higher rates of depression, but, most importantly, an increased mistrust of other people: the sense that the system is unfair and that others are advancing themselves by questionable means. That mistrust leads to a breakdown in cohesion and a sense that these divides, into the haves and the have-nots, are deep and inevitable. Mistrust undermines social cohesion. It really undermines social connection and civility. A society where people do not trust one another is at risk of ill-health and violent crime. Economic inequality has very real psychological and social consequences.
But the government is not taking any of that into consideration. I really believe it does not care. And what could illustrate that better than the Turnbull government's submission to the Fair Work Commission on the minimum wage? The government has asked the commission to take a cautious approach to raising the minimum wage, and said that it was an efficient way to address relative living standards and the needs of the low-paid. We are talking about nearly 200,000 people who are paid $17.70 an hour. Raising the wages of the lowest paid—how could that not be efficient? It is the most efficient way. I call on this government to do more to settle this inequality.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:30): Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak without closing the debate.
Leave is granted.
Mr LEESER: Yesterday we saw the latest instalment in the appalling conduct of the new secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus. Yesterday, Ms McManus said she had supported efforts by Marrickville Council some years ago to implement the controversial Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions policy against Israel, in her then capacity as secretary of the New South Wales ASU. She also stated that she personally had supported a boycott only of companies operating out of the settlements. Ms McManus has been a most enthusiastic supporter of the BDS campaign. As well as writing a letter of support to the Greens mayor of Marrickville, a 'Sally McManus,' as an individual resident of the Marrickville municipality, signed an open letter to Marrickville Council, strongly supporting all organisations and individuals who had endorsed the worldwide movement for the boycott, divestment and sanctions of products and services linked with Israel. The open letter's stated purpose was to support Marrickville Council's endorsement of the global campaign of Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions. The second clause of the resolution passed by Marrickville Council stated:
Marrickville Council boycott all goods made in Israel and any sporting, academic institutions, government or institutional cultural exchanges.
Sally McManus's support for the BDS campaign was galvanised by an APHEDA, or Union Aid Abroad, study tour to the Middle East. On her return, she became an activist for the BDS cause, saying that the trip drove home to her 'the daily sufferings of the Palestinian people as workers, women, refugees, children, families and communities under occupation'. She said it had:
a very big impact on my views and ever since then I've had a fairly high level of interest.
She also said:
It gave me the confidence to participate in debates and discussions from a perspective that is at least a bit informed and has a point of reference.
And participate she did. Shortly after her return, her ASU branch passed a resolution supporting 'consumer boycotts of products made in the illegal settlements, as well as consumer boycotts of companies who assist in or profit from the occupation of Palestinian territories'. Ms McManus even argued publicly for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, headlining a Politics in the Pub forum entitled, 'Holding Israel accountable: the BDS campaign'.
Yesterday Sally McManus reaffirmed her support for the BDS campaign, at least with regard to companies operating out of the settlements. Various leaders have expressed profound concern at Ms McManus's support for the BDS campaign. The executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, said:
We can only hope that with the passage of time, Ms McManus has become better informed as to the way this proposal damages prospects of peace, furthers racism and hurts Palestinian and other workers.
Dr Dvir Abramovich, chair of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission, has said: 'It is highly disappointing that a leader of a major union such as the ACTU supports the one-sided and hypocritical BDS campaign that traffics in discrimination and in a fervently vicious anti-Israel message that seeks to isolate and demonise the Jewish state.' Despite saying that the BDS campaign would not be a priority for her as secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus's support for BDS is making her a poster girl for BDS campaigners at home and abroad—such as Justice for Palestine Brisbane, Sydney Staff for BDS at the University of Sydney, and BDS Amsterdam. More disturbingly, Ms McManus's support for BDS has been supported and endorsed by Greens figures like Bruce Knobloch and Hall Greenland, who have been linked to the Left Renewal push inside the New South Wales Greens. Left Renewal explicitly calls on the Greens to 'openly and wholly support the BDS campaign'—which it maintains is actually Greens policy in he New South Wales.
Sadly, yesterday Sally McManus pointedly failed to repudiate the vile BDS campaign and in fact reiterated her personal support for it.
This is a very important issue. The Leader of the Opposition should denounce Ms McManus's support for BDS, as he has already done in relation to her support for breaking the law, and the Greens leader, Senator Richard di Natale, should reiterate that the Greens do not support the BDS campaign, which is being pushed by many Greens members in New South Wales and across the country.
