The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 10 relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members’ business on Monday, 22 May 2017. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the committee's determinations will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 9 May 2017.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 22 May 2017, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS MCGOWAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Australian Public Service to support the use of telecommuting in regional areas, and for related purposes. (Public Service Amendment (Supporting a Regional Workforce) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 9 May 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR KATTER : To present a Bill for an Act to require the equal treatment of the religious certification of products, and for related purposes. (Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 28 March 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MS BRODTMANN : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Canberra was established to be the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support;
(b) more than 60 per cent of the Australian Public Service is located outside of Canberra, serving the needs of communities around Australia; and
(c) the proposed relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale demonstrates the adverse impact of the Government's ad hoc decentralisation decisions on the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and make the outcome of that analysis available to the public;
(b) agree that:
(i) decisions regarding decentralisation should only be made subject to an open and transparent public consultation process and take into account the outcome of a cost benefit analysis; and
(ii) any decentralisation of Government agencies is based on a demonstrated net benefit to the nation and does not come at the expense of the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and
(c) protect the Sir Robert Menzies vision of Canberra as the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support and a 'worthy capital' that Australians can admire and respect.
(Notice given 9 May 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Brodtmann—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR HOGAN : To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the widespread devastation in Lismore caused by flooding associated with Cyclone Debbie;
(2) acknowledges the hard work of the state emergency services, rural fire services, police, fire brigades and Australian Defence Force and other emergency services in responding to the recent flooding and damage caused by Cyclone Debbie in numerous communities in Northern NSW and Queensland; and
(3) congratulates the Australian Government, in conjunction with the NSW and QLD governments, on their swift response to this event.
(Notice given 9 May 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hogan—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 (Mr Shorten): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from27March2017).
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR HILL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) pursuant to a decision of the 2016-17 federal budget, the Department of Social Services is currently undertaking a redesign of the Strengthening Communities grants program, to be known as the Strong and Resilient Communities grants program from 1 January 2018;
(b) the Strengthening Communities grants program currently provides around $18 million per year to projects which address disadvantage and build opportunity in communities around Australia;
(c) under the current grants program, there is a specific funding stream for volunteer management programs, which in 2017 will fund volunteer support services in local communities to a total of around $7.4 million;
(d) the Department of Social Services has proposed that this volunteer management stream of grants funding will be abolished from 1 January 2018, meaning volunteer support services will be forced to compete with other worthwhile community services and removing any guarantee that they will be funded at all;
(e) this is the latest reduction in funding allocated to volunteer management since the decision was made to transfer responsibility for volunteering from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Social Services in 2014, a move which volunteering peak bodies and representatives opposed; and
(f) the national peak body for volunteering, Volunteering Australia, states that this move will 'rip the heart out of local volunteer support services', which play an important role in Australian communities by leading volunteers in a wide variety of organisations and services, from the human services and the arts to environmental, animal welfare and sporting groups;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) approximately 5.8 million Australians, or 31 per cent of the population, volunteer, with Dr Lisel O'Dwyer of Flinders University estimating their annual contribution to Australia as $290 billion;
(b) volunteering plays an important role in delivering the priorities of the Government, with volunteers contributing many thousands of hours per year to the aged care workforce, the disability services, schools and hospitals, art galleries, libraries and sporting clubs—bolstering economic participation, mitigating isolation and loneliness and increasing social inclusion and participation;
(c) while volunteering is defined as 'time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain', it does not happen free, and requires the investment of resources in volunteer support services in order to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce; and
(d) the withdrawal of funding to volunteer management services will threaten the viability of the thousands of volunteering organisations and will have a huge impact on the community; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) congratulate community-based volunteer support services for the work that they do to support strong, healthy and resilient Australian communities through an effective and professional volunteer workforce, and
(b) recognise the importance of funding volunteer management services and Volunteering Australia's campaign to retain funding for volunteer management as part of the federal budget.
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hill—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR LITTLEPROUD : To move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Australian Government for its sensible and pragmatic approach to ensuring energy security and affordability in Australia;
(2) acknowledges that balancing our energy supply through the use of clean-fired coal, renewable energy sources and liquefied gas will be key to the Australian Government's approach;
(3) notes that:
(a) Queensland is home to a number of coal-fired stations and is advancing a number of renewable energy projects, placing it in a prime position to become an energy hub; and
(b) the coal industry directly employs over 44,000 people and pays over $5.7 billion in wages and salaries; and
(4) condemns the Federal Opposition and Queensland Government for their reckless and unrealistic renewable energy targets of 50 per cent, which only serve to threaten energy security and jobs, as well as drastically escalate the cost of electricity for individuals, businesses and industry as a whole.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Littleproud—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR ALBANESE: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) Australia's cities require investment and leadership from the Government to deal with a number of pressing challenges, especially urban congestion;
(b) Infrastructure Australia has estimated that urban congestion will cost $53 billion in lost productivity by 2031 if left unaddressed; and
(c) public transport is essential for the realisation of the vision of 30 minute cities;
(2) notes that a number of factors contribute to the worsening of urban congestion, including:
(a) Australia's transition to a knowledge intensive economy, which means employment opportunities continue to cluster in the CBDs of our cities;
(b) high house prices that have seen key workers, single person households and families on very low and middle incomes struggle to find homes close to work, resulting in drive-in drive-out suburbs in nearly all capital cities;
(c) the rapid growth of Australia's cities, which will see the four largest capitals—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth—increase their population by 46 per cent and Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin increase their population by nearly 30 per cent by 2031; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) use evidence-based policy to support investment in the infrastructure that is required to reduce urban congestion in Australia's cities; and
(b) use the upcoming budget to provide investment for public transport projects listed by Infrastructure Australia as priorities, some of which have suffered funding cuts under the Coalition Government, including the Metro Trains Melbourne, the Cross River Rail, Western Sydney Rail, the Gawler rail line upgrade, and the AdeLINK tram network.
(Notice given 23 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Albanese—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR HOWARTH : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the easy access of violent sexually explicit material online poses a risk to our children's wellbeing; and
(b) authoritative research has linked regular consumption of pornography by adolescents depicting violence with increased degrees of sexually aggressive behaviour; and
(2) calls on our community to work together to:
(a) increase awareness that exposure to graphic images can influence children's attitude towards sexual behaviour;
(b) encourage open discussions within families; and
(c) utilise the services of the eSafety Commissioner's online iparent website to increase awareness of how families can keep safe online.
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Howarth—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MR GILES : To move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the shocking findings uncovered by the Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work, including revelations of widespread underpayment, workplace health and safety breaches, maltreatment of workers, and tax avoidance in Victoria;
(2) welcomes the 35 recommendations made by the Inquiry in its Final Report (August 2016);
(3) commends the Victorian Government for:
(a) establishing the Inquiry; and
(b) committing to a labour hire licensing scheme in response to the Inquiry's Final Report; and
(4) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) investigate the operation of the labour hire industry Australia-wide; and
(b) commit to developing a national response to widespread exploitation in the industry based on findings.
(Notice given 7 November 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Giles—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
6 MR LEESER: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP):
(a) has been operating since 1948;
(b) aims to promote and support English language skills for new migrants and humanitarian entrants;
(c) is the Government's largest English language program;
(d) provides English language training for new members of the Australian community; and
(e) provides essential life skills for all eligible new migrants and humanitarian entrants;
(2) acknowledges the importance of the AMEP in delivering foundation English language skills to newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants to prepare them for work and participation in Australian society; and
(3) notes:
(a) that last year more than 59,000 new migrants and humanitarian entrants benefited from training delivered by the AMEP; and
(b) this Government's ongoing support for the AMEP, in the interests of all Australians.
(Notice given 20 March 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Leeser—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MR GEORGANAS : To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the pivotal and vital role that our schools play in preparing our children to be active and contributing citizens;
(2) notes:
(a) that school education is an essential component in providing children with the skills and knowledge they need to reach their full potential, including academic, social and communication skills; and
(b) the important work that schools undertake to ensure that students are prepared for the challenges of further study and working life, especially in new emerging technological and scientific fields;
(3) acknowledges and thanks school leaders, teachers and support staff for their dedication, commitment and professionalism in ensuring not only that every child learns, but is also nurtured and cared for; and
(4) further notes:
(a) that the one factor that makes the biggest difference in a child's learning is the quality of their teachers;
(b) the challenges faced by teachers and support staff in providing individual care and assistance to students who are struggling with various aspects of their school life; and
(c) the need for governments to fully support teachers in this important work.
(Notice given 27 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Georganas—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MR T. R. WILSON : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Israel is a legitimate democratic state and ally of Australia;
(b) Australia remains committed to Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and continues to support a peaceful two-state resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
(c) Australia and Israel have a unique relationship supported by a commitment to the rights and liberty of their citizenry, the rule of law and a pluralist society underpinned by mutual respect;
(d) there is a concerning collapse of the traditional support among Australia's political parties for the path to a peaceful agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestinians for a two-state solution; and
(e) the culture within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) regarding foreign policy is deteriorating, aided by high profile party figures who perpetrate enduring myths about the causes of instability in the Middle East; and
(2) calls on the ALP to:
(a) reject the empty symbolism within the politically correct interpretation of issues in the Middle East;
(b) condemn senior figures within it who have called for Australia, independent of any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, to formally recognise a Palestinian state.
(Notice given 9 May 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr T. R. Wilson—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
9 MR WATTS : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to the UNHCR, the number of displaced people fleeing from war, conflict or persecution is the highest since World War II, and includes around half a million refugees and asylum seekers in South East Asia;
(b) the increase in the number of people seeking asylum in recent years and the decrease in the number of third country resettlement places being offered in 2017 means that refugees face waiting more than a decade before they are able to safely restart their lives;
(c) during the Leaders' Summit on Refugees and Migrants at the United Nations in New York City in 2016, the Canadian Government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations launched a joint initiative to increase the private sponsorship of refugee resettlement around the world;
(d) since the late 1970s, the Canadian Government has facilitated the resettlement of more than 275,000 refugees through private sponsorship by individuals, community groups and private sector organisations; and
(e) the previous Australian Government initiated a community sponsorship program in Australia in 2012 and the current Australian Government committed to making this program permanent during the Leaders' Summit on Refugees and Migrants; and
(2) calls on Australian governments, businesses and community organisations to explore ways to use private sponsorship to expand the resettlement of refugees in Australia through formal channels.
(Notice given 9 May 2017.)
Time allotted—25 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Watts—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
10 MS M. L. LANDRY : To move:
That this House notes:
(1) the Government's $220 million commitment to fixing mobile phone blackspots in regional Australia;
(2) that Rounds 1 and 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program have led to many positive outcomes for regional and remote Australians through the rollout of 765 towers; and
(3) that when in Government, Labor failed to set aside appropriate funds to help improve mobile phone coverage in regional and remote Australia.
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms M. L. Landry—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
BUSINESS
Withdrawal
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:32): I move the motion relating to the discharge of certain orders of the day, government business, in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper:
That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged:
Second reading—Resumption of debate:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016;
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016;
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016; and
Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (09:32): What an extraordinary defence of four years' work! What an unbelievable defence of four years work! It is a thousand days since the 2014 budget, when some of these extraordinary measures were introduced by this government, and they come in here today and say, 'I move that they be discharged.' No argument, no defence for the complete waste of the Australian public's time that they have done for four years! Unbelievable!
I am gobsmacked. I cannot believe that they cannot even come up with a defence of the measures that they have been trying to get through this parliament for the last four years. Four years of trying to get these unfair cuts through this parliament, and here they are today of course—
Ms Catherine King: Mealy-mouthed!
Ms MACKLIN: Why is it, do you think, that he will not actually say what is on his mind? It is because they actually believe in these cuts. This minister has stood at this dispatch box day after day and defended these cuts—defended the cuts to families, defended the cuts to the unemployed and defended the cuts to pensioners, because they do not 'get' fairness. These Liberals do not understand fairness.
It has been a long and very, very hard battle. It has been a hard battle. We have fought every single day of the last four years, and stood by the Australian people as we have stopped these cuts going through the parliament. Every single Labor member of parliament has done everything possible to stop these cuts going through the parliament. And today here we see this government—temporarily—removing them out of the Notice Paper. But of course we know, and the Australian people know, that we are not out of the woods. Do not think for a second that this Prime Minister is doing this for any reason other than to protect his own skin, to protect himself against the member for Warringah and to protect himself against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who happens to be here in the chamber today. Maybe even the Minister for Social Services has aspirations for leadership. We know that these Liberals would bring back these unfair and harsh cuts in a heartbeat if they ever got the chance.
I happened to hear the Prime Minister on Fran Kelly's show this morning, talking about these zombie cuts. What do you think he might have said, Mr Speaker? Fran Kelly said, 'Are you just getting rid of these zombie measures because you're sick of them and sick of the fights over them, or are you getting rid of them because you think they're bad measures?' The Prime Minister said, 'Um, they can't be legislated.' Fran Kelly said, 'But are they bad measures?' The Prime Minister said, 'It's not a question of good or bad; they were measures which we thought and which we believed had merit.' That is what they do believe. They believe these cuts to families, to pensioners and to the unemployed have merit. They think they are good cuts. That is why they pursued them for the last four years.
Let's go through them. First of all, in my view, the worst of all is the cut that was announced in the 2014 budget to say to young unemployed people, 'You will have nothing to live on for six months—nothing!' That is what this government said to the young unemployed people of this country. They could not get that through the parliament so they tried a different approach. They said, 'You have to wait for five weeks and have nothing to live on.' Fortunately, they could not get that through the parliament either. What this shows is they absolutely believe in those sorts of harsh cuts, like the cuts to young people who are aged between 22 and 24. They want to push them off Newstart, which is already low enough, and onto the lower youth allowance—a cut of $48 a week. That is what these people opposite want to do to the poorest young people in the country.
Of course, none of us forgets the absolute mess that this government has made of paid parental leave cuts. We know that this government really want to cut into paid parental leave. They would have actually cut paid parental leave to 70,000 new mothers every year. Mothers just getting home with a new baby would have found out that this government wanted to take away some of their paid parental leave. They want to scrap family tax benefit end of year supplements, leaving families worse off. They want to scrap the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. They want to cut the pension of pensioners who were born overseas. And so it goes on.
For so many days we have stood at this dispatch box defending the pensioners and defending families, and all we have gotten from those opposite—particularly from this minister—is a lecture about fiscal restraint. They have actually told us with a completely straight face that they think these measures are fair. This minister in particular has form. Do you all remember the snakes and ladders interview?
Mr Dreyfus: We remember!
Ms MACKLIN: We all remember the snakes and ladders interview. What were the snakes waiting for families as he tried to cut their support? He gave this absolute train wreck of an interview on Sky TV and he tried to pretend that these measures—these cuts to family payments and to grandparent carers of teenage children—were fair. When he was asked about it he said to David Speers:
Well, that depends on their capacity to access childcare and re-enter the workforce.
David Speers said:
I'm talking about a 15 year old.
The minister said, quizzically: 'A 15-year-old. Oh, maybe Labor's got a point.' So David Speers asks if they are $2,500 worse off, and the minister responds, 'Well, in isolation. It depends on their willingness to enter the workforce or go into child care.' This is a 15-year-old, and he is saying this to a grandparent carer who is 70 years old. Honestly, if you ever wanted a definition of how out of touch these people are, it was that absolute train wreck of an interview.