Macquarie Electorate: Indigenous Health
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:35): The Blue Mountains, in my electorate of Macquarie, is a place where the community identifies issues and then gets on with finding a solution. Seven years ago, that is exactly what local groups came together to do, to improve the health outcomes for Aboriginal people. The geography of the Blue Mountains, the lack of public transport and many other factors meant Aboriginal people were not accessing services, and their health was paying the price. So the Blue Mountains Healthy for Life program was created. But this award-winning approach to Aboriginal health is under threat right now.
Healthy for Life was developed by the Blue Mountains Aboriginal Health Coalition, an amalgamation of five local Aboriginal groups along with the then Medicare Local, as well as the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District and the Blue Mountains City Council. They developed a model to offer a community-based health program to provide culturally appropriate services, working closely with local GPs.
The program now has almost a third of the Aboriginal population registered as participants. Currently there are more than 350 clients, and 127 are actively being supported while they access health services. In the last year, more than 4,000 occasions of service were provided—things like accompanying patients to specialist appointments and helping to explain the procedures, helping clients negotiate the bureaucracy of the health system, and helping GPs work with Aboriginal patients more effectively. As one GP told me, the Healthy for Life team are able to take the time to do things that GPs simply do not have the capacity to do.
The data shows the success of the model. The region is ranked No. 1 nationally for GP antenatal shared care for Aboriginal women, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Online Services report shows that the program is tracking extremely well on a national basis. The team has included a program manager, a practice support manager, registered nurses and Aboriginal health workers, acting as a conduit between the Aboriginal community and mainstream health services, and most of these workers are themselves Aboriginal.
Sadly, this entire award-winning team had their farewell yesterday, because the Department of Health did not allow the existing service operator, the Nepean Blue Mountains PHN—now known as Wentworth Healthcare—to tender for the continuation of this program. And even though there was no successful tenderer, they failed to offer the PHN the chance to continue to deliver the program. Instead it was awarded, without consultation, to Wellington Aboriginal Health Services. It takes effect from 1 April, and for some it feels like a very cruel April Fools Day joke.
Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware that to build trust and relationships in Indigenous communities is sometimes a difficult and slow process. What is deeply concerning to the clients and partners of this service is that in spite of initial indications that they would be taken on in the new Healthy for Life program, Wellington has instead terminated their contracts, and it is not even clear what model of service is going to be used; nor is there a commitment to even have the service based in the Blue Mountains. It is more than an hour by car from the top of the Blue Mountains to Penrith at the base. It is nearly two hours by train, and that assumes you have transport to get to the station. So there are huge consequences in moving the services off of the mountains.
I have raised these matters with the Minister for Health and also with the Minister for Indigenous Health, Ken Wyatt, and I want to acknowledge his personal interest in this matter. But I am horrified at the department's failure to ensure a proper transition for clients from one provider to another. I am horrified that they have not taken steps to ensure that the service remains based in the Blue Mountains. I am horrified at the lack of consultation that has occurred, which should have been mandated by the department as part of this transition, and I am horrified that as of Monday we will have patients in the Blue Mountains who will have no idea who to turn to for medical support. So much for the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap promise earlier this year that the government would 'do things with Aboriginal people, not do things to them'. Clearly the Department of Health did not get the memo.
I want to thank the Healthy for Life team for their dedication and commitment. I have urged, and I will continue to urge, the CEO of Wellington, which is a highly regarded organisation, to have meaningful conversations with my community urgently so that we can move forward. The whole community—the Aboriginal Health Coalition, the Blue Mountains GP Network and the previous lead agency, Wentworth Healthcare—are desperate for there to be genuine consultation with the new provider to make sure we do not throw away the achievements in local Aboriginal health that have been made in the last seven years.
Robertson Electorate: Toast the Coast
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (12:40): I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding local event that celebrates the best of the Central Coast lifestyle with fresh produce, innovative gourmet foods, local and craft wineries, distillers and breweries. Toast the Coast is a fantastic initiative of Gosford Rotary Club. It is now in its second year and will take place this Saturday 1 April from 11 am. The festival is held at the entertainment grounds in Gosford and has become an outstanding celebration of our region's exceptional wine, food, produce and entertainment. With almost 100 specialty food, wine and craft beer vendors taking part, this year's event is set to build on last year's success, with organisers expecting more than 12,000 people this Saturday. There is really something for everybody. There is live music day, there is a kids entertainment zone and, for those who might need a little quiet time, there is even an adult's chill-out zone.
For just a gold coin donation, festival goers will be treated to live entertainment, gourmet food stalls, local wines, microbreweries, street food, locally made cheese, fresh local produce and cooking demonstrations from our very own Julie Goodwin, the inaugural MasterChef winner and local radio personality, who hosts the breakfast show on Star 104.5 FM. As the ambassador for this year's event Julie has been singing the praises of our exceptional local businesses, farmers, chefs and entertainers. Julie said that Toast the Coast is a chance to celebrate all of the good things that we have here on the Central Coast.
The event is all about celebrating what we do well, but it also raises money for an outstanding cause, Coast Shelter's vital domestic violence prevention programs. This is an issue that I am personally very concerned about. It is also something that this government is backing with initiatives such as our $100 million women's safety package and $100 million to fund the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Last year's event, which I attended, was just outstanding. It raised more than $20,000 for Coast Shelter. But I am pleased to report that Toast the Coast is expected to raise an impressive $60,000 this year to help people dealing with homelessness on the Central Coast.
It is also fantastic to see local businesses get on board to support Toast the Coast—businesses like Worthington MINI Garage, with owner Brad Worthington and his mother, Helen, donating a mini, which will be given to the lucky winner of the Toast the Coast raffle. I would also like to pay tribute to each and every business, organisation and individual who has supported this year's event. It is their support that has allowed this event to grow and continue to grow with the goal of becoming one of the biggest food and wine festivals in New South Wales.
Thank you to Chris Holstein and Laurie Maher from Coast Shelter; Destination NSW; Maureen Horne, Jacki Miller and Russell Cooper from Gosford RSL; Michael Bell from Bendigo Bank; Julie Goodwin from Julie's Place; Lend Lease at Erina Fair; the Lederer Group; Deb Warwick from the Imperial Centre in Gosford; Allpoint Security; Kwik Kopy Gosford; Gosford Signs; and Breeze magazine. Regional Youth Support Services and Fairhaven Support Services have also demonstrated continuing support for this event and our community, along with many others working in the background, and I thank them all.
I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about another great business on the Central Coast, Eastcoast Foods & Beverages. They have been going from strength to strength over the past year. They have secured a contract to supply Woolworths and have added their juices to menus at local McDonald's restaurants. Now, I am pleased to learn, they have set their sights overseas. Eastcoast has been actively pursuing export opportunities into China, which will see our much-loved Central Coast business enter one of the world's biggest and fastest-growing markets. I am advised by owners Sam and Samuel Lentini that Eastcoast is currently pitching to export up to 100,000 of its water bottles per day, which will see them take on even more employees in Kulnura. I am advised that already the increasing demand for their water has seen six more jobs added to their Central Coast factory.
There is growing demand across Asia for Australia's world-class produce, and I am so pleased that, as a result of the landmark China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, we will see more jobs and we will strengthen our economy, which will lead to and create a better future for everyone. The government has worked hard to ensure this high-quality agreement reduces tariffs and opens up opportunities for our local businesses by securing markets and providing improved access to China, so I certainly encourage local businesses, large and small, to make the most of our enhanced competitive position in the Chinese market and to learn more about how they can capitalise not only on this agreement but also those we have secured with Korea and Japan. I look forward to Toast the Coast this weekend and invite everyone from the Central Coast and beyond to join us.
Workplace Relations
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (12:45): I rise today to invite the Prime Minister to come and visit the electorate of Lalor, and to suggest that he bring the Minister for Women, Senator Cash, with him, so that the next time he is on a train between Spencer Street station and Geelong he gets off at Wyndham Vale or Tarneit station and goes for a bit of a wander around my electorate, because I think I have identified his problem: the problem for this Prime Minister is that he is in an alternative universe to the one the rest of us live in—certainly the one that families in my electorate live in.
Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to answer questions about what was in the government's submission to the Fair Work Commission on an increase to the minimum wage. This morning we know why. We know why those questions were not answered yesterday. It appears that someone forgot to read the draft and actually submitted something that someone wrote as a joke. The submission argues that an increase in the minimum wage will not do anything to address the gender pay gap in this country—that a pay rise for the lowest paid in this country, of whom the majority are women, will do nothing to reduce the gender pay gap. It is absolutely illogical.
The government argued that those earning the minimum wage are young, female and childless and come from wealthy families. What on earth has coming from a wealthy family got to do with what you should be paid for a fair day's work? It is beyond belief that this should be an argument put by this government. And I am only picking out a few things to discuss about this submission—this draft submission, I would suggest. Nothing I have heard in my 3½ years here demonstrates more for me how out of touch this government is with the real world.