I remember that on Mother's Day in 2015 I was at the Mother's Day Classic when I heard that the Treasurer and other cabinet ministers were out there talking about mothers being involved in a rort. Mothers were being told they were frauds for accessing paid parental leave that they were entitled to. Ministers lectured us day after day, saying that the only way to make paid parental leave fair was to take away paid parental leave from 70,000 mums. Now they expect us to believe that they have had a change of heart. Well, we do not believe you, and nor do the budget papers demonstrate that we should. If you look at Budget Paper No. 1, page 3-38, up the top, it says 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'. It is not that the government do not believe in these things anymore. It is not that they are taking these things out of the budget because they are not government policy. They are only taking them out of the budget for now because they cannot get them through the Senate. If they ever get the chance to put these measures in front of the parliament again, that is exactly what they will do.
We do not believe you. We do not believe that you are committed to getting rid of these things, and neither do the Australian people. We know what else you still have left there too, which of course did not get mentioned in the budget papers last night. They still want to say to Australians, 'You're going to have to work till you're 70 before you get the age pension.' They have not changed that. They still want to axe the clean energy supplement, which of course means a cut of $365 a year to new pensioners. So nothing has changed with this minister or this government. We know that these cuts will be back.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (09:42): Well, we are all stunned by the comprehensive defence that the minister is putting up on his measures today—sitting there like an Easter Island statue, looking blankly at us all. What is there to talk about? What is there for the parliament to talk about? We all know that this budget is an exercise in incoherence, desperation and defeat. We knew that from the moment the Treasurer got up here and started with his very positive message that families had not had a pay rise and how sorry he was about how tough times were. Four years of this government, and all it has is an opening with an apology about how bad things have got and this vague hope that things might get better in the future. Why would you believe this government when the very next day it rolls in here with its zombie measures, and what is its defence for them? Nothing. 'I move the motion.' It is like, 'Whoa.' And this guy wants to be Prime Minister, Treasurer or something like that.
We have this comprehensive defence of these measures that have been hanging around. They are not called zombie measures by mistake. They are zombie measures in every sense of the word—cuts that were in there which were calculated in the budget and which were spreading uncertainty within the community. Lots of people worried about their family incomes. Lots of people worried about what was going to happen to their benefits for months and months or years and years on end—a thousand days of uncertainty spreading through the economy. Those on the backbench are all up there, all voting for them, all going out there in the community and defending them. And what do we get after all of that? This sort of stunned silence from the minister—not even a word of defence.
We know the Prime Minister was there on Sky News or Fran Kelly. Fran said, 'Are they bad measures?' Mr Turnbull gave one of his great orations: 'It's not a question of whether they're good or bad. They were measures which we believed had merit.' So they have given up. It is like The Grand Old Duke of York, isn't it? He had 10,000 men—10,000 backbenchers. And up they went to the top of the hill and everybody sort of waited around for something to happen for 1,000 days. And then—
Ms Macklin: Marched them down again!
Mr CHAMPION: They marched them down again. They did not even get an order, though. There was no inspiring order to go back down the hill from this minister. Instead we got silence. We know that these measures are incredibly unfair. In my electorate, there are lots of young unemployed people. They find it very difficult to get a job despite the participation rates being very high. They go out from school and try to get a job, often a casual job. They try to go to TAFE or uni. They try their very best but often they do not get that chance. It is very difficult if you come from Elizabeth or Salisbury to get your foot in the door. Often there is a great deal of discrimination against these people based on their postcode. And people do not give them the go that they deserve. Previous Labor governments have been all about putting in place the programs that might give these young people a chance and the resources they need for a chance.
What does this government do? On the same day that they are knocking off their zombie measures—all these cuts; they are very quietly sneaking in here and hitting the reverse button—in the very same breath they are out there running this ridiculous line that they are going to drug test in three locations: a pilot scheme and another feasibility study. It is something to occupy the minds of a few people. And people get worked up about it. But what have we got in the end? A pilot scheme in three locations and no real help for people with substance abuse issues, because the government have cut the guts out of all the alcohol and drug services across the country in the health budget. They have absolutely cut the guts out of it.
Ms Macklin: That is right.
Mr CHAMPION: It is a tough thing to get job ready, particularly if you are going into a tough physical job. Not everybody can do it. I doubt the minister or many of the backbench could work in a packing shed, pick fruit or any of those things. Rather than getting people job ready, this government just wants to persecute and beat up on the unemployed. That is the one thing they have not given up, at least rhetorically, in this budget. At the same time, they are taking out these zombie measures. But, in that later part of the budget, there is a sting in the tail of this rhetoric, which is all about dividing the community and preventing us from making progress. In this sense, the budget is entirely consistent with what they have been doing for the last 1,000 days, and yet we have this surrender this morning. Perhaps that is why the minister had nothing to say. Perhaps that is why he is stunned into silence. He could not work this in with their normal—
Ms Macklin: He doesn't believe it.
Mr CHAMPION: He doesn't really believe it. Perhaps this is a strategic retreat from these cuts. We can go through them—a six-month wait. I have trouble keeping up with it, because it is such an exercise in incoherence. We have the bloke who is auditioning for Prime Minister every single day.
Ms Macklin: At least he would have said something.
Mr CHAMPION: At least he would have said something. At least he would have done a better audition than 'I move the motion.'
Ms Macklin: At least he would have had a go.
Mr CHAMPION: They will know about that shortly, I guess. They will know about how good the opposition are, because we are going to hold them to account on all of these things—for instance, what they are doing for pensioners. They are giving them $75 with one hand and tearing away $365 with the other. If they think any pensioner across Australia is going to be fooled with this pea and thimble trick, this three-card monte, they have another think coming. People understand the sort of cant and ridiculous sleight of hand that this government does. They are desperately trying to pretend that this budget is some sort of equivalent to a Labor budget, but, at the same time, there are all these things riddled throughout it which are part of their poisonous and sterile ideology, such as hacking into working mums who work at Coles, Myers and Woolworths. They are the working mums who suffer the most from the capping of the paid parental leave. We have this government out there calling them—
Ms Macklin: Frauds.
Mr CHAMPION: Frauds.
Ms Macklin: Rorters.
Mr CHAMPION: Rorters.
Mr Dreyfus: Double dippers.
Mr CHAMPION: Double dippers. These are working mums at Coles, Woolworths and Myers. These are places where we never thought we could get paid parental leave. It was a great achievement for unions to get paid parental leave in these sectors that are dominated by working women. Yet what does this government get out there and do for them, for their hard work, for their thrift, for them showing up every day at work? They label them as rorters, frauds and double dippers.
It is just outrageous that on top of a tax to pensioners, young people and families we get this sort of surrender this morning—a half-hearted surrender. Well, it was not even that. I do not know what it was.
Ms Macklin: Silence!
Mr CHAMPION: It is hard to argue with silence. Maybe they should extend this right across the government: give no interviews; not show up for any of the debates.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: The PMO does not let the minister out of the box. It must be galling for a former state treasurer to be struck into silence. The backbenchers, as you can see, are roaring in here to your defence. They are really keen to defend you!
An opposition member interjecting—They are scheming.
Mr CHAMPION: Yes, they are scheming. We know that this government is terribly divided. We saw that in the schools debate this week. We will see that later on. After the first wave of good headlines that for some reason the media in this country insist on giving the coalition—I do not know whether it is the lock-up that captures them—it will all wear off within a week or two and the bad things in this budget, the sterile, poisonous ideology that the people opposite pursue, the economic uncertainty that is riddled throughout the economy will all catch up with them, and then the auditions will begin again. The member for Dickson will be in here auditioning at the dispatch box. Maybe we will have the colt from Kooyong. We will have others. The member for Warringah is ever present in their minds, plotting a pathway back to the prime ministership via opposition. That is what this government has to give the people of Australia. (Time expired)
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (09:52): Who could forget the 2014 budget—the lifters and the leaners? This is what the government would have us try and do. They want us to forget that 2014 budget—the budget which attacked the most vulnerable of Australians at every turn. The government want to try and paper over the fact that they had the lifters and leaners budget, that they tried to attack the most vulnerable of Australians. When it comes to health care there are two measures that this government still desperately believes in. One measure that government member after member stood in this place defending was the increase in the price of medicines for everybody, not just general patients but concession card holders as well. It was going to cost $5 every time you needed to fill a script at the doctor. This government decided and argued in this place that that measure was the most important thing that they needed to get through this parliament from the 2014 budget—that is, make it more expensive for Australians to access the medicines that they need.
I would have to say it is not really a debate when the other side come in and look like they have had to suck on a lemon in order to get the words out: 'I move a motion that I really do not want to have to move.' It is not really a debate when the other side is not willing to defend itself or defend its measures, because we know at its heart it wants these measures through. It put them through before. It believes they are in fact good measures. The Prime Minister said they are measures of merit. If they have the opportunity, if they have a different Senate, if they do not have every single member of the Labor Party standing against them in the Senate, doing the hard work of convincing the crossbenchers that these are bad measures then this government would put every single one of the $13 billion worth of cuts to the most vulnerable of Australians through this parliament. We know that is what they want to do. The fact that the minister has been unable to defend this says absolutely everything. This is when silence says it all. They know that if they argue the case on this they are arguing exactly what is in their minds. They really want every one of these measures back.
With the PBS increases—the cost every single time someone goes to fill a prescription: frankly, we already know that many Australians are not accessing vital medicines because of cost. We have pharmacists tell us every single day that people go into their pharmacies with a number of their scripts and they say, 'Which one of these can I afford not to have this week?' That is what is happening across the country now.
Members in this place argued: 'Oh, it is hardly any money at all. It's not going to make a difference. There is already a co-payment on the pharmaceuticals—it's already a cost; we are just hiking it by $5 for general patients.' Often that is for people on very marginal incomes as well, or for people who are very sick. Sometimes you are talking about people who have 13 different scripts that they have to fill, and they are not concessional patients. Then of course you have concession card holders as well. The government stood in this place and argued that this was the most important measure.
Of course the other measure that they are getting rid of—or so they say; we will see what happens in the coming months ahead—is the cuts to the Medicare Safety Net. Remember, the Medicare Safety Net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net are designed for people who, because of a very significant illness or something that has happened in their lives, have to access a large number of Medicare services—cancer patients, people seeking infertility treatment and people with very significant, severe and enduring mental health problems who are accessing Medicare at a substantial rate.
That is not to say there are not problems with the Medicare Safety Net. We reached out to the government during the budget processes several years ago and said, 'We're happy to work with you, but what you need to do is tell us that you are not going to cut money—that you are actually going to help patients access the services that they need.' Remember: these are some of the sickest Australians who are bearing huge out-of-pocket costs through no fault of their own other than that they have got sick, and they have got really sick. Again, this is the measure in the health portfolio that this government believed was the most important thing it needed to try to get through this parliament.
Frankly, you cannot trust this government when it comes to Medicare. On every single measure this government has gone after Medicare, because it does not believe in a universal health insurance scheme. At its heart it actually does not understand it. It really does not understand. Why do we have a universal health insurance scheme? Why does the World Health Organization hold Australia up as one of the countries that has universal health care that in fact is actually the envy of the world? It is because it is a scheme that is equitable. It actually goes to the heart of equity of access and it lifts everybody up. That is what a universal health scheme does. It makes sure that everybody contributes according to their capacity to pay and it then lifts everybody up, so the health of the nation actually improves.
That is what has happened in this country because of Medicare. The fact that we have higher life expectancy than other OECD countries, even those with comparable systems, is something that we should be celebrating. But this government does not actually get it. What it thinks is, 'Well, really, if you can afford to pay you should get better services.' That is what they actually believe. 'And if you can afford to pay more and more then you should get access to better services. And why shouldn't you?' We all remember the GP tax and the co-payment, and now of course their glacial unfreezing of the Medicare benefit freeze. That is basically what they have done.
Ms Macklin: You wouldn't want to be sick for a few years!
Ms CATHERINE KING: Yes, you would not want to be sick for a few years under this government—exactly! That is what they have at their heart. They do not believe in Medicare. They never have, they never will and they can never be trusted with it.
These zombie measures are called 'zombie' measures for a very good reason. They are the walking dead. They are not able to get through this parliament. But we know that if the government had any single opportunity to put them back here and to ram them through the Senate—if they got any inkling that any of the crossbenchers might think, 'Oh, I might change my mind'—they would be back in here in the blink of an eye. That is what the government would absolutely do.
Their failure to defend this—they have probably gone in and had a bit of a tactical debate about how to handle this debate this morning and what to say: 'Less is more, less is more guys; this is really how we should manage this debate'—is because they know that the more they say on this, and the Prime Minister probably said a little too much today to Fran Kelly, the more they expose themselves for who they truly are. They truly are mean spirited. They want to attack the vulnerable at every single opportunity.
The member for Jagajaga reminded us that they decided Mother's Day is the day that they are going to tell mothers: 'You're double dipping and you're frauds, when it comes to paid parental leave.' It is a scheme that has been ensuring that mothers and fathers are able to care for their children at their youngest, that they are able to continue to engage with breastfeeding—a significant and important health measure. We should be actively supporting and providing every opportunity for women to breastfeed their children. That is what paid parental leave is designed to do: provide that support in those early days. Here they go on Mother's Day: 'Let's attack mothers.'
We know what this government truly thinks at its heart. We heard the Prime Minister, on Fran Kelly today, being asked the question: are these good or bad measures? I am sure he was holding his glasses as he spoke, clutching those glasses and waving them about, making sure that we all knew how sincere he really thought he should be at this stage. He said, 'It's really not a matter of whether they are good or bad. It's really not a matter of that at all.' In fact, it is a matter of that. These are bad measures. Labor has been saying they are bad measures from the start, when we had the lifters and leaners budget. It was bleedingly obvious that they were bad measures to everybody in the Australian community except for this government, because at its heart this government believes in them. It believes in these measures absolutely.
This government wants to attack the most vulnerable in our community. It wants people on concession cards, some of the poorest in our community, to pay more for their medicines. It wants some of the sickest in our community to pay more when they try to access the services that they require. It wants to attack mothers who want to access paid parental leave, and in fact tried to demonise them as it got these measures through this place. At every single opportunity this government will attack the most vulnerable. We know that at any opportunity they have to reintroduce a single one of these measures that is what they will do. The minister's silence in this debate absolutely says it all.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:02): On one of the very first times I sat in this chamber I watched the Minister for Social Services introduce a bill to make unemployed people wait longer for their benefits. I thought: 'Okay, I'll listen to the arguments here. I'll listen to how he puts the case.' I was staggered to hear the lack of understanding of what it takes for a young person to put their hand up and apply for unemployment benefits in the first place. This minister, who now says, 'We don't need these measures any more, only because we can't get them through,' says nothing about the reasons why. He had conviction when I saw him speak. He absolutely believed that young people should wait, as long as this government could force them to, to be able to claim unemployment benefits, at a time when their self-esteem is low, because they have not been able to get a job, and when they have financial pressures on them.
What did he say about what those young people could access if things were a little bit tough? I remember this, because I was gobsmacked. He said, 'There may be some young people who experience hardship at this time, and we'll have a special fund for them.' Hello! What Earth do these people live on that they do not appreciate that to put your hand up and say, 'I'm struggling. I can't find a job and my family can no longer help me. I've called in all the favours that I have,' takes enormous guts. They have no idea of that, and yet they wanted people to wait. That is why I have no belief at all that there is any genuine intent to take these measures out of their agenda. They are parked. They have put them aside. They have said, 'Right now we just can't get these through. It's all a bit too tough. No-one is buying our arguments, so let's put them to the side.' That is what is driving this motion. That is why this minister has not a single word to say about why these measures are being taken off the table in this budget. They really believe in these measures, and nothing will persuade me that they have changed their minds.
It is not just making young people wait longer for unemployment benefits; it was the belief that it was okay to tell 22- to 24-year-olds, 'You should get $48 a week less because of your age.' Is your rent less because you are 22 to 24? Is your phone bill less? Is your electricity bill less? No, your costs are just the same, yet you are being discriminated against because of your age. This is the mentality of the people who sit opposite.