Clearly there is a view held by some in this house that every Australian is born into a strong nuclear family, where dad has at least a master’s degree, or is running his very own successful business and is on a good salary, where mum works part-time to keep busy and bring in a bit of pocket money, and where, when the children grow to be teenagers, they might get a nice little job, a nice little earner, to save for their trip to Europe. Well, I do not begrudge wealth. I hope the children who are able to do that have a great gap year. I hope they have a great time—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:48 to 13 : 00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Lalor in continuation.
Ms RYAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. If the Prime Minister were to take up the opportunity I have offered, I would take him to visit families in the electorate of Lalor, families who in some suburbs are on an average income of $52,000 a year—for the household. I would introduce him to some people who he may not notice cleaning his office during the day, but who have cleaning positions across my electorate, and I would let him sit face to face with them to hear about what is required in the minimum wage. I would sit with him while he spoke to people who are struggling with the rise in healthcare costs and who are struggling with the rise in electricity prices; the rise in electricity prices that the Prime Minister likes to talk about a lot but then—in this submission—demonstrates that he does not understand the impact of that rise—or that he does not want to put more money in the pockets of those who work for the least in this country.
As I have said, for those who live in ideal, nuclear families on high incomes, whose children put their pocket money away to go overseas: I hope they enjoy the trip. But that is not the reality for many, many people in my electorate, nor across this country. Their failure to recognise their privilege is dangerous, because they are ignoring the reality for the many middle- and working-class Australian families that many of us in this place represent. I am reminded this morning that this should not be a surprise, although it is. It is a surprise that this submission could have gone forward. It takes me back to the coalition's notions that poor people don't drive cars; that young people should get good parents; or—the newest version—that if you are female and single and want to have a family, you should find yourself a rich husband, Deputy Speaker! I will finish on something I learnt very young, when my father passed away: sometimes blokes die. Women deserve the ability to put a roof over their heads, pay the bills and raise their children.
Fadden Electorate: Schools
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:02): I rise to acknowledge the 756 student leaders at schools across the northern Gold Coast, and to commend them for stepping up to their leadership journey and seeking to play a leadership role in their communities, their schools, and also their homes. The northern Gold Coast has a superb group of schools; they are growing all the time, as the land between the Coomera River and the Logan River becomes the fastest-growing area in Australia once again. New schools continue to be developed over the years. I have spoken with many of the students at so many of our schools. I have commended them on their leadership journey, encouraged them to grasp the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to enjoy the time they are having on that leadership journey. So it is a pleasure today to seek to table a list of the names of those students—to commend them for their leadership journey, to encourage them to step up and to be all they can be, to set the right example and to embrace the opportunity that they have been given. I look forward to following their leadership journey with great interest. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the 756 names of our student leaders.
Leave granted.
Mr ROBERT: It is also a great pleasure to speak in the adjournment debate in the House this afternoon to commend the work that Livingstone Christian College is doing in the northern Gold Coast. The new principal, Mark Laraghy, has a vision of Livingstone Christian College not only being all they can be in their community but also being a school that is strong in leadership, strong in values, strong in their Christian ethos, and with a very strong focus on the Asian century. Accordingly, I have been working with the principal on the opportunity to bring a number of their year 10 leaders to Canberra to get a grasp of what it means to lead in the Asian century.
My understanding is the principal is now seeking expressions of interest from the leaders at Livingstone Christian College to come to Canberra for three days, which coincides with the budget period. This morning, I sent a quick note through to the principal of Livingstone Christian College to say I look forward to working with and hosting his group of leaders from his community when they come here to Canberra.
I have suggested a range of things that we can do with those students to enhance and to encourage their leadership journey. We can take them to question time. They can see the nation's leaders in full battle, a battle of ideas but battle nonetheless. I will look forward to hosting them in the private dining room and, of course, ensuring they have a tour of new Parliament House. I would encourage them to visit Old Parliament House and see where our history came from in terms of democracy. I will grab one of my ministerial colleagues to sit down with them and talk through national leadership. I will seek to get one of our junior ADF officers to talk about what is required in very junior leadership, in small team leadership, and where leadership begins. I will encourage them to tour the Australian War Memorial to get a feel of the cost of leadership, the burden of leadership, where over 101,000 Australians' names are recorded, most of them buried overseas, fighting for a freedom we enjoy. I will encourage them to lay a wreath at the Last Post ceremony as the doors are closed at the War Memorial. I will encourage them to get involved in discussing where Asia is going with some of our universities and getting a feel for what role we will play. I will be encouraging the school to sit down with one of our Asian ambassadors to get a feel for how Asia sees Australia and how we can play a constructive role in our region that we are part of. I would be encouraging them to visit something like the Australian Defence Force Academy, that elite institution where we train our nation's finest military leaders. I will be encouraging the school and these students to get along to the Institute of Sport because so much of what we learn in young leadership we learn on the sports field. Courage does not begin on the battlefield; it begins with grabbing a rugby ball—I was going to say a netball, but so many of our fine women are now out there on the rugby field or the AFL field—and charging towards an opposition that wants to tear your head off. That is where courage begins: the battlefield simply refines it.