In the months that I have been here, I have been stunned to see the heartlessness that comes from the other side. This budget has just a veneer of civility. It is just a little smear across the top to make it seem a bit more acceptable. But I heard one of my colleagues, the member for Blaxland, this morning, and I thought he summed it up beautifully. He described it as 'a bucket of prawns sitting in the sun, not too bad on the first day, but by day 3, gee, it is going to smell'. Here we are; it is not even day one, and it is already smelling.
Every day that I have been in this place and my colleagues have been here, going back to 2014, when many of us were fighting in our communities against the measures in those budgets, we have fought, and in some ways you might say that these things are a victory for us. I would believe that if I thought that they had changed their minds, but this is a temporary reprieve, and it will only be a matter of time before those on the other side see an opportunity to sneak these things back onto the table. That is why we will be fighting every step of the way to make sure that what is taken off the table stays off the table.
It is not just the attack on young unemployed people. Let us talk about women with children. There was great celebration yesterday in the other place that a senator was able to breastfeed her child in the Senate for the first time. I think we would all acknowledge what an important step that is. Yet there is no true conviction from the other side of parliament that that is something we should be celebrating, because they want to make sure that women are forced back to work long before they would choose to finish breastfeeding. The cuts to paid parental leave that they wanted to bring in were not just on pragmatic grounds; it was because these women were 'rorters'.
I am not sure if they have any idea what it is like to have a baby. It takes it out of you just a little bit. Personally, I found the first year pretty tough the two times that I did it. Twice was enough. To have a little bit of time home with a child I think would make all the difference. I did not have that luxury. I was working for myself. There was no government scheme. Thank God for Labor that there is a government scheme in place that means all women who have been working can access it. I was back at work within a couple of days to meet a deadline, so I know how it feels to juggle working, raising a baby, looking after a baby—just getting enough sleep, for heaven's sake.
Yet on the other side they were happy to say: 'No, these women are rorters. They're double dipping. Happy Mother's Day.' Less than a year later, of course, as we come up to Mother's Day this Sunday, they have recognised that the rest of the world does not see things the way they do. The rest of the world hasn't got the heartlessness that they so easily access. The rest of the world, particularly in the other place, recognises that their policy to remove the access to government paid parental leave and to allow employers who have negotiated with their workers, the workers who have fought for additional time—the other place recognised that it was totally unacceptable to take away those rights. You can see—maybe they know it too in their hearts.
Opposition members: No!
Ms TEMPLEMAN: No, they don't. No, what am I thinking? I still like to think that that there is some hope, but, yes, you are right; there is none.
Government paid parental leave needs to remain an absolute basis for women to be able to plan their future, and then employers need to be able to work with their staff so that they can find a way that works for both the worker—the mum, her family, her kids, her new baby—and the business or the organisation they are in. We cannot take that right away from any of the parties in that arrangement.
There is another group of people who I felt for in the government's matters that are now off the table, and that is the people from other countries who have chosen to come to Australia, become citizens of Australia and work their guts out here but hoped that in their retirement, in their pension years, they would get back to their homeland.
In my electorate in the Hawkesbury that is the Maltese community. They have grown vegetables, they have built businesses and they have educated their children at St Monica's, Bede Polding and all the wonderful Catholic schools that we have in our electorate, which of course are going to be facing real challenges as we move forward thanks to those opposite. As they get their pensions they think, 'I would like to go back to Malta and I would like to spend some time with my sisters, cousins and family that I have not seen.' Yet this government wanted to take that right away from them. That was a disgrace. When people have worked hard they deserve the opportunity to choose to have some leisure in their older years and to really enjoy the fruits of their labours. They may not have been able to stash away enough money to be able to do it on their own; they needed the pension to do that. It is there for people who need it and we should not ever have looked at taking that away. Those opposite should be ashamed that they even considered it.
But, sadly, they are not ashamed, and this is probably the bit that is heartbreaking: they actually still want to bring these measures through. We know that they would—given a change in polls, given a change in leader or given a change in the Senate—reintroduce these and any other measures that they could in a flash. This is a bit of cleaning up to make it look a bit neater. It is trimming around the edges, but really we know that they are still sitting there. They are still there waiting until there is a moment. And that is the horror of this government: it is only going to take a moment for them to step up and put all this stuff back on the table with all the other things that we know they would like to do, like $100,000 degrees for university students. It is all the things they have talked about: 'Let's make sure that the federal government does not fund any public education.' We know that, given the chance, all the things that they have had brain explosions about over the last few months would come back.
It really goes to the heart of their problem: they are so out of touch. They are out of touch with what ordinary people feel, what families feel, what pensioners feel, what self-funded retirees feel and what working mums feel. They are completely out of touch, and in fact the reality is that they will never ever be able to understand what it is like to be a real Aussie. They are in a totally different world, all of their own.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:12): Well, what a morning it is in the federal parliament. We have done a bit of a history test here. It does not happen very often that we discharge bills. It does not happen very often that we see a minister from the other side come in here and give us a demonstration of what small government looks like. He looked small this morning, creeping into the chamber, and he is going to walk backwards out of the chamber when this debate is finished today because, of course, he is torn today. He has to come in here and discharge legislation that he passionately believes in. He has told us that time and time again while they have traipsed through those doors to vote for these pieces of legislation—not once, not twice but for months. For four years—for a thousand days—they have said they believed in these measures, and they have to come in here today and take them away from the parliament. This is not because they have a lack of faith in them and not because they no longer believe in them. It is not because, suddenly, they spent some time out in the real world, where we live, and learnt that some of these measures are appallingly cruel and that some of these measures would actually hurt our local economies. And it is not because they have figured these things out: it is because the division on their side, inside their own caucus, has meant that they have to try to find a new way and to pretend to have found a heart. That is what they are doing this morning. They are coming in here to get rid of measures that have been cynically called, 'zombie' measures, and they believe that after this morning they will disappear out of people's minds and people's memories.
It is a strange day in the federal parliament, but it is a great day to sit here and look at the face of the member for Jagajaga and encourage her in her war against their unfair measures in this chamber. It is a proud day for all of us to stand here and say that for a thousand days we have fought for the people who live in our communities. For a thousand days we have met with them and we have listened to them. We have imagined their lives if we did not know them. We have visited their homes and we have talked to them in the street. We understand what these measures would have meant in their lives. Now, we get to be in this chamber while those opposite crab walk away from these measures. They are crab walking, cynically, away from these measures that they firmly believe in.
Let us think about what these measures were. Like the member for Macquarie, I cannot get past the idiocy and imbecility of thinking that young people could go without support and without unemployment benefits for six months, that the planet they live on has parents who can pay mortgages without any contribution from the young people who live in their families. I cannot get past their absolute lack of understanding about how millions of Australians live, and their lack of understanding that we had to work for a decade to raise retention rates in schools. These were low not because kids were not smart enough to stay at school, and not because schools did not want kids to be at school, but because kids left school to work to make a contribution to their family income. There are families in this country for whom the 16-year-old's salary is the difference between paying the rent and not paying the rent. They wanted to thrust upon these families their children coming home—25-year-olds returning home to live with their families—on meagre incomes. 'Let's open the door and bring all the children home again, because we're going to kick them off benefits for six months.'
The government gave no thought to what that would have meant to someone who owned a rental property who suddenly had a vacant property because the tenants had not been able to pay their rent. They had no thought about what that would have meant in terms of tenancy. They had no thought about the backlog. They had no thought about evictions.
They have an absolute lack of understanding about how real people live. We saw it in their pursuit of changes to Medicare and in their pursuit to undermine Medicare. We had that confirmed last week—I do not know if we have mentioned it in this parliament since we have got back—in that moment when our Prime Minister congratulated the President of the US on undermining the health care for millions of Americans. It was that moment where we saw, with absolute lucidity, what our Prime Minister stands for: absolutely nothing. He stands for nothing. Lost in the moment, he chose to congratulate someone for doing something that would be abhorred by the people of this country.
This social services minister came to the portfolio in a reshuffle that occurred somewhere after the 2014 budget, when someone said, 'We'd better make a few moves here.' In fact, I think the current Treasurer had the portfolio before him, so they were his zombie measures originally. This minister came to that portfolio with a lot of fanfare. He was going to shake up the world. He was going to save the bottom line. He was going to fix everything for this government. Today, he walks in here and chooses not to speak while they discharge four pieces of legislation that have been in this parliament for 1,000 days. He fronts up to that dispatch box and says nothing. I understand that he is torn. I understand that he has to try and get to that box and say something that is going to convince the world that he no longer believes in these things, when he clearly does believe in these things. That would be a difficult thing to do. He has to try and not say something that contradicts all of the things that he has said in the last four years. So, really, it was a hard job. It was a hard thing they asked him to come in here to do today. It was a very hard thing. But he could have made some show of it. He could have given some heart to it. He could have made some suggestion at the dispatch box that he really has seen the light. But the Minister for Social Services has not seen the light, and this government has not seen the light. I predict these measures will be back. They will be tweaked. They might go after young people until they are 26 or 27. These measures might come back in a worse state than they are leaving the chamber today.
This government's decision-making across the last two months has been given wholly and solely to try and keep their current Prime Minister in the job. The division in their caucus is extraordinary. We have the front bench march in here and tell us they know how to run this country. It is all about the bottom line. It is all about being fiscally restrained. It is all about spending—remember it was all about spending last night. We woke up to—
Ms Macklin: Oh, that's old hat!
Ms RYAN: That is old, isn't it, Jen! How many times have I heard we do not have a revenue problem? They say, 'There's no revenue problem in this country; all we need to do is cut spending.' Well, today they are walking away from that, not because they do not believe in it. They are walking away because, led by Bill Shorten, this caucus—the people on this side of the chamber—have fought hard for the people we represent, because we believe in the people we represent. We believe that, if you give mothers the support they need financially while they are at home looking after new infants, they will make a better contribution to this country in the future. We believe in our young people. We believe that, given the right supports, they will find a way 'when times are better', to quote the Treasurer, to contribute. When we get to better times, if we have supported the most vulnerable, they will be fit and ready to take their place, engage in employment and make a better contribution.
The government are torn now. They cannot decide which narrative they want to run. They suddenly found they do have a revenue problem and their answer to fixing that revenue problem, of course, is for all of Australia to pay more in the Medicare levy—but the millionaires are still going to get their tax cuts. They are twisted. They are trying to find a new way forward, but it is all just another fake reset. We had the fake tradie; now we are having another fake reset. This Prime Minister is very confused about the direction he wants to take this country in. He is now busy doing what he does best, which is something about marketing—'If we just say the right things and do the opposite, somehow we'll deliver for the Australian people.'
The government need to hang their heads in shame today. They have been unable to win the arguments. They have been unable to convince the Australian people that they have the right measures, and they are taking some of those measures off the agenda today. I know that they do not believe in what they are doing in here. The minister proves he does not believe in what he is doing. He proves it by his silence and his refusal to contribute to the debate. They all prove it because they were here every time to vote for their measures but they are not in here today while they are discharging them. The benches are all but empty. The minister is not even joining the debate. There is nobody from the back bench prepared to come in here and talk about it. There is nobody here to defend what they are doing today.
Ms Macklin: They all voted for them!
Ms RYAN: And they all voted for it, Jen. They voted for it time and time again. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Before I call the member for Newcastle, I remind members, as per the Speaker's direction, to refer to members by their correct titles.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:22): It is astonishing to sit in this chamber today. Here we are, debating the discharge of some of the most appalling cuts that the parliament has seen over the last two terms of this shocking Liberal government. Not a single government member—all of whom, as previous Labor speakers to this debate have noted, were very vocal about their support for each and every one of these cuts—is prepared to stand up today to defend this motion. No-one is prepared to stand up and explain to the Australian people this sudden change of heart. Rightly, we on this side of the House are indeed questioning whether there has been a change of heart. I think that is what we are seeing in the budget and in this attempt to, rightfully, get rid of all of those appalling zombie measures. The government have not been able to get them through this parliament, for very good reasons. The Australian people voted for members in this House and members in the Senate to keep an eye on these guys and keep them honest about the sorts of policies they bring forward. So, if you cannot get your cuts through the Senate, do not just bemoan the fact that you do not have a majority in the Senate. There is a house of review for good reasons. They have not been successful. They are finally facing up to the Australian people to say, 'Okay, we cannot get these measures through.' Let us not kid ourselves: for that reason and that reason alone, these zombie cuts are back here to be discharged from this parliament, as they should be, and to bring some honesty back to the Australian people.
These cuts were never going to go through because they are bad public policy, they are bad for young people, they are bad for women, they are bad for jobseekers and they are bad for every Australian who seeks some kind of secure, affordable, universal health system in this country. These are all shocking measures that deserve to be gone, but let us not pretend for one moment that this government has had a change of heart.
This is a budget best described as a tactical budget, in my view. This is about political tactics, not about a heart. These guys are still stuck in the 17th century, believing in Rene Descartes's mind-body split. They can operate with a tactical headspace, but when it comes to nurturing and caring for the medical health and wellbeing of our citizens and the bodies of our body politic they do not want to know about it. These guys can operate with a dualism around all pretence. Honestly, expecting the Australian people now to believe that they have seen the error of their ways and they are now going back, hand on heart, saying, 'We now understand the havoc, hardship and pain that we have caused the Australian people over the last four years. We've seen the error of our ways. We've learnt, and we're now going to move on to new measures, we're moving on to new measures like those in the budget last night, through which we're going to continue to punish young people and jobseekers. Let's not bother investing in getting people job ready. Let's not bother investing in proper job creation so that people might have something to go on and work in.'
These are the guys who run around the country holding Ice Taskforce meetings, but when it comes to wanting to assist people into rehabilitation and treatment options they have nothing. These kids—many of whom are in regional areas represented by all of the wonderful members of the National Party, who have failed to show up for the debate this morning—are out there in those regional seats, absolutely struggling to access any form of assistance and treatment options for drug, alcohol and substance abuse. What this government has in store for them now is: 'You know what? We're going to start drug testing you.' God knows how that is going to happen. Centrelink is already underfunded and underresourced and is battling to cope with its existing responsibilities. Indeed, we saw under the Minister for Social Services, who sits before us, the infamous robo-debt across the country. My electorate was no different from anybody else's. Thousands of people were allegedly defrauding Centrelink, only for it to be discovered later after a bit of digging and a bit of advocacy on behalf of those people that, gosh, they actually had no debt to repay at all: 'It was just a little error. We've got a few IT glitch problems going on over at Centrelink. We've chopped a few staff'—5,000 staff—'out of Centrelink, so we've actually got no-one anymore to check on whether these debts raised are genuine.' Now we have the government saying in this budget they will go on and they will do some drug testing and get Centrelink to get all heavy handed again. Of course, it is the same agency that under this minister sitting here with us today has lost 5,000 staff and is under extraordinary pressures. Now they are floating the idea that they might even outsource a whole bunch of services for them. I am sure that is going to go down really well in my electorate, where people are already spending 90 minutes on the phone trying to get through to Centrelink. The people of Newcastle are not going to be fooled by the pretence that these guys have put a fix on Medicare, with their so-called guarantee. I am loath to use this comparison, but I think the reference to a 'fake guarantee' is suitable here.
I can only imagine the shenanigans going on in the back rooms of the Liberal Party right now. The reason no-one is in this chamber to defend these zombie cuts, let alone to speak on why they have come belatedly to the realisation that they need to remove these kinds of fake savings from the budget books, is that the media is out there today calling this a Labor budget. I can only imagine what is going on in that back room with the member for Warringah, the member for Menzies, the member for Dickson and the member for Dawson. They must be just seething about any such comparison. Indeed, whilst the Prime Minister is hoping this is enough to stitch up his job for the remaining few years, I suspect there is news for him waiting in polls to come and, indeed, in the feedback from each and every one of our electorates, because the Australian people are not gullible. They make smart decisions. They deserve a lot more from their governments. They deserve some honesty. They deserve some ministers who might actually stand up and debate these issues in parliament. They are a little bit light-on here.
But I take the point that others have made: it is too dangerous to let these guys go out on the public record. Let's face it. The member for Warringah will be pouncing on anything that has been said. That will inflame the disunity in the Liberal Party again. That is going to become the news story. Everyone is clearly under strict instructions. There is no need to issue key lines today, because the key line is: 'Zip it up. Do not talk. Let's not have anything that the Australian people might actually hold us to account for.' They cannot be trusted to stay on song. Nobody has a one-page happening over on that side of the parliament, so they cannot be trusted to go down that path. The new tactic on that side, again, is, 'Let's not pretend our heart's in this, but our head—our political tacticians—tells us to say nothing.'
Actually, it would be kind of nice to hear these guys stand up and apologise for the trauma and the distress they have caused to thousands and thousands of Australian people—indeed, millions of Australians, many of whom are the most vulnerable and marginalised people in this community. Many of them do not have a voice or a platform. They do not have the privilege of access to ministers here. Fortunately, they have the Australian Labor Party's ear. We will continue to stand up each and every day in this parliament, trying to get a fair deal for all Australians and to expose the trickle-down world view of the Liberal Party and this government, which thinks you can just continue to look after your mates at the big end of town and they will somehow generously provide some largesse for those less fortunate in the world. No-one believes that is the right pathway to go down. No Australian is fooled by this government's efforts in last night's budget or by this attempt to discharge those shocking zombie measures now. We know your heart is not in it. We know that the measures are waiting to come back at any given time.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:32): I have never seen anything like this. This debate has now been going for an hour. I am the seventh Labor speaker to speak in support of a government motion that they will not talk about. Not only will they not talk about it but the minister refused to even read the motion out loud. The notice of motion says: 'I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I shall move the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged.' I thought I should read this out, because he never did. This has not actually gone onto the record yet:
Second reading—Resumption of debate:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016;
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016;
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016; and
Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016.
With the enthusiasm from the opposition to vote for a motion moved by the minister, you would think that at some point some member of the government would stand up and explain to the House why these bills should be discharged and why these bills were a bad idea. But instead they are like Jim Carrey in that Liar Liar movie, where Jim Carrey knows that if he opens his mouth he is going to say the truth, so he is constantly just holding back, trying to make sure no words come out.
We know their beliefs have not changed on any of these issues. Every piece of legislation that this motion is taking off the Notice Paper is a piece of legislation that every single member of that government supports. Every piece of legislation that is referred to in this motion and that the minister is asking us to take off the Notice Paper is a piece of legislation that the minister has himself introduced to the parliament, advocated for and ridiculed people for opposing it. And now he comes in here and will not give us any reason.
The Prime Minister was forced into a situation in an interview this morning where he was asked if this means they are bad measures. He had this beautiful quotation: 'It's not a question of good or bad. They were measures which we thought, which we believed, had merit.' Their beliefs have not changed, and the reason we know their beliefs have not changed is the moment we opened the budget papers themselves. Every other policy change has a reason as to why the policy is being changed. You get an argument from the public servants as to why the government has arrived at this decision. And what is the reason? 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'—no policy reason but an acknowledgement that these were measures which they were not going to get through the parliament.
It is not the first time they were told that. As recently as today the government was still arguing that there was a $16 billion gap that they had between them and Labor at the last election. At the time when they were arguing this, we said: 'Hang on. That includes a whole lot of measures that will never pass the parliament.' And now we find they are acknowledging that $13½ billion of that amount will never pass the parliament.
So today ends the argument claiming there is some big fiscal gap in terms of their and Labor's proposals. But there is a fiscal gap if you are a family trying to make ends meet. There is a fiscal gap if you are a young unemployed person, who they really believe should be left with nothing to live on. There is a fiscal gap if you are a woman who wants to go on maternity leave, because you are dealing with a government that still believes these women are double-dippers, that still believes these women are rorters. They have believed it ever since Mother's Day a few years ago.
They come in here, ridicule those who oppose them and ridicule the opposition for holding their ground, but be in no doubt: this budget has found new ways of hurting ordinary Australians. This budget has found new ways of letting down everybody else. But you are not let down if you are in the top tax bracket. You are not let down if you are a millionaire. You are not let down if you are a multinational company. They all do pretty well out of this budget. But, if you have a kid at school, you are not doing real well. If you are reliant on Medicare payments, this government continues the cuts. If you are in any situation of looking at when you will get the pension, they are still pursuing the oldest retirement age. And so those opposite have not changed. If they had changed, the next speaker would be one of them, but we know that when one of them rises it will not be to give a defence of the motion. When one of them stands up, it will be to move that the question be put. They will stand up because they will have had enough of people standing up and agreeing with their motion. They will stand up because they are fed up with Labor standing up, supporting and giving reasons why we should back in the motion moved by the minister. They will say, 'Enough of all of that.' They will move that it be put, and that will be the first time that anyone rises at that dispatch box.
Between now and then, be in no doubt: every time those opposite come after vulnerable Australians, come after everybody who is not in the top end of town, we will stand in their way. We will stand between them and the people they want to hurt. Labor doing that shows those opposite will not even have the courage of their convictions to give an explanation as to why they are giving up on certain measures. The reason is simple. They are living right now with quotes about how they support these measures. They do not want to give a speech saying they do not support these measures, because that will be used against them in years to come when these measures reappear. That is what they do not want to have on the record. They do not want the contradiction to appear on the record when these measures return to the budget.
If they were not planning to bring them back, they would give an explanation as to why they are a bad idea. If they were not planning on bringing these measures back, we would hear the speech as to why these measures were unfair, as to why the 2014 budget was going down a path that was not a sensible way for Australia to go. For every other measure in the budget, they will give that sort of speech. They will not give it for these measures, because that would plant the seed of contradiction for when these measures return. Everything in the budget papers, in the budget speech and in the language of the non-speech we heard this morning is setting the parameters, setting all the bases and the foundations, they need for these measures to be reintroduced.
Be in no doubt, the concept of giving a young unemployed person nothing to live on is the wrong thing to do. It is an unacceptable, abhorrent thing to do. That is why these measures should be discharged from the Notice Paper. Calling women who are going on maternity leave 'rorters' and 'double dippers' is an appalling approach to public policy. A lot of focus has been put on the fact that the announcement was made on Mother's Day, which was out of touch and bizarre; however, they announced the 18C changes on the day to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, on Harmony Day, so this is just sort of what they do. The policy itself meant that women planning to take time off to care for a child were going to be put in an impossible situation. Even though they had negotiated with their employer for particular benefits to give them additional time, that part of the negotiation was going to be thrown out the window. That was not fair on those women; that was not a fair outcome for those women.
These measures meant people losing payments that they relied on. It was the wrong thing for the government to do. We will keep making these speeches in the parliament, because we know every one of these measures is on the way back. If they are not, then the next speaker to stand up will be a speaker from the government to explain to the House why these measures should be taken off the Notice Paper.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:42): I am proud to rise in support of the proposition that all of these measures be discharged from the Notice Paper, and I am proud to stand here with all of my Labor colleagues trying to put to bed the 2014 budget and the cruel austerity agenda that was once proudly propagated by this government when it sought to end what it called the 'age of entitlement'. And as previous Labor speakers have observed in this debate—well, it is not really much of a debate, is it? No-one from the government side has spoken, not even the Minister for Social Services. The minister, who is at the table, is not even paying attention to the contributions that are being made, as he tries to slink away from measures that he is, no doubt, personally deeply committed to but does not have the courage to advocate for in this place or in the community. The minister understands that, since that 2014 budget, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor team have made the case to the Australian people that this kind of austerity is not acceptable. This government accepts that point politically, but it does not accept it in its heart. On this side of the House, we know that it does not resile from a single one of these measures. That is proved with a detailed look at the current budget and the current policy settings of this government, which continue to inflict pain on those who are least able to afford it, as the member for Jagajaga made clear. I hope to have time to draw out some of those measures.
What is striking about this government is that it is so utterly pointless. I wonder if the member for Wentworth can explain to himself, much less to the Australian people, what was the point in him replacing the member for Warringah as Prime Minister. It is unclear to me, and it is unclear to anyone reading the commentary following the budget yesterday. I hope that the ministers at the table might be able to enlighten us, but I suspect they will not even try.
It is becoming clearer and clearer this is a government that is completely dysfunctional as well as a government that lacks the courage of its convictions. But, on this side, we do not mistake that lack of courage for a lack of conviction; we know this is a government that sees inequality at a 75-year high and seeks to deepen that inequality. We see that in the agenda to continue to push for a $50 billion giveaway at a time of record company profits, at a time of record low wages growth—record low wages everywhere except in the revenue forecasts of this government of course. I am sure the minister will be a firm advocate to see—I do not know—public sector bargaining reflect the wage forecasts.
Ms Claydon: Don't hold your breath.
Mr GILES: There is no interjection, is there? It is another cruel falsehood. I will make this point again: whatever is to be read from this notice of motion cannot be read in isolation from the failure of government members to speak to it, from the failure of government members to publicly disavow the so-called age-of-entitlement mentality. To be fair to Joe Hockey, who I hope is enjoying himself in Washington today, every day that the member for Cook is Treasurer, Joe Hockey looks a bit better it, doesn't he?
Ms Macklin: That is a big statement.
Mr GILES: I fear I may have lost some of my colleagues. The former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, at least had the courage of his convictions. He set out his vision for Australia in a speech in London of course, a traditional place to debate Australian political issues—a homage to Menzies much like the member for Kooyong gave us yesterday. I guess, like the member for Warringah, they see Australia's best times as in the past, and we see that in so many of the measures, in the cruel way that they have dealt with paid parental leave in the last budget and in the way they continue to deal with it. Their vision of Australia's best times is that they are a long way behind us and that is clear in those cuts that continue. They do not have a vision for modern Australia. It is very clear also when we look at the measures that remain that they show no prospect of inclusive growth, no vision for an outward-looking Australia. The contrast between the rhetoric of the now Prime Minister on the day he sought the leadership of the Liberal Party and whatever story emerges from this budget could not be starker. Again, it raises this profound question: what is the point of him being Prime Minister, and what is the point of this government?
We see the member for Warringah—the member for Menzies—advancing an agenda, a cruel agenda but an honest one, one that they are prepared to articulate clearly, whereas what we see from those ministers who are active in the government, who hold significant portfolios, is they are continuing to prosecute this ideological war but they do not have the courage to set out the basis upon which they are doing so; instead, they seek to obfuscate at every turn. We have seen this most clearly in the positioning before the budget in how this government and Minister Birmingham deal with education. The effective imposition of a huge burden on students seeking to enter higher education, a ticket to a good life for them and a critical ticket in us being a high-wage, high skilled economy. The impositions on students and on our universities are a huge brake on Australia's growth, on all of us achieving our potential. And of course they sit very neatly—if that is an expression I can use—with dissembling and dishonesty when it comes to school funding, another cruel handbrake on Australia's future, denying every child every chance of fulfilling their potential.
We see the inequities emerge when we look around the country, when we look at what this $22 billion cut to school funding means. We know that today kids in remote and regional Australia, kids with disability, kids from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids are not getting every chance to succeed in school and build the platform to a successful and healthy life. What does this government do? It delivers up a lot of words but not a lot of money. It uses David Gonski as a 'look away now pea-and-thimble trick' to distract from the fact that whatever they say, their commitment is to a vision of Australia that is small and mean, a vision of a Australia that is all about looking backwards not looking forwards, a vision of Australia which does not seek to bring out the best in each and every one of us and a vision of Australia which is all about division.
We take heart, on this side of the House, that we have made that case. The government's silence is eloquent on the fact that the opposition leader, the shadow minister at the table and others in the Labor team have persuaded the government not that they are wrong but that they dare not speak what they believe. The challenge for government members opposite is to make a case, treat politics seriously and engage in a battle of ideas, not a desperate scramble to survive. If there is any point to this place, it should be the place where we debate our competing visions for Australia's future. What do we hear? The silence has been deafening.
One of my other colleagues will, no doubt, seek the jump until such time as the government brings this embarrassing facsimile of a debate to an end. I bet they think that end cannot come soon enough, because this government does not have a vision for Australia. We see that at the individual level, with the cruelties that remain: the attacks on the most vulnerable in society. It is hard to exaggerate how offensive it is that this government's vision for the most disadvantaged is entirely focused, it would seem, on getting good tabloid headlines for beating up on people in the most unfortunate and unfair terms. Whatever this policy around drug testing is and wherever its genesis is, it is clearly not random drug testing. We know that. It is the same data-driven approach that Minister Tudge has demonstrated to be so effective in managing his responsibilities to social service recipients, consistent with a vision of Australia that is all about division, not about pulling us together. It is about blaming people.
Joe Hockey, the former Treasurer and member for North Sydney as he then was, at least had the courage to talk about 'lifters and leaners'. These members opposite say it under their breath. It does not mean that they do not mean it. It does not mean that they do not believe it. If they had changed their minds, they would say so. They would come into the House, put their hands up and say, 'The agenda we took to government and prosecuted under the member for Warringah was wrong. It showed no concern for ordinary Australians or any concern to advance our collective interests as a nation.'
Ms Macklin: They're too terrified of him.
Mr GILES: Yes, they are too terrified of the member for Warringah. They should not be terrified of him. He has been tried and found wanting, because his agenda was not in the interests of Australians. The challenge for members opposite is to do one of two things: to come into this place and admit that they were wrong, or to support a different way forward—a vision for Australia and for all Australians that the Leader of the Opposition will articulate tomorrow night.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:52): Well, the old saying that my father used to say is, 'Sorry is the hardest word to say.' That is not a word that we ever really hear from the government. It is a word that this government does not want to say, because it is not sorry for any of the cuts that were introduced and that the community have had to put up with, with fear and concern, for the last three years. This government has a horrific record when it comes to looking after those that are vulnerable and disadvantaged. My community in the southwest of Brisbane knows that. One of the things I heard continuously in the election, coming up to a year ago, was that people felt that they were under pressure. They felt that the government was not on their side. They felt that it was a government that had the deck stacked against them.
Nothing has changed whatsoever. The only thing that has changed is the fact that this government does not have the numbers. Let's be clear: if they had the numbers, all of these measures would be passed. They would be rejoicing. Who can forget Joe Hockey on that famous first budget night when he played the music and danced around in his office to 'The best night of my life?' Who can remember that? It was the best night of his life and the worst night of Australia's life, when we saw the unfair and cruel cuts introduced.
The electorate of Oxley has a high level of people relying on government support. They know that there are people in my community that are doing it tough, but they are a resilient and strong community. I want to place on record in the House today thanks for the community organisations, for the local residents and for the leadership of the Labor Party before I was elected, who have campaigned side by side with activists right across this country. Just last week in my electorate the community rallied and came together to make sure in the week before the budget that this parliament, this government and this minister heard very clearly, 'Hands off our services; no more cuts.'
I was so pleased that the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, was able to join the community. This rally had people represented from the community sector and from churches, volunteers and local residents. It did not make the front page of The Australian newspaper and it did not lead the news that night, but there was the power and strength of that community. The member for Jagajaga and I were was so proud that the community would take a stance, unite and stand as one. They are the people who deserve to be acknowledged, not this government that it is walking away slowly, backwards—cowardly, in my opinion. It does not even have the guts. It is little wonder that the minister is remaining silent on this. In this, the same week that showed he would lose his own electorate—polls have shown just how deeply unpopular his own government is in his own electorate—we saw Australians uniting and standing up to the bullying tactics of this government right across Australia.