There is an enormous opportunity for our young leaders, and I am looking forward to working with the principal and meeting these fine students that the school will choose. I am sure they will have a tremendous time here, and I think there is an opportunity here to top the whole visit off on the Thursday and get the students along to the address-in-reply. They will see a significant milestone as an opposition leader expresses their view for the nation, and it will round the entire trip off.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:07): On Wednesday of this week, the Senate wasted a day debating a bill to make it easier to racially offend, insult and humiliate our fellow Australians, at the direction of the Turnbull government. In response, Michael Cooney, the executive director of the Chifley Research Centre, tweeted a list of 100 issues more pressing for this nation than section 18C. And here they are in less than five minutes:
1. Slow wage growth
2. Underemployment
3. Rising income inequality
4. Unaffordable housing, and too far from employment
5. Decoupling of productivity (going up, which is good) from wages (flat, which is bad) and weakening productivity incentives as a result
6. Widening gender pay gap
7. Rising wealth inequality
8. Inadequate retirement savings for millions in a society where people live much longer
9. The persistent poverty and exclusion of 1 in 20 Australians despite a lifetime of headline-level economic growth
10. Weak domestic demand
11. Climate change
12. Investor uncertainty in renewable energy
13. Air pollution in urban areas (ozone and fine particle levels are not declining)
14. The increasing number of threatened species and ecological communities
15. The continued decline of Australia's biodiversity
16. Pests, diseases and weeds threatening agriculture and forestry, native species, natural regeneration—warming makes it even worse
17. Largely unregulated microplastics and nanoparticles threatening coastal waterways
18. Migratory shorebird populations and saltmarshes are declining
19. Ocean acidification
20. Coral bleaching—the Great Barrier Reef! …
21. Too few kids getting early childhood education
22. Too few families getting childcare when they want to work more hours
23. Early childhood educators not getting paid enough to support their qualifications and to encourage them to stay in the profession
24. Kids who are in childcare not getting quality care and development because of pressure on staff numbers, costs and weak regulation
25. Too many five-year-old children arriving in formal education not ready to learn
26. Corporate tax evasion
27. Regional unemployment
28. Underfunding for family violence prevention and protection measures
29. Affordable housing shortage …
30. Growth of unpaid work
31. The falling share of secure or well-paid work
32. Pay cuts for people on unsociable hours (penalty rates)
33. Sexual harassment in the workplace
34. Bullying in the workplace
35. People dying at work
36. Indigenous child mortality
37. Indigenous kids not getting early childhood education
38. The gap in indigenous school attendance
39. The literacy and numeracy gap
40. The year 12 attainment gap
41. Indigenous unemployment …
42. Indigenous life expectancy
43. Mentally ill citizens don't get the support they need
44. Ageing citizens don't get the homes they deserve
45. Rough sleeping
46. Our veterans are killing themselves. For some of them, coming home is more dangerous than going away was.
47. Veterans find it hard to reintegrate into work—and communities
… … …
51.
T
h
e
Internet is
T
o
o
S
l
o
o
w
Stupid second-rate NBN … a biggie for growth and inclusion
52. Four in ten of Australia's lowest-income households are not connected to the internet
53. Three quarters of people over 65 feel confused about using technology
54. One million people with a reported disability do not have internet access at home …
55. Our national institutions are not corruption-resistant
56. The abuse of state wards
57. The avoidance of tax by the richest—and the most politically connected
58. Wage theft …
59. The mistreatment of prisoners, especially minors
60. Australia's crumbling infrastructure
61. Australia's energy infrastructure—and not just its market incentives—is unready for renewables
62. Widening gender gap in superannuation …
63. One in four children are overweight or obese. It's worse for poorer children and for children outside the big cities.