At the rally we heard from representatives of the people like Father Peter Moore, a wonderful community leader who provides great care and compassion through the Anglican parish of Goodna in my electorate. He runs a fantastic organisation which provides counselling, housing support, food and clothing—all of those essential services—because the community is under stress and under pressure through no support and help from this government whatsoever.
We also heard from magnificent community champions, like Shirley Crawley from the Family Accommodation & Support Service in Inala. Shirley has been a volunteer in my community, helping disadvantaged people, for the last 30 years. She stood shoulder to shoulder with the member for Jagajaga and me, on stage in front of my local residents—standing strong and standing up to this government.
We know that the cruel cuts are not all gone. My community knows, just as every other electorate in Australia knows, that although the government may be dropping one iteration to cuts to family budgets they have introduced new cuts into this budget. These are cuts that will leave around 100,000 hardworking families worse off. We know that the government cannot be trusted when it comes to Australian families, and we know that there is a new cut to the family tax benefit that will leave a family with two children in high school on $105,000 worse off by $1,700 from 1 July next year.
That is not a lot of money for those sitting at the dispatch box on the government side. I know that that does not mean a lot to those opposite. It means an incredible amount of support for families in my electorate. I want to place on record just the cruelness that they are going to make as a result of this budget. It is all very well wanting to have some sort of pat on the back when the Australian community have forced you into this position. It is not because you have disagreed with it, or that you have had a change of heart or that you think it was bad public policy: it was the numbers. It was the numbers which showed that you simply could not deliver this project.
Mr Pyne: What's all this about?
Mr DICK: I can hear the Leader of the House asking: 'What's all this about? Why are they talking about all these cuts? Can't we do something about this?' No—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—you cannot, because the Australian community are onto you. They are awake. Just as they rallied in my community, they will continue to rally against what you are proposing for Australia.
Earlier last week, before the rally, I was able to meet with a large group of seniors and pensioners, who the shadow minister addressed. It might be a lesson for the minister to actually go out and listen to the community. He is in a bit of a witness protection scheme! I cannot go through all of the issues those seniors had. There were a couple of hundred seniors who gathered together with the shadow minister and me at the Jindalee Bowls Club, and the feedback was very clear: hands off the pension and hands off on the cuts to seniors.
Time and time again, when this government needs to go somewhere they do not go to the top end of town. They do not go after them at all. We know that because their approach is to give the top end of town tax cuts, to give them a helping hand. We get that. We know on this side of the chamber and in my community that that is this government's agenda. The Australian community can see that. But, time and time again, when it comes to attacking those who can least afford it, that is the go-to. That is the alternative place where this government always goes first.
Just once, wouldn't it be nice if you had a government minister or a member of the government get up and apologise for the uncertainty, the fear, the issues that they have created. No, they are not interested in that at all. They are never interested in apologising or saying sorry or simply saying, 'We got it wrong'. Well, you have got it wrong. And you got it wrong in this budget as well. We will continue to fight what you are trying to do; you are trying to remove the social safety net in this country. Time and time again, cruel, conservative governments have gone down this path. When will you learn? When will you hear the message across Australia? Hands off our services. Hands off pensioners and making sure that they get a fair go.
Government members interjecting—
Mr DICK: You can hear them bleating now. They do not like it when the truth is exposed—through their electorates, right across Australia—that the cuts have now been exposed. But it is not finished. It is not over. We know that they are still coming after pensioners. We know they are still coming after families who need support. Time and time again, this opposition led by Bill Shorten and shadow minister Jenny Macklin will continue to fight you every step of the way. We will stand beside the Australian community while you try to tear them apart.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (11:01): It has been quite amusing watching the Manager of Opposition Business doing the oldest trick in the book when there is a leadership challenge on in the Labor Party, trying to get his backbenchers into the chamber so they are not in their offices to take calls from Anthony Albanese. We all know that is what is going on here this morning.
Anthony Albanese was on FIVEaa radio this morning with me on our regular radio catch-up. He was asked twice by the radio presenters—and once by me, to be fair—to rule out challenging Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and he refused to do so. We have seen the member for Grayndler continuing his high profile in the press. This week of course he stood up to the member for Maribyrnong over the xenophobic television ad run by the Labor Party. He fired the starter gun on the challenge, and the Manager of Opposition Business has had his backbenchers in here this morning.
Ms Macklin: Point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): I would ask the minister to resume his seat for a second. The member for Jagajaga has a point of order?
Ms Macklin: Thank you. That is exactly right. As the minister knows full well, he needs to actually speak to the motion, which he is not doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat.
Mr PYNE: I am just having a small preamble.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of course, Minister. A brief preamble is allowed.
Mr PYNE: I see the member for Bass has been sent in here so that he does not get a phone call from Anthony Albanese, who is ringing around.
Ms Macklin: Point of order: the preamble is over.
Mr PYNE: I am about to get to the substance here. I am about to get to the substance. You cannot bear it. You know it is true.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The minister has the call.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr PYNE: You're a Grayndler supporter.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The minister is of course allowed a preamble.
Mr PYNE: A very brief preamble, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course the government would like to get on with things that I thought the Labor Party were interested in. I thought they were interested in vulnerable workers, and that is the next bill that we are supposed to be debating here today—protections for vulnerable workers. But Labor does not want to talk about that. They would rather this ridiculous distraction. We want to know what the Leader of the Opposition's position is on the corrupting benefits legislation as well. We want to get to the corrupting benefits legislation because the Leader of the Opposition is yet to say what his position is on the corrupting benefits legislation. So we will draw a curtain on this amusing pantomime from the Labor Party this morning. I move:
That the motion be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The House divided. [11:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:09): (In division)A point of order, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: A point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr BURKE: Under standing order 67, immediately after this motion—which I presume will be carried—that the question be put, I will not have the opportunity to ask for the primary question to be restated. The House has the problem that the minister never told the House what he was moving and never gave a reason as to why anyone would vote for it. The opposition have had a series of speeches explaining why we think it should be agreed to, but, given that the question has never actually been explained to the House, I wonder if there is a point in time, given that the minister did not, when you might make it clear to the House what it is voting on.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Can I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that this issue has been raised before in another context. I am going to put this in the 'innovative and good try' category, because, as the Manager of Opposition Business knows, I was in the chair not only when the Clerk read the item of business that is on the Notice Paper but when the minister read what he was required to read. The Manager of Opposition Business's quibble I think was outlined pretty clearly in his own contribution, which was that the minister simply moved what he was required to move but did not make a speech. There is no point of order.
The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga might want to remain in the chamber. I have been very lenient.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) 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:
(1) notes that although the Government pretends through the bill to care about vulnerable workers, those workers who earn penalty rates are also vulnerable as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates, a decision which the Government supports; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) abandon its support of the Fair Work Commission decision 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
(b) legislate to prevent the Fair Work Commission decision from taking effect, in order to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut."
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:16): After some delay, it is my great pleasure to be here speaking today in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. This is a matter that I have been extremely vocal about for some time. It is an issue which has been around a lot longer than I have, with the Hon. Phillip Ruddock raising it back in 1999. It has been the subject of numerous inquiries, numerous Senate reports and various other activities within government. I have campaigned long and hard against worker exploitation since I was elected to this place in 2013, and this legislation will ensure that workers in Australia are better protected.
In 2014, at the federal council, the Nationals voted unanimously to seek a multi-jurisdictional task force to address worker exploitation. The exploitation of foreign workers is something which largely impacts regional farming areas like my electorate of Hinkler, but in reality it can happen anywhere—and, sadly, I am sure my office is not alone in receiving reports of allegations and complaints of worker exploitation. In May 2015, Taskforce Cadena was established by the coalition government to investigate illegal practices in temporary visa programs and to target unscrupulous labour hire contracting firms. Led by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Fair Work Ombudsman, it works with the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Taxation Office and various state and territory agencies to ensure that incidents involving exploitation and visa fraud are appropriately investigated. The reason for Taskforce Cadena is that we needed better coordination and intelligence sharing between agencies at the various levels of government to ensure seasonal workers are protected from these unscrupulous employers. As at 12 January 2017, Taskforce Cadena had received 267 allegations for investigation and completed 13 operations, uncovering evidence of serious wrongdoing, including illicit drug, illicit firearms and proceeds-of-crime offences.
The legislation being debated today delivers another tool to increase safeguards for vulnerable workers, whether they are migrant workers here on a working holiday visa or a local teen working in a franchise. This is about human decency. Regardless of the nationality of the worker, they all have the same rights and obligations while they are working here in Australia. Yet, in the 2015-16 financial year, 38 of the Fair Work Ombudsman's 50 litigations—some 76 per cent—involved a visa holder. Sixteen of those litigations involved a 417 visa holder. In 2015-16 the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered just over $3 million for all visa holders, with $1.37 million of this for 417 visa holders. Importantly, this legislation is another coalition government election commitment being delivered.
The government has provided $20 million in funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman and established the Migrant Workers' Taskforce. The Migrant Workers' Taskforce, led by Professor Allan Fels AO, will provide expert advice on measures that will deliver better protections for overseas workers. The exploitation of migrant workers affects a range of industries, and in recent cases it has become clear that some employers have blatantly ignored their responsibilities under Australian law.
In February Professor Fels provided an update on the four areas of action the task force has set for itself: better communication with visa holders, stronger measures to prevent and redress workplace exploitation, more effective enforcement and ensuring that policy frameworks and regulatory settings are right. The task force has endorsed a proposal by the Fair Work Ombudsman to host a new, anonymous-reporting-online tool designed specifically for migrant workers. This new tool will allow migrant workers to provide information or share concerns about a workplace without identifying themselves if they do not want to make a formal request for assistance from the Fair Work Ombudsman. The task force is also considering the matter of visa arrangements for exploited migrant workers and is in discussions with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on how this will be handled.
Professor Fels also stated in his public statement:
I look forward to this very important legislation as I consider it is critical to addressing the highly exploitative culture and practice of some employers.
I agree with him wholeheartedly, as I am sure you do, Deputy Speaker Kelly. This legislation sends a clear message to employers: if you are doing the wrong thing, you will be caught. It will not be tolerated, and you will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
There are concerns that civil penalties under the Fair Work Act are currently too low to effectively deter unscrupulous employers who exploit vulnerable workers because the costs associated with being caught are seen as an acceptable cost of doing business. This bill will introduce a higher scale of penalties for serious contraventions of payment related workplace laws so the threat of being fined acts as an effective deterrent to potential wrongdoers. The higher penalties—and these are 10 times higher than previously—will apply where a contravention was deliberate and formed part of a systematic pattern of conduct.
The Fair Work Ombudsman issued 347 on-the-spot fines between 1 July and 31 December 2016. They range from $540 to $2,700 to employers for contraventions of recordkeeping and payslip laws. In February the Fair Work Ombudsman announced that it had initiated proceedings against a Queensland labour-hire firm over claims that its failure to keep records of employees' hours prevented the agency from determining whether 265 migrant workers had received their full entitlements. The labour-hire firm supplied employees to pick and pack strawberries at a Stanthorpe farm, and the Fair Work Ombudsman alleges that a lack of basic records of hours of work prevented its inspectors from checking whether almost all employees were being paid their minimum entitlements. Underpayment of entitlements could be calculated for just six of those 265 employees identified, with inspectors determining the workers had been underpaid a total of $316.
Under the legislation, penalties will also increase for recordkeeping failures. Contraventions relating to employee records and payslips double for both individuals and bodies corporate, companies et cetera, and the maximum penalty also extends to false or misleading employee records or payslips which the employer knows to be false or misleading. Employee records and payslips play an important role in determining compliance under the Fair Work Act. Without reliable employee records, employees may be unable to prove their case and recover their minimum entitlements. If underpayments cannot be proved, employers may end up with a significant windfall even if fined for the contraventions.
This increase in penalties is not designed to target those employers who genuinely overlook recordkeeping requirements. It is aimed at deterring the small minority of employers—and I reinforce that it is a small minority and the overwhelming majority of employers do the right thing—who deliberately fail to keep records as part of a systematic plan to underpay workers and disguise their wrongdoing. This will also help ensure that employees receive their legal entitlements under the act and levels the playing field for those employers who are doing the right thing and comply with their legal obligations to their employees.
At any one time in my electorate of Hinkler there can be a large number of backpackers who are working on local farms. A common complaint that I have heard over the years is that lack of paperwork makes it hard to establish that underpayment has actually taken place. Working holiday-makers are not just a travelling workforce; they are also an essential part of the tourism industry. Tourism Australia is promoting Australia to potential working holiday makers through a $10 million global youth targeted advertising campaign. Our growers require a large labour force of unskilled workers for short periods of time and they need them at short notice; otherwise, their crops would sit there, they would not be picked and that would be a great loss to our economy. We want people here on working holiday visas to enjoy their time in Australia both while they work and whilst they are a tourist. And we need to ensure that when they go home they encourage others to come here and have exactly the same experience. We do not want them to go home and tell people they were ripped off or treated poorly.
Under this legislation, the Fair Work Ombudsman will have its evidence gathering powers strengthened to ensure the exploitation of vulnerable workers can be effectively investigated. These powers will be similar to those already available to corporate regulators like the Australian Securities Investment Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. New examination powers will provide the Fair Work Ombudsman with a greater suite of options to investigate potential noncompliance with workplace laws. This will help achieve positive investigation outcomes where existing powers to require the production of documents fall short because there are no employer records or other relevant documents. This will enable the most serious cases involving the exploitation of vulnerable workers to be properly investigated, even if no documents are produced. The bill will also give the Fair Work Ombudsman new avenues to pursue those who hinder or obstruct investigations, or who provide false or misleading information to the regulator; and penalties will also apply to individuals and bodies corporate who fail to comply with an FWA notice.
New provisions in this legislation will make franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or were reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. Some franchisors and holding companies have established franchise agreements and subsidiaries in their corporate structure that operate on a business model based on underpaying workers. Some have either been blind to the problem, which is unlikely, or not taken sufficient action to deal with it once it was brought to their attention.
The highly publicised case of the 7-Eleven franchisees shows that more needs to be done by the franchisors and holding companies to protect vulnerable workers employed in their business networks. These new provisions only apply to the franchisor—entities which have is significant degree of influence or control over the relevant franchisee's affairs. Where a franchisor or holding company should have known of the breach but did not take reasonable steps to try to prevent it, they may be liable for the underpayments. There is no liability if the franchisor or holding company has taken reasonable steps to deal with the problem.
Lastly, the bill will expressly prohibit employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments. This seems unfathomable to me that this would even happen but there are instances where employers have forced employees to hand back part of their wages so they can keep their job. An overseas worker employed as a cook on the Gold Coast was allegedly required to pay back more than $21,000 of her wages to the employer. The Fair Work Ombudsman claims the Korean national felt compelled to do it as she was concerned her employer would cease to sponsor her 457 visa if she did not. Asking an employee for any amount to be spent or money to be paid out of an employee's pocket in a way which involves undue influence, duress or coercion will always be unreasonable and unacceptable. Under the amendments, any employee who has paid cash back or made other payments which are unreasonable is entitled to have the amounts reimbursed by their employer. This legislation will deliver on the commitment made by the coalition government to provide greater protection for vulnerable workers and hold accountable those who intentionally exploit those workers.