64. One in four adults are obese. Not overweight or obese but obese (and yes, worse for poorer people and those outside the big cities)
65. Workforce shortages are inhibiting Australia's ability to meet increasing demands for high-quality aged care
66. Workforce shortages will potentially limit the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme!
67. The shortage of nurses is measured in the tens of thousands, on any estimate
68. The number of Australians whose gambling causes them real problems is measured in six figures …
69. The number of Australians whose literacy is level 1 or level 2—the lowest levels—is measured in the millions and millions
70. Youth unemployment/underemployment is at a 40-year high …
71. School funding isn't based on need or on a rational allocation of resources that measures the cost of an excellent school education
72. Investment in the vocational education and training (VET) sector has fallen in real terms, and government expenditure on VET is now lower than it was ten years ago
73. The number of TAFE students fell by more than one fifth in the two years to 2015
74. Compared to 2013 there are 130,000 fewer apprentices in the system today
75. The number of apprentices as a proportion of workers in trades—one in ten—is the lowest it has been for ten years
76. Nearly half of all people who start an apprenticeship don't finish it …
77. Budget cuts to the ATO mean tax rorts drain revenue to support public goods—goods like apprenticeships and training
78. Australia's next head of state will be selected by primogeniture …
79. There is also a specific religious test applied to the selection of Australia's head of state
80. There is the flag of another country right there on Australia's flag …
81. Constraints on good-faith free speech that actually are in the public interest (defamation laws; excessive constraints on reporting on intelligence operations and on defence matters)
82. There is still no land reserved for high-speed rail on the east coast
83. Is the Medicare rebate keeping up with costs so bulk billing stays strong? …
84. One in 20 Australians already say they delay visiting their GP, or do not visit at all, because of cost
85. Getting the Joint Strike Fighter in the air …
86. Working out how many jobs are at risk from automation and machine learning …
87. Working out whether machine learning will create jobs that replace the jobs lost—because if not, new sources of investment start now
88. Working out what the distributional effects are even in the "good" scenario where there are new jobs—will they pay good wages?
89. Redesigning the new technologies of "online auctions for human services" so they operate as humane labour markets
90. Ice. Ice is more pressing than 18C.
91. Restoring independence, prestige, respect and leadership to the APS institutions
92. Without a medical breakthrough, the number of people with dementia is expected to pass 1,000,000 by 2056
… … …
95. Gambling—the massive increase in gambling advertising and promotion
96. Leaders nurturing a political culture where ideas are rewarded more than ideology
97. The public rewarding debate over ideas with patience—
And Jason Johannisen's contract renewal! (Time expired)
Gilmore Electorate: Shoalhaven Nowra Relay for Life
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:12): On a more positive note, because I am definitely a glass-half-full person rather than a glass-half-empty person—in fact completely empty!—on Saturday, 25 March 2017, I officially cut the ribbon to begin the Shoalhaven Nowra Relay For Life. The relay is held every year at the Nowra showground, and according to the New South Wales Cancer Council over 74 teams registered, with more than 756 participants in total. A recent check of the Shoalhaven Nowra 2017 Relay For Life website showed that our local community had raised over $124,000 and is still going strong to reach our relay goal of $200,000. In fact, in the last 14 years, they have raised over $2½ million.
In Australia there are now over 200 relays hosted every year. Many Australians participate in memory of a loved one who was lost to cancer, and that is reflected unbelievably in the small paper bags with the candles in just at sunset. There are others who want to show support for those affected by cancer, and then those that are walking to celebrate our friends and family who have survived cancer.
In the Shoalhaven we were surrounded by rain and wind—nothing like that which they are experiencing in Queensland, and God bless them; I hope they are all right up there—but we did have a very wet period and we could not actually walk on the showground. We had to convert it to going up and down Junction Street. But we kept the relay going ahead, and our local community members persevered through these conditions as only we do in our region. Food stalls run by community groups and craft and book stalls—anything they could sell to raise money, it was there.
The wonderful Lions Club was there to provide sustenance for everyone, the band that evening, Don't Change The INXS Story, as well as local performers, provided everyone with entertainment, and the rain stopped long enough to let us all dance. We got up and danced and we watched the children dance during the performances during the day between different processes and between rain showers—it was all really good.