In the brief time I have left, I want to mention hapless member for Bundaberg, Leanne Donaldson, who, on 3 May 2017, put in our local paper, the Bundaberg News Mail, a story that we had done nothing for local workers, and that it was only the state Labor government which was out there making changes which would be of a difference to these people who have been exploited. I have stood in this place on many occasions and given credit where credit is due. I have given credit certainly to Minister Jones, who is a Labor Minister for Tourism in Queensland, for her work with me on HMAS Tobruk to deliver it for the people of Wide Bay as a piece of tourism infrastructure. But for a member who obviously has some problems with her memory, who has clearly forgotten what has happened over the last three or four years, to make a public statement to say that we have done nothing is quite simply unacceptable. It is the coalition government which has delivered these changes. It is the coalition government and the National Party in particular which have moved things through the federal conference, through the Nationals' party room unanimously. It was us who had the meetings, it was us who consulted with stakeholders, it was us who made the changes and it was us who delivered $20 million to Fair Work to make a difference. It is absolutely us that implemented Taskforce Cadena, which is out there making a real difference to the people who are being exploited. This is the reality. But here we have a member who, I have to say, forgot to pay her bills for some three or four years. However, to be out there spruiking that nothing has been done is just clearly unacceptable. The member for Bundaberg should be out giving credit where it is due, because these changes make a real difference to workers who are being exploited.
The Queensland Labor government has form. Would you believe the proposal is to charge a fee? The solution for them is that they would like to have a regulation which lists all labour hire firms. To be on the list, of course, firms will have to pay, so they are going to tax them. On top of that, firms have to report the number of employees they have, as well as the number of employees engaged through work visa arrangements. Now, I think whoever put this together has never worked in the horticulture field. We are talking about thousands and thousands of workers, which change not only on a weekly or daily basis but on an hourly basis. Fundamentally, workers could do three hours of work and move to a different property on a different farm with a different employer every single week.
This is another burden of red tape on our hardworking small businesses. This is another tax from the Queensland Labor government, which small businesses are going to absolutely have to pay, unfortunately. Then, to be out to say, 'This is the only solution,' I think, is incorrect. The absolute best way to do this is the way that we have taken it on in consultation with the state governments. Taskforce Cadena brings together all of the different jurisdictions. It has been successful. It is making a difference. It is cracking down, and I can tell you that, being on the ground, we have seen the results.
In my electorate, specifically in my home town, I have seen four brand-new backpacker accommodation hostels. That is clearly because we are making a real difference on the ground for people who are being exploited. Certainly, we will continue to do that. I commend the bill to House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:31): Before I address the detail of this bill, I should just make some observations as someone who has been in this place for a long period of time. We had a very unusual set of circumstances here this morning when we had the government move, effectively, a budget measure and no-one speak to it. It was slightly odd. It makes one wonder about the sincerity of the government around any budget measure or any bill in this place, if they are not prepared to get up and support the bills they present to the parliament.
You would have to ask the Prime Minister why he spoke so effusively in 2014 and 2015 about the measures which were dumped today. This is important in the context of this bill, because if they can do it around these other issues they can do it about this piece of legislation. In relation to the budget measures of 2014, the Prime Minister said:
I support introducing co-payments for general practitioner pathology and diagnostic imaging services in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. I support the reforms to higher education. I support the changes to family payment reform—
all of which were dumped today. So how sincere are the government, when they get up to promote legislation in this place, if they feel—as apparently they do—that it is okay in a couple of years time to get up and abandon what they put before the parliament, in this case in a budget? Why should we have any confidence that they will not repeal elements of this piece of legislation which we have got before us today?
That is a very important question, because it is an important piece of legislation which we in the Labor Party will be supporting, although with some caveats. The bill will increase penalties for serious contraventions—defined as conduct which is 'deliberate and part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more other persons'—of prescribed workplace laws; increase penalties for employer record-keeping failures; and make franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they know or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent them. The new responsibilities will only apply where franchisors and holding companies have a significant degree of influence or control over their business networks, and the franchisor or holding company may raise a defence of taking reasonable steps to prevent a contravention.
The bill's provisions will expressly prohibit employers from unreasonably requiring employees to make payments—and the previous speaker outlined the hideous nature of some of these payments and the absolute skulduggery going on in the workplace, where people are exploiting 457 workers for their own benefit and making them pay back money which they earnt from them. You would have to wonder what sort of morals these people have. This bill seeks to address that particular issue. In addition, it will give the Fair Work Ombudsman and employees at the SES level the power to compulsorily question persons as part of an investigation into breaches of the Fair Work Act where failure to answer questions gives rise to civil liability.
We in the Labor Party will support the legislation, but I want to make sure that I am supporting also the amendment which has been put by the shadow minister, Mr O'Connor, the member for Gorton, because this amendment is quite important and, in the context of last night's budget, has more importance today. This amendment says:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1)notes that although the Government pretends through the bill to care about vulnerable workers, those workers who earn penalty rates are also vulnerable as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates, a decision which the Government supports; and
(2)calls on the Government to:
(a)abandon its support of the Fair Work Commission decision 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
(b)legislate to prevent the Fair Work Commission decision from taking effect, in order to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut."
That is what the government should be doing, and it is very important in the context of last night's budget. We have moved in just one year. A year ago it was 'jobs and growth'. Well, there are very few jobs and not a lot of growth. The 2017 budget has weaker and fewer jobs, and it is no wonder the government have dropped the slogan. It is very important that you appreciate that, in the projections for this year's budget, there are nearly 100,000 fewer jobs forecast compared to the budget last year—100,000 fewer jobs. You have to ask the question: if 'jobs and growth' was such a successful proposition, how is that forecasts in this year's budget are saying there will be 100,000 fewer jobs? That must be ticked as a failure on the part of the government.
The Prime Minister gets up and talks in this place, as he does, remonstrating about how evil the opposition are for not supporting the government budget measures or having a comment about those budget measures—God forbid that we should be critical! Thank God we were critical about those zombie measures, because if we had not been critical we would have had them imposed upon the Australian people. We can thank the Labor Party for holding the government to account, and we will continue to hold them to account around this year's budget, and we will want to know why it is that they are prepared to throw their hands up and say it is okay to accept 100,000 fewer jobs this year in their budget.
The bill that we are talking about today does nothing in relation to a range of policies which Labor took to the last election, directed towards combating sham contracting, licensing labour hire companies, shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities, reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers, criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers, and making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. Mr Deputy Speaker, why wouldn't we be doing that? Why wouldn't we be protecting the interests of Australian workers?
The facts are that this government has a history of attacking and undermining the rights of Australian workers over a generation now. It makes no apologies for it in this place. What we have seen in terms of the penalty rates is actually attacking the most vulnerable workers in the country. I live in Alice Springs. People who want an education post school out of Alice Springs invariably have to travel and go somewhere else. They have to sustain themselves. If they go to Sydney or Melbourne, they might take up a job over a weekend doing shifts in a restaurant or some other venue, making money, trying to sustain themselves through university or another educational opportunity. What the government has done by not attacking the penalty rate decision of the Fair Work Commission is that it has effectively said, 'We don't care about those people.'
This year's budget is going to penalise them further because, if they are students, they are going to be paying more for their own education. So not only will they be paying more for their own education and be required to pay the money back earlier, but they will at the same time find it more difficult because their incomes are going to come down quite dramatically as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision and the failure of this government—the absolute failure of this government—to look after their interests and try to seek remedies to change the nature of that Fair Work Commission decision. It is really easy to do, but the government will not do it.
We have to understand that there are workers in this country who are vulnerable. They are vulnerable, and their vulnerability is exposed in part by this piece of legislation. This year, for example, we have heard allegations about Caltex, where staff are working night shifts for $13 an hour, half the legal rate, and not receiving tax returns. And there was widespread underpayment of staff across outlets of Domino's—you know, the pizza joint—where claims have been made of franchisees selling visas to prospective overseas workers and systematic underpayment of workers. How can any person with any moral view of the world or any care for themselves and their families actually think it is okay to do that? It is not okay, and we in the Labor Party will do whatever we can to make sure we expose those poor and vulnerable people and seek to remedy their situation, as we have sought to do.
We note that, in relation to the penalty rates issue, of course, there is an easy way for the government to effect change. That would be to allow debate on the Leader of the Opposition's bill addressing that issue. They will not. They will not, just as they were absolutely stunned silent—they were sitting there like stunned mullets this morning—when the legislation about the zombie cuts was being debated. There was no debate. They did not even have the temerity to be able to read the legislation. They could not read the legislation, let alone make a comment about it so that the Australian community could understand why the government are proposing to get rid of these zombie measures. Similarly, in relation to this issue about penalty rates, they are not prepared to debate the opposition leader's legislation which would seek to remedy the situation of those people on penalty rates. The government will not do it. They simply close their ears to the idea that it may be okay to actually tell the Australian community why they will not support the legislation which the opposition leader was proposing.
The opposition leader is doing what he ought to do, putting up proposals which will have the support of the Australian community but which are not being supported by the government for God knows what reason—because it came from the opposition. Let me say this to the government: the only reason we saw the legislation around the zombie cuts here this morning was the opposition. Do yourselves a favour: if you want to win support in the broader community then support the opposition's proposals on penalty rates and you will get support from us on that issue. But you are simply blind to doing things which might reasonably effect a change in the circumstances of Australian workers, because they come from either trade unions or the Labor Party. Let's not talk about trade unions. They are the most evil institutions in the country, protecting the rights of Australian workers! I have been a proud union member since I was 15, and I continue to be a proud union member. I say to members opposite: understand the importance—
Mr McCormack: I was in the union for 21 years.
Mr SNOWDON: Why aren't you still in it?
Mr McCormack: Because I am here.
Mr SNOWDON: It doesn't stop you from being a member of a union, comrade, and you ought to be one. Let's be very clear: we will not have the demonisation of Australian workers or their representative bodies, the trade unions of this country. We will not take being demonised by the government because we have put up fair proposals to address the stupidity of the penalty rate decision by the Fair Work Commission. We have the interests of Australian workers and Australian families in mind. The piece of legislation before us is deficient and needs to be strengthened. We say to the government: you have the opportunity to do this, why don't you do it? Accept the proposals which are being put forward by the Labor Party and you will improve the bill. By improving the bill, you will improve the protections for Australian workers in workplaces right around the country. That is a very important thing for you to understand, even though you do not want to do it because you have a history of attacking the most vulnerable people in the community. The government are doing it again in the budget from last night: they are attacking young workers. And now we know there are 100,000 fewer jobs being projected through the budget as it was announced by the Treasurer last night. We have a responsibility to make the changes that this bill asks for, but we should also be making sure that government members understand the merits of the arguments being put here by the opposition and support the opposition amendments.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (11:47): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Turnbull government's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. Our government recognises that the deliberate underpayment of workers has been too common in Australia and such practices have, unfortunately, as we know, been uncovered at 7-Eleven, Muffin Break, Gloria Jean's, Subway, Caltex, Domino's and Pizza Hut franchises. We have also seen a number of cases of exploitation of seasonal workers in horticultural industries, for example, and they are quite often migrant workers. Such conduct has unfortunately developed due to weak laws, amongst other things, which make it difficult for the independent Fair Work Ombudsman to prove exploitation. This bill, therefore, delivers on the final element of the government's election commitment to protect vulnerable workers from unscrupulous employers, which, in turn, is fairer for competing businesses who do the right thing and pay their employees properly.
In this place, I am proud to represent the electorate of Groom, which has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the nation. It is an entrepreneurial and small business focused region—a place with many opportunities. But we cannot assume that we are immune to the exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers either. As I have said throughout regional areas such as ours, we have seen the example in the horticulture sector where contract employment agencies or labour hire companies have on occasions not met their obligation to employ properly staff working in their clients' businesses. Although distressing, I must say it has been good to see such practices being identified and addressed. It is these and other instances that I am keen to see addressed, especially when the good name of such client organisations including farmers, food packers and processors are unfairly and disgracefully tarnished despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong at all.
We all know that the vast majority of employers do the right thing by their employees, including most especially those who could be considered vulnerable. This bill is deliberately designed to lift the compliance rate even higher. The bill introduces higher penalties for serious contraventions of payment-related workplace laws which will apply where the underpayments or other breaches are deliberate and systemic. The penalties for these contraventions will be 10 times higher than usual. It will increase penalties for breaches of record keeping and pay slip requirements—not for genuine mistakes but for deliberate and systemic breaches. The bill also prohibits employers asking for cash back from their employees. Vulnerable workers can easily be intimidated, as we have learnt, into handing back part of their wages in cash or other coercive behaviour under threats of losing their employment. The bill will also clarify the accessorial liability provisions to make them more effective in ensuring holding companies or franchisors are held accountable if they should have reasonably known of payment contraventions of franchisees or subsidiaries. It also prohibits hindering or providing false information to Fair Work inspectors in their work in compliance with the Fair Work Act. Finally, the bill strengthens the Fair Work Ombudsman's evidence-gathering and protection powers to ensure that deliberate and systematic contraventions of workplace laws can be effectively investigated, similar to those powers held by other regulators such as ASIC and ACCC.
It should be noted that the measures in this bill come on top of the government's establishment of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, chaired by former ACCC chair Professor Allan Fels, to target employers who exploit migrant workers and monitor progress of rectification of prior instances of underpayment. Its provision of additional funding as outlined in this bill to the Fair Work Ombudsman for investigation and prosecution relating to instances of worker exploitation is another feature that strengthens up provisions to protect vulnerable workers. Of course, both of those are in line with the coalition's May 2016 policy to protect vulnerable workers. This particular bill implements the third aspect of that commitment in legislating to create stronger protections for employees in the Fair Work Act. This is yet another instance of the Turnbull government listening to employees and employers as well as our regulators, identifying problems and shortcomings that can allow exploitation to emerge and going about putting in place the safeguards, provisions and solutions the Turnbull government promised.
As we talk about these protections and this continuing and increased focus from the Turnbull government on protecting vulnerable workers, such as in the instances of franchisees and amongst migrant workers—the examples we have all noted—I particularly want to revisit the comments about the practices of some of those unscrupulous employment agencies or labour hire companies in the horticulture sector as seen in regional areas such as my electorate of Groom and throughout horticultural production regions throughout the entire nation. Again, I stress that it is galling to see that when investigations are, understandably, undertaken—obviously, we will see more of that and, eventually, less unscrupulous behaviour such that those investigations may not be required as often or, hopefully, at all—quite often, the good names of client organisations of those labour hire companies and organisations who are, effectively, employment agencies are tarnished and dragged through the mud when those companies, which are often farming and food-processing companies in regional areas, are proven to not be doing the wrong thing. They are proven to be doing the right thing in relating to and, certainly, remunerating their employees on a fair and legal basis and depending on them, in the long term, for the livelihoods of their businesses. That typically involves many Australians and, of course, migrant workers as well. To see their names tarnished because of unscrupulous activity by labour hire companies is galling indeed. It is something that I want to see regional areas focus on. I want people, particularly potential employees, to understand that those farming, food-packing and food-processing businesses in regional areas, on which, most often, our regional economies can depend, are doing the right thing. This is about weeding out the unscrupulous employer organisations, such as labour hire companies that we have heard of.
With that in mind, I am particularly proud to be standing here to speak on this bill. It seeks to put in place, as I have said, further measures that are outlined to protect the most vulnerable workers in our nation. That is important in Groom and throughout Australia and it ensures fairness for hardworking employees and, of course, law-abiding employers.
(Quorum formed)
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:00): The bill before us today is about fairness, and it is about who it is in Australia that really stands up for workers rights. Those opposite always talk about fairness, but they do not have a licence on fairness. Vulnerable workers have only one true friend in this place: it is the coalition government, who have proposed the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017.
I have spoken often in this place, and outside, about union corruption and malfeasance, and rightly so. Unscrupulous and criminal union officials have defrauded workers of their money, caused reductions in their pay, increased the costs of the services on which they rely and even caused them physical intimidation and harm. I have spoken often on that issue, but, in the interests of fairness, this bill is about tackling the other side of the equation.
Vulnerable workers are often hurt and neglected through their unions' misbehaviour and self-interest. But sometimes they are hurt by unscrupulous employers. The Turnbull government recognise this fact, and, unlike those opposite, we are interested in solving people's problems, not in protecting our mates or scoring political points. We have proposed this bill because we have looked at the evidence, uncovered by a series of inquiries, and we have accepted the serious concerns that they have identified. Take, for example, the Heydon royal commission. We accepted its findings, and we acted by reintroducing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We are doing just that here.
Fairness is about treating everyone the same. It is about taking on those who are doing the wrong thing wherever you find them, and whoever they are. Those opposite claim that theirs is the party that stands up for workers rights. That claim, however, has rung hollow for a very long time. Today, led by a man who has spent most of his life giving workers rights away, that proposition is nothing short of laughable. With their words, members opposite pretend to take a stand for vulnerable working Australians; however, with their actions they again and again betray the very workers they claim to represent. When the time comes to make speeches, they are brave—they huff and they puff; they pontificate; they claim the moral high ground and talk the good fight—but when the time comes to act, when they have the power to make a real difference to workers lives, they slink away and sell workers out for their union mates. Those opposite have only one constituent, only one lord and master, and that is the Australian union movement. That is who they represent.
Let us examine the facts, because the contrasts are very clear. The central object of this bill is to stamp out the practice of underpaying workers. The Fair Work Ombudsman's inquiry into 7-Eleven, as one example, identified the systematic underpayment of migrant workers. This is being done through direct underpayment. It is being done through the creation of false pay slips and employment records. And it is being done by coercing workers, by way of threats or intimidation, to wrongly give back money they were rightly paid. This bill seeks to stop these practices by imposing stiff penalties on offenders, by ensuring that those who could prevent these actions take the proper responsibility and by giving the Fair Work Ombudsman the power it needs to find and punish unscrupulous employers. The coalition government, with this bill, is seeking to ensure that workers are not underpaid.
What is the Leader of the Opposition's record on protecting workers' pay? In sharp contrast, as National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, he happily signed up to the workers he looked after receiving less than their lawful entitlements. The workers at Clean Event, for example, were stripped of all penalty rates with no compensation, under a 2006 agreement for which the Leader of the Opposition was responsible. The Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust agreements, which he approved in 2001 and 2003, stripped workers of almost all penalty rates and overtime. The Leader of the Opposition, however, has not been alone. The union movement all over Australia has been getting stuck into reducing workers' pay, often in return for benefits for the union itself, for years. That is why workers at many five-star hotels, having the so-called benefit of a union negotiated enterprise agreement, are paid $10.24 an hour less than those on the Fair Work Commission's penalty rates. That is why workers at David Jones and Dan Murphy's and KFC and McDonald's get up to $8 less than their counterparts on award rates. This bill protects vulnerable workers' pay, while the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite give it away.
Another of the central objects of this bill is tackling the lawlessness and unfairness in the workplace that undermine workers' rights. Part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill introduces tough new penalties for serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act and even tougher penalties where those contraventions are systematic. The bill makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that exploiting workers is unacceptable and that this government will come down very hard on unscrupulous employers that engage in this type of unconscionable conduct. The government do a great deal to support small businesses that are doing the right thing, but we believe in fairness and we believe in the rule of law, so we are tough on all businesses that are failing to respect employees' rights. Part 3 of schedule 1 ensures that it is clear and unambiguous that the specific practice of requiring, without good reason, an employee to directly or indirectly pay back any amount of the money to which they are entitled is prohibited and subject to significant penalties under the law. Part 6 also prohibits employers from making and keeping false records relating to employees and, in particular, pay slips. This will help to stamp out the practice of providing what looks like proper pay and conditions but is in reality withholding that pay or reclaiming it from workers in cash. All of these provisions will work to stamp out employer misconduct where it happens and ensure that workers are not deprived of their lawful entitlements through intimidation. That is what the Turnbull government is proposing.
What is the track record of members opposite when it comes to stamping out lawlessness that deprives workers of their rights? First, as evidence mounted that AWU officials were misappropriating workers' funds and that Labor Party members were facing allegations of fraud, Labor did everything they could to prevent the setting up of a royal commission to investigate. When it was up and running, they did everything they could to undermine it and protect their corrupt union mates—and they still are.
When the Heydon royal commission had referred more than 40 people to authorities, when there were more than 100 union officials before the courts, when the royal commission had identified widespread union corruption, illegality and violence, when it had demonstrated the damage unions were doing to workers' rights, their pay and conditions and even their safety, what did these champions of the working man do? They fought tooth and nail to prevent the reintroduction of the one body that could do something about it. They voted down our efforts to reintroduce a tough cop on the beat. They were even willing to go to a double dissolution election to prevent it. The Labor Party tried to absolve the unions. They blamed a few bad apples. Not taking responsibility for their actions is a habit of the Labor Party—for example, not taking responsibility for the ideological energy policies that have resulted in crippling, rising costs, and not taking responsibility for the Fair Work Commission inquiry that they set up.
This bill seeks to stamp out lawlessness and unfairness in the workplace. The Labor Party tried to keep workers vulnerable to the illegal activities of their union mates for the economic benefit of those unions and the ALP, who received more than $10 million from the union movement in disclosed donations alone in 2015-16.
Another of the central objects of this bill is ensuring that authorities have the power to investigate and catch these corporate wrongdoers. Under part 4 of schedule 1, the bill introduces new formal evidence-gathering powers which will give the Fair Work Ombudsman the same sort of authority as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the ACCC. With these new powers, the Fair Work Ombudsman will be able to compel a person who they reasonably suspect of having information relating to an investigation to attend before them to answer questions. This is an important power, as far too often unscrupulous employers do not keep the records that would expose their misdeeds, and others destroy them when an investigation begins, just as the CFMEU did when under investigation by the Heydon royal commission.
Under part 5 of schedule 1, the bill prohibits anyone from hindering or obstructing the Fair Work Ombudsman or a prescribed official acting in the course of their duties. Part 6 of this schedule also introduces significant penalties for anyone giving false or misleading documents to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The coalition government is making sure with this bill that the Fair Work Ombudsman has the real teeth it needs to find the truth.
What is the Labor Party's record? It is very simple. When they had a chance, they took this power away. They abolished the ABCC in 2012 and, with it, its power to compel witnesses to attend. They also took away the power for the regulator to enforce the law if a secret settlement had been reached. They created a situation unique among Australian regulatory agencies and replaced the ABCC with a toothless tiger.
The state Labor government in Queensland have recently gone even further to ensure that our authorities are unable to uncover and investigate illegal activity that is hurting workers in our state. They have instigated Queensland's withdrawal from the Trade Union Joint Police Taskforce. This task force had been rooting out and prosecuting examples of union corruption which were damaging workers' interests all over Australia. But now, thanks to the state Labor government, it will not be operating in Queensland. Do you think it is a coincidence that the state Labor government would have disbanded that police task force? Hardly.
As for hindering an investigation, we have only to look at how Labor approached the Heydon royal commission. As the evidence it uncovered mounted and the case about the union movement became stronger and stronger, they called it a witch-hunt. They called it politically biased. They called its well-evidenced findings smears and sought to undermine its very well respected commissioner on frivolous grounds.
While this bill ensures that the Fair Work Ombudsman will have the investigative powers it needs to protect vulnerable workers from unscrupulous employers, Labor have done everything they could to prevent investigation into their union mates. Labor is weak on corruption, weak on crime and weak on accountability providing it is them and their union mates that are being held to account.
This bill is a tough but proportionate response to the facts that have emerged about a small number of employers who are exploiting vulnerable workers. It is one of a number of such measures that the Turnbull government has introduced to protect workers in Australia.
Only one side of politics today believes in fairness. Only one side stands up for workers rights, and that is this government.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:15): I would like to give a quick shout-out to my good friend the member for Indi's school that is visiting: the Catholic College Wodonga. Welcome to parliament. We have a Catholic school in Bendigo in my electorate, and they are good friends and fantastic every time they visit. I am sure you will have lots of questions and challenges for the member for Indi, so welcome to Canberra. It is probably fitting that you are here for this bill, because a lot of young people find themselves in precarious employment and today, unfortunately, are in fact vulnerable workers.
As I stand up and speak about this bill, I find myself disappointed. It is good to see the government finally doing something on vulnerable workers. It is good to see that they are catching up to Labor and to community expectations. After years and years of reports, media reports, Senate inquiries and their own investigations by Fair Work Australia, we finally have something on vulnerable workers. But, in an opportunity to stand here and say that we are doing something to protect people who have been exploited, instead they stand up and spend their speaking time bashing unions. That is so disappointing because our contributions on this bill should be acknowledging the work that is done by unions to help expose the seedy underbelly of what is happening in a lot of these workplaces. Unions have worked with media and the Fair Work Ombudsman to help expose the exploitation in our agricultural industry, in our cleaning industry and in our property services industries and have helped expose the exploitation that is occurring in a lot of our meatworks and processing. That is just four industries where we know that vulnerable workers are being mistreated.
The extent of the mistreatment ranges from not being paid properly, being underpaid or not receiving award entitlements to the very other end, which is bordering on modern slavery, where people who are temporary workers here are having their passports confiscated. They are being locked into places, being forced to board 20 people to a house and are charged exorbitant rates. There are cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment. That is the very extreme end of what is essentially a worker issue.
This bill is a start. It starts to address some of the exploitation issues occurring across our economy and in our community. Labor supports its passage through the parliament, because it is about time we started to do something. On a daily basis we have reports about what is going on. I acknowledge that in the last week it has probably been every couple of days; with our Fairfax journalists taking industrial action, we have lost a few of our investigative journalists helping to expose what is going on. I acknowledge that they are back at work today.
I also acknowledge that the government has not called any Fairfax journalists criminals for taking unprotected industrial action. They said that, if a childcare worker took unprotected industrial action, they were putting the lives of the children at risk and they would be sent nasty letters. If they are a construction worker who walked onto a site and said we need to stop work because my late has just fallen down with an almost fatal injury, they get sent show-cause notices from the ABCC, and this government stands up and calls those people criminals. Those people are facing criminal fines. They are very quick to demonise every other worker that stands up for their rights. Perhaps their treatment of our friends at Fairfax is turning over a new leaf—but, as we have seen in these contributions, it is not. Maybe they just fear journalists more than they fear early-childhood educators.
This bill, as I said, falls significantly short of Labor's policy that we took to the last election and what we announced 12 months ago. Before this government even turned its mind to protecting workers, we were out there with workers, with organisations saying, 'Something needs to be done.' This bill does not combat sham contracting, the licensing of labour hire companies or the shutting down of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities. It does not reform the Fair Work Act to strengthen the protections for workers and those who seek to represent them. It does not criminalise employers involved in conduct used to coerce or threaten during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act, particularly in relation to temporary overseas workers. And it also fails to make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from an employer or directors responsible for these companies.
This is the problem with this government: it does something it calls 'protecting vulnerable workers' and hopes that nobody notices it does not quite complete the job. But we need to look at the impact of labour hire and what is happening in our workplaces, particularly ag and food processing. In my own electorate, and this is quite common in regional Australia, we have a chicken processor who uses a significant component of labour hire. I have met with several of those workers. They have in some cases worked very long hours, up to 24 hours. They did not know when they were going to finish. They are paid cash in hand. One woman fell while she was there, miscarried and had no support. I do acknowledge that the Fair Work Ombudsman has been involved and has said that it is working with the company to help clean up these practices. But it took a lot of media and some very brave and bold individuals to speak up to get action. People should not have to fight so hard to get their basic entitlements. This particular factory is also happening up the road in Kyneton at Hardwicks. Almost on a weekly basis I am sent images out of overcrowded streets, lots of cars, lots of people being crammed into boarding houses that are owned by people who work at the facility.
These backpackers are being employed to work in meatworks and are being paid the award—not the collective agreement rate, the award. In some cases they are not even being paid the award. It is putting downward pressure on the labour market. If we do not clean this up, if we do not support people and ensure they get paid properly, if there is a cheap source of backdoor labour, what happens is it puts pressure on those who are working next them being paid the correct entitlements. This is what is happening with a lot of foreign workers, temporary workers and guest workers in our country. Welcome to Australia and be exploited.
We have seen exploitation in some very high profile cases. Take the case of Australia Post. International students were basically being coerced into working above the maximum 20 hours that they can do. Again, we had to work way too hard to have this investigated. These are not the only group of international students who are being mistreated. We have seen the case of 7-Eleven. We have seen the case of Caltex. Three other cases involves predominantly international students who are supposed to be here for study but find they have very little time to study because their employer is making them work longer and holds the threat of their visas over their heads. One of the things the government could have done in this bill is go after employers who bully people and say, 'Unless you do this, I will report you and have you deported.' The bill also does not have any whistleblower protections for people who speak up, meaning that it is going to be very hard to get people to speak up to help address many of these issues.
In the case of 7-Eleven, we saw the business model that was created to systematically exploit vulnerable foreign workers. We all remember the footage of someone being paid right into their bank account and then forced to go to the ATM to take the money out to give back to their boss. There is a fundamental problem with the structure of that business if it can only be sustained by exploiting foreign workers and stealing their wages.
Myer is another really disappointing one. Myer have said, 'It's not our problem.' Two decades ago they used to directly employ their cleaners. Their cleaners were known; they were part of the family—part of their staff. Then they outsourced the work to cleaning companies. Today, the cleaning company is engaged in a complex network of sham contracting. The workers who ended up doing the work—as we found out in another union investigation, working with local media—were not being paid award wages. They were denied penalty rates and superannuation and they were working without decent occupational health and safety protections. We are not just talking about recently arrived migrants but people in regional areas, like Bendigo and Ballarat, who took the job because they needed a job, knowing full well that they were being exploited and underpaid. Yet Myer have said: 'It's not our problem. Take it up with the contractor.' That is, quite frankly, not good enough. When we have multinationals and major businesses in Australia saying, 'I am not responsible,' we need to take responsibility and reform the Fair Work Act to protect vulnerable workers.
Then there are the Pizza Hut delivery drivers—and if it is Pizza Hut it is probably a lot of others—and supply chains like Baiada, another chicken group in South Australia. There is exploitation in their plants of temporary overseas workers—workers being forced to work dangerously long hours for far less than the minimum wage. Despite the efforts of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the dollars and time that have been spent to investigate this particular industry and this particular company, we are still not seeing significant reform. This is just the tip of the iceberg that is the exploitation going on in our economy. It is widespread. There is undercutting of the minimum wage. There are more and more people being forced to take up jobs that, quite frankly, are cases of exploitation.
Penalty rates are another issue that we are debating. Previous speakers have highlighted what is going on in hotels and with some collective agreements. One of the points they fundamentally miss every time they talk about penalty rates—take Crown casino—is that every hour of the day that they work they are paid the same rate—Sunday, Monday and through the week. It is a rolled-up rate. It is a really high rate of pay. When you compare their roster, they pass the better off overall test. These workers are some of the best paid hospitality workers in the country. Security guards at Melbourne Airport are the same; they are paid a rolled-up rate. They have negotiated a rolled-up rate. As a result, with what they earn over the year of the agreement, with the averaging out, they are much better off overall, moving off minimum rates of pay of about $40,000 a year into salaries of $50,000 to $60,000 a year depending on how much overtime they have. That is what happens when we have a genuine and fair collective bargaining scheme. The government chooses to look just at the Sunday rate and not at all the other conditions that have been agreed. Instead, what we have is more union bashing—bashing of the very people who have gone into these situations to help expose them, to talk to people who are not members of their union to find out about the appalling conditions they are living and working in and how they are being treated by their employer.
What is happening is disgraceful. It should be a national shame. It is a stain on our good reputation, here and overseas, the way some workers are being treated, particularly recently arrived migrants and temporary workers, international students, backpackers, people who are here on 457 visas and people who are here as part of our aid program or our seasonal worker program. Too many of them are victims of exploitation. This bill is a start but it does not go far enough to close the loopholes, clean up the act and hold accountable the employers and the clients at the centre of this. If we want to be a country with high wages and good, secure jobs, we have to start with the fundamental of ensuring that every single worker is paid properly.
The Australian Jobs Embassy is back—a demonstration of how this government has failed their own election mantra around jobs and growth. The Australian Jobs Embassy is back, and these are some of the issues that they are looking at: a company's ability to terminate agreements, companies using labour-hire terms that exploit workers and the fact that this government has no plan to create decent, secure jobs. After all the commentary in the media, all of the research work done by all of the not-for-profits and all of the work done by their own agencies—for example, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission—and all the different agencies, we expected more to be in this bill. This government should accept Labor's amendment, because at least that will address the issue of protecting penalty rates and take-home pay. But, quite frankly, the government must do better.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:30): It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. First off, I would like to make the comment that the vast majority of employers in this country do the right thing when it comes to employing their staff, because they know that one of the things about having a successful and well-run business is to have staff that you value, that are motivated, that you trust and that you look after. In fact, many people who run small businesses treat their staff like family members.
One of the things, even for medium- to larger-sized businesses, that enforces that good relationship between employer and employee is simply the disciplines of the marketplace. Where you have a diversified marketplace with many different employees in each section, if an employer mistreats his employee or if he underpays them the employee then has the option of going to another business to take up employment that other business. That is why we must always fight for greater diversity in every industry. No business can succeed if they have unmotivated employees that are being underpaid the rates. But having said that, there have been recent examples—a very small number of cases—where some employers have been doing the wrong thing. Of course there was the well-documented case of 7-Eleven, where some employees were taken by their employer down to the ATM to give a rebate out of their salary. All members of the House agree that this is completely unacceptable.
The bill does five specific things. Firstly, it introduces a higher scale of penalties for what it describes as '"serious contraventions" of prescribed workplace laws.' Taking your employee down to the ATM to get a rebate out of his salary is clearly a serious contravention. Secondly, it increases penalties for record-keeping failures. Employers have to keep accurate records of the hours their employees work and the rates they are being paid. Thirdly, it makes:
…franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. The new responsibilities will only apply where franchisors and holding companies have a significant degree of influence or control over their business networks.
In that third point, I think we have to acknowledge some of the concerns by the Franchise Council of Australia. They have legitimately expressed some concerns over the workings of this bill. They are concerns that we should recognise and that we should acknowledge, and we should monitor how they work. The franchise system is a system that can be very important. It can be very efficient and generate a lot of wealth for our nation. We cannot have a situation where we are putting copious amounts of red tape upon that sector, making franchisors liable in situations where they do not have any control. I would say the only upside is that all good franchise systems have a great responsibility to protect their good names and goodwill. It is in their interests to make sure that anyone that is using their names or franchise systems respects the workplace laws of this nation in doing so. We saw that the damage done to the 7-Eleven brand from the bad publicity from the recent case far outweighed any economic benefits that that franchisor, 7-Eleven, would have received.
Fourthly, it expressly prohibits employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments which are rebates—that is, demanding a portion of their wages to be paid back in cash.
Fifthly, it strengthens the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure that exploitation of vulnerable workers can be effectively investigated.
Having said that, this debate has exposed the Labor Party's barefaced hypocrisy on the issue of penalty rates. We all agree that the 7-Eleven case that we saw, where the workers were forced to give cash back to the employer and therefore received about $8 less than they were entitled to under the award, is wrong. But compare that to the situation that has been exposed recently in the debate on Sunday penalty rates, where a KFC worker on a Sunday would get $29.16 per hour under the award. If a KFC worker got the award rate and were taken by their employer down to the ATM and told, 'We want $8 of rebate out of your Sunday pay,' I think everyone in this parliament would think that would be absolutely outrageous. But that is exactly—or almost exactly—what happens because of the grubby union deal that was done with KFC. Someone working for KFC does not actually get that $29.16 an hour. They get $21.19 an hour because their union has done them this favour by doing them this great deal. The member for Bendigo thinks this is okay and excuses this conduct, because she says, 'Oh, it is balanced out elsewhere.' How is it balanced out elsewhere if someone only works on the weekend? How does that happen? That person is clearly worse off overall. Another example is a McDonald's worker. Exactly the same thing happens to them. If we say it is wrong for someone at 7-Eleven to have $8 taken off their award rate and given as cash back to the employer, why is it correct for the unions to do a deal with McDonald's, where a worker would get $29.16 under the award on a Sunday but, because of the deal done by the union, is cut back by $8 to $21.08? If we are going to condemn one, we should also equally condemn the other.
The other thing that was interesting in the 7-Eleven case was the decision by Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Jarrett. In his comments, he said he found that the 7-Eleven franchisee had 'systematically exploited' employees by implementing:
a business model that relied on … deliberate disregard of the employees' workplace entitlements.
He continued that it was 'also vital to recognise the importance of maintaining a level playing field for all employers in an industry, with respect to wage costs'. Hang on! The learned judge is correct. There should be a level playing field between employers that are in competition with each other with respect to wage costs. But that is not what is happening in the community at the moment.
Because of these dodgy union deals selling off Sunday penalty rates, we are seeing that large unionised firms that employ unionised workers are at a competitive advantage against small business. Let's just look at one example. The award rate for a weekend for a family-owned pizza shop is $28.48 an hour, but, in the union deal that was done where they sold off the penalty rates, someone working for Pizza Hut gets $20.35 an hour. So how can that small business compete if, because of those dodgy union deals, they are paying $8 more per hour for their labour? These are the dodgy deals that the unions have done. Another example is that someone working at David Jones, with their penalty rate, gets paid $29.53 an hour on a Sunday, but the small boutique across the mall that is competing against David Jones has to pay $37.05. Again, it is a dodgy union deal that gives that union a competitive advantage over the small business. If we are going to condemn one, we certainly must condemn the other. If we are going to say that these deals that are done by 7-Eleven, where workers have their penalty rates slashed, are unfair and unconscionable, we need to say exactly the same thing of these union deals that have sold off workers' penalty rates for greater union control.
There is another comment I would like to make on this. We think of the idea of someone earning some money and having their employer taking a big rebate—a big chunk out of it—but how is that different to the conduct that we have seen from our large supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, in relation to small employers? We had the recent case where Coles admitted that they had engaged in unconscionable conduct. After their suppliers had supplied them with goods and they had paid them the price under the contract, they went back and they said: 'No, we want more. We need more.' Justice Gordon said in that case, where the ACCC took Coles to court:
Coles' misconduct was serious, deliberate and repeated. Coles misused its bargaining power. Its conduct was 'not done in good conscience'. It was contrary to conscience. Coles treated its suppliers in a manner not consistent with acceptable business and social standards which apply to commercial dealings. Coles demanded payments from suppliers to which it was not entitled by threatening harm to the suppliers that did not comply with the demand. Coles withheld money from suppliers it had no right to withhold.
Coles' practices, demands and threats were deliberate, orchestrated and relentless.
How is that conduct any better than what we saw in the 7-Eleven case? It is abuse of their dominant position. It is abuse of their market power to extract an unjustified rebate or discount from someone that has supplied with a good, a service or their labour. We must condemn both.
There was a similar case involving Woolworths, and the court found that Woolworths did not engage in unconscionable conduct with its Mind the Gap program, where it systematically sought to raise as much as $60 million from suppliers. The court in that decision said that the ACCC failed to prove that Woolworths' conduct was unconscionable, and it accepted Woolworths' defence that demanding money from suppliers was 'consistent with the "ordinary nature" of retailer and supplier relationships' and is common practice in grocery retail—common practice.
It is one thing to have hard negotiations, to bargain or to ask for something like a special deal or a special rebate. There is nothing wrong with that. What makes it unconscionable is where the purchaser has a significant degree of market power over the supplier. Firms in our grocery retailing sector which would have 50 per cent or more of their business in supplying to one of those large retailers are not in a position to say no to any demand. They have long-term leases on plant and equipment. They have ongoing obligations to their employees which they cannot just turn off like a tap. They have overdrafts with their banks. They have contracts with their supply chain and subcontractors. They are not in a position to say no because if they lose 40 or 50 per cent of their business overnight it cannot be replaced. They are placed in a position where they cannot say no. If we are going to condemn one, we must stand and condemn both. I thank the House.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (12:46): I rise to speak on this bill protecting workers' rights, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. Protecting workers' rights is something that we on this side of the House take very seriously and are fundamentally committed to. It should be of primary concern to all of us because we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people—lots of our newly arrived migrants, very low-paid workers, people who work shifts. Protecting these vulnerable workers is of the utmost importance.
Working conditions are considered an essential human right as stated in article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's just refresh ourselves on those rights:
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
It is interesting that we speak about vulnerable workers. There is a bill before the House today and we are debating issues that affect some of the most vulnerable people in society—those that are earning far less money than we earn here and far less money than the average—and yet the other side uses it as a union-bashing exercise. What we just heard from the member for Hughes was exactly that: an opportunity to have a go at unions, bash them, degrade them and talk lowly about them. What we should be doing is ensuring that we are doing everything possible to protect those vulnerable workers, like those people who work shifts, those people who work in assembly lines and the cleaners that perhaps some of us have in our home or offices. These are the vulnerable workers. These are the people this bill is all about, and this is what we should be talking about; not an exercise in union bashing as we have seen time and again from the other side.
Many people are at risk, and those at risk are our vulnerable workers. The term 'vulnerable workers' includes workers most at risk of injury and harm, as well as workers who are at risk of being exploited, being underpaid, facing excessively long hours at work or being held to ransom to accept below-standard working conditions out of necessity. We on this side of the House will always welcome any initiative, such as this bill, that addresses such injustices. Therefore, we welcome this bill because it amends the Fair Work Act in a number of ways to protect vulnerable workers, but it does not go far enough. It goes nowhere near far enough to protect vulnerable workers. It is a start, but we need far more measures in place.
The legislation increases penalties for serious contraventions of prescribed workplace laws, and this is defined as deliberate conduct which is part of a systematic pattern of behaviour. It increases penalties for employers who fail to adequately keep employee records. We have heard of cases where two sets of books are kept: one for the records and one for the employee. It makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries. This measure will allow those who know or should reasonably know about contraventions but have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them to be held responsible. For example, we have seen many companies go to labour hire firms and then wipe their hands of any wrongdoing, saying: 'It's not our fault. We had no idea.' People should be made responsible. It is your duty to understand the conditions that people at your premises, on your job or under your contract are working under.
The legislation also clearly prohibits employers from requiring their employees to make such payments where workers are forced to pay back a portion of their wages. We heard the member for Bendigo talk earlier about a case where members were put in cars on payday, driven around to different ATMs, made to withdraw money and then pay back part of their wages because that was the verbal agreement those workers had with their employers. The employers had to justify it on their books by showing the correct wages, but they could get these workers to do that because they were vulnerable, because they did not know where to go and, more importantly, because there was no union at that workplace to protect them. These are the very unions that those opposite talk about as being some form of monster. You will find that these workers were not covered by any union. There was no union at their workplaces to protect them and, therefore, they became even more vulnerable. So we hear about stories such as the tour of the ATMs where workers had to withdraw part of their wages to pay back their boss.
On this side of the House, we will not stay silent on these issues when we believe the legislation simply does not go far enough to protect these very vulnerable workers. This bill simply needs to do far more than what it currently presents. For example, we are very concerned that the provisions in this legislation are not wide enough. They do not capture situations where Australian employers basically sell sponsorships for working visas to people before they enter Australia, as has been alleged to have occurred at one of the franchises. Labor believes that the prohibition on demanding unreasonable payments from employees should extend to prospective employees as well. We have seen many cases around the country where people are offered the ability to apply for a particular job but part of the application process is to purchase their goods or certain material from the employer or perhaps do a training course that is being run by the employer and then pay them for that training course.
In addition, many stakeholders have raised concerns that the provisions in the bill which give the Fair Work Ombudsman the power to compel people to answer questions do not contain the necessary procedural protections. This is of particular concern with respect to the ABCC's compulsory questioning power—a power that goes way overboard. We must consider how we go about giving a government agency the power to compel citizens to answer questions—citizens who are doing nothing wrong, who are going to their workplaces and speaking to their unions about work issues and about those rights which I spoke about earlier: human rights. Does this bill go far enough to ensure that these powers are balanced and include the necessary safeguards? I do not believe so. I definitely do not believe that this bill goes far enough to ensure that this power is balanced and provides good safeguards.
But then again, what can we expect from a party that has spent many years, whether in government or in opposition, with its only goal, its only focus, to bash the unions, to see the destruction of workplace unions and their negotiations to ensure that workers get good deals, fair deals and better deals? We have seen the witch-hunts that have taken place for decades. Recently we saw the royal commission into unions. This was no more and no less than a witch-hunt to ensure that they could basically dirty up people through this royal commission. We saw that even the chair of that commission had a connection to the Liberal Party. He was invited to go to a Liberal Party fundraising event. That was very questionable. It takes it back to what I said: this was nothing but a witch-hunt for political gain by this government. I think it is a first in this country, where we basically set up kangaroo courts for witch-hunts against our political opponents.
One thing is certain: this bill does not address the breadth of worker exploitation that we have seen under this Abbott-Turnbull government. There is a particular story from my part of the world in South Australia, where a chicken processing factory—there were foreign workers coming to work every day in two or three vans. They were driven into the factory. No-one knew where these people were coming from or where they were going. When other workers tried to question them, those workers were pulled aside and threatened with the sack. Until this day, we do not know who those workers were or where they were coming from. Every morning, the van would turn up with these workers sitting in them—most of the workers were of Chinese origin—and the vans would drive in and these people would go to work. They would not talk to anyone. At night, back in the van and off they would go again.
Labor took a whole range of policies to the last election to stamp out this sort of stuff out. Our policies went much further in protecting workers rights. These included combating sham contracting, where a firm or a company decides to set up separate contracting company and then asks people to reapply for their jobs through this contracting company and sacking people who do not meet the standards of this other contracting company. Licensing for labour hire companies, ensuring that before they were licensed there was a whole process to go through to ensure that these labour hire companies were doing the right thing before they were licensed. Shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities. Reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers. Criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during a commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers. And making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. We have seen what a big problem this is, how difficult it is for a worker to recover unpaid wages from employers.
At the moment, as I have said, it is very hard for vulnerable workers to prove that they have been underpaid. Too often the employer fails or refuses to provide pay slips. We have seen the repercussions of this affecting many people, most recently in the Centrelink debt recovery debacle that has taken place. Too often workers have found themselves in difficult situations because of poor record-keeping on the part of their employer. Unfortunately, in the Centrelink debt recovery disaster, the onus fell on the employee to provide what they did or did not do. So too bad if you went to your employer and asked for the books or the papers and they refused to give them to you. In order to address this imbalance of power, we need to put the onus on the employer who has breached the act by failing to keep proper records.
There is another glaring omission in this bill. This bill does absolutely nothing to protect a group of vulnerable workers who just recently have become even more vulnerable, thanks to this government's refusal to act. Of course I am talking about the Australian workers who rely on penalty rates.
Time and time again the Turnbull government has demonstrated that it has absolutely no interest in protecting these workers. These are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. They are dependent on penalty rates on the weekends. As we know, this penalty rate decision could mean that up to 700,000 Australian workers will lose up to $77 per week. People will have to work longer for less pay. Of course, women will be disproportionately affected, and regional communities will have less money to spend in their economies.
We on this side of the House will continue to push our private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017, which will stop the cuts to penalty rates. The fact that the Turnbull government continues to avoid supporting Labor's bill is a clear testament to its lack of commitment to vulnerable workers