I would like to say thank you to IJED Electrical Data, Pearce and Percy Constructions and TLE Nowra, who all worked together to put the amazing 'HOPE' sign together; the Turfco Cows, who were dressed up to raise awareness; and South Coast Security, who have been long term sponsors of the Shoalhaven Relay for Life. Team Sudmalis was out in force, and it is something we do every year. I am proud to be a part of this wonderful local event, and I congratulate everyone in the Shoalhaven for coming together and raising awareness and support for the fight against cancer, which is something that affects almost all of us—if not directly, then we know someone who has suffered. Thank you to Shoalhaven Relay for Life Committee, including Ron Hawthorne, Cathy Lucas, Max Wooley, Kimberley McMahon-Coleman, Ross Portener, Leanne Davey, Sue Dickie, Jacquie Ney, Sharon Jacobs and survivors Katherine and Les Bryant, Mel Day, Keith Lierz, Janet Hughes, Bob Wright, Sarah Ketlehohn and John Morrisey.
Another way of raising awareness of other forms of cancer, because prostate cancer is the one nobody ever talks about—on Friday, 7 April, along with Bayer Pharmaceuticals, we will be launching a prostate awareness event in Nowra to make sure that people in our region are well aware that early diagnosis, disease awareness and understanding can actually help prevent this illness. Efforts are being made to ensure an advanced prostate cancer treatment will be available. In 2016, we announced $20.5 million in funding for McGrath Breast Care Nurses in 55 locations including Nowra. In October 2016, the breast cancer drug tamoxifen was added to the PBS. This drug aims to reduce breast cancer from occurring in women who are highly at risk. According to the Breast Cancer Institute of Australia, it is estimated over 250,000 women will benefit from this listing. We also announced $60 million to list—I cannot pronounce the actual name for it, but the other name is 'Avastin'—on the PBS for the treatment of persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. In February this year, olaparib, another treatment for ovarian cancer, was listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And I note that the previous minister for health is actually here in the room, and it was her work that did that. This listing was one of the most significant we have had in 30 years. Last week, Adcetris was also one of several medicines to be available on the PBS. This drug is used to treat a rare type of Hodgkin's lymphoma, something that often affects young people. I am proud of our government's achievements to assist those affected by cancer, their friends and families.
I also need to say something about Dick Manwarring, who has done an amazing amount of fundraising for a bus to get cancer patients from Sanctuary Point to the cancer treatment centre, which is now located in Nowra, and also Wilga Crehan and all the girls at Sussex Inlet, who hold fundraising evenings to raise money for breast cancer in Sussex—thank you to everyone involved.
Northern Territory
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:17): I want to provide an update on the continuing work of the Northern Territory government with the Prime Minister, the federal Treasurer and the senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Scullion. They continue to build on the constructive and positive relationship that they have in order to deal with what is a clear and present threat to the viability of our budget in the Northern Territory. I am speaking about the GST calculations that have been made. It looks like, over the forward estimates, there will be somewhere in the vicinity of up to $2 billion less funding for the Northern Territory. We are not advocating any change to the way the Commonwealth Grants Commission makes those calculations, but we are appealing to the federal government to enter into some direct funding relationships so that we are able to continue to provide education, health and infrastructure development in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Michael Gunner, has had several conversations with Senator Nigel Scullion. Even though the Prime Minister did visit Darwin for the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin recently, we would like and request that the Prime Minister becomes actively engaged in talks with the Northern Territory government in order to discuss where the opportunities may be for Commonwealth support.
Obviously, the national partnerships are one area in which the Commonwealth can support the Northern Territory; increases to funding for tourism infrastructure would be another. In the lead-up to the 2016 election Labor announced that $1 billion of the $5 billion in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility would be set aside for tourism infrastructure. This is because we realise that tourism infrastructure is vital for improving our services to tourists, whether they be domestic tourists or tourists coming from overseas.
We have world-class natural features, but we also have thriving and diverse capital cities across the north. I was reflecting on the coalition's policy for the City Deal for Townsville, and I have taken the liberty of amending the coalition government's City Deal policy by replacing 'Townsville' with the word 'Darwin'. I like the sound of it, and I like the idea of the Commonwealth entering into a deal with the northern capital of Australia, Darwin, to improve our city, because we do need some infrastructure. That will provide jobs not only in construction but also in tourism as people come to see the magnificent tourism that we have to offer in the north.
One of those ideas is a world-class arts museum, and I am very proud that today I, with Senator James Paterson, a Liberal senator from Victoria, have started the Parliamentary Friends of Museums, Galleries and Libraries group. It is our intention to make sure that museums, galleries and libraries are at the forefront of people's thinking in terms of protecting the cultural heritage. But I also go into it with some bias because, in the Northern Territory, we are keen on establishing a world-class arts museum in the city of Darwin—and I was very upfront with the good senator about that right from the start—but, of course, museums and galleries play a very important role all around Australia.
So I would like to make a couple of tweaks to the coalition's City Deal with Townsville and say that Darwin is a city with immense potential. With a population of around 120,000 and thousands of regional businesses, we are the capital of the north and we provide services to a massive land mass—one-sixth of the Australian land mass is the Northern Territory. To provide services to the people living in those communities, which will help to close the gap, is of national importance, and we do hope that we can continue to work constructively with the Prime Minister, with the federal Treasurer and with Senator Scullion to achieve that aim.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:22): As members and senators know, now more than ever, my electorate of Farrer is the home of irrigated agriculture. Murray Irrigation, Murrumbidgee Irrigation, Coleambally Irrigation and Western Murray Irrigation are the main districts, but there are many smaller schemes such as West Corurgan, Moira and Hay private irrigation districts and individual pumping licences along our rivers and creeks. This week I spoke about all of the Australian rice that is being grown in my electorate, and I urged everyone to buy Australian rice. That is easy—it is the Sunrice brand. Something that you may not know is that the hazelnuts inside Ferrero Rocher chocolates are grown near Narrandera. The success of the first Farrer Food Fair held here last week underscored the range, diversity and value-add of what we produce, all with irrigation water.
Griffith is known as the town where they burnt the Basin Plan. Deniliquin is widely accepted as the town that suffered the most from Labor's harsh water buyback. Wentworth, where the Murray meets the Darling, is home of intensive horticulture. It struggled for years under appallingly low commodity prices for wine grapes and dried fruits, our small farmers being unable to win a contract war against big wineries and food companies. But I can attest to the resilience of my constituents, whether they be the farmers who are directly affected or the small businesses that open with pride every morning, even though the customers cannot afford to spend what they used to. When you live on the land you understand the big picture. When you live close to your natural surroundings you appreciate that there has been over-allocation of our river systems and that further steps were needed to secure a healthy working river for a sustainable environment and sustainable communities.
But we are at a tipping point with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I say that because there is a crisis of confidence in the communities I represent. They are on board with the plan, but only just. We are in the process of finalising the projects that will provide 650 gigalitres of offsets to bridge the gap between the total diversion limit of 2,750 gigalitres and the water that has been brought back already. A technical complexity means 106 gigalitres of the 650 gigalitres could still need to be found from productive agriculture, so I am calling for an amendment for the basin plan to lock in a cap on recovered water of 2,100 gigalitres.
What upsets my farmers greatly is what they see as a last-minute political deal which allows a further 450 gigalitres of so-called upwater to be recovered, increasing the total 3,200 gigalitres. This 450 gigalitres can only be recovered through on-farm efficiency measures and there is a socioeconomic neutrality test, but these safeguards are insufficient. On-farm irrigation efficiency programs come with a cost. The cost is that producers have to give up water to the environment in return for the upgrades. Often their farm program cannot continue unless they purchased temporary water every growing season. The price of this water is something that cannot be forecast. What this means is that sometimes it makes no economic sense to grow anything at all, so the expensive irrigation systems are underused. A common analogy is that there is no point in having a Ferrari parked in your garage if you cannot actually drive it. The socioeconomic test does not apply to people who are not directly participating in the program and does not take into account the cumulative effect of all water recovery programs.
The recent floods have triggered remarkable fish and bird breeding events and the subsequent watering has great potential to restore and enhance the environment. But there are also challenges where it seems that remote wetlands are watered for no reason, blackwater events kill fish or too much timber lying in the river causes an unwanted over-bank flood. The environmental watering plan is based on outcomes, not flows. Flow rates are used to get the numbers in the plan. The numbers are based on models that are highly contentious. If we accept that we have to start somewhere—and we do have broad agreement around the need for a plan—then in order for us all to work together to achieve the right balance we need to take the 450 gigalitres of upwater off the table and give the environmental watering plan time to work.
If you are a person passionately committed to the environment—even at the expense of farmers—then you should want this too, because if the fragile consensus breaks apart then the consequence will be that the communities I represent will walk away. I stress that this is not an us against South Australia issue. The 450 gigalitres should be paused and no further work should be done in anticipation of increased flows unless and until we see that it is needed and it can be delivered. I will be writing to the minister and the MDBA recommending further discussions at ministerial council level about these two important legislative amendments.
Question agreed to.
Fe deration Chamber adjourned at 13 : 28 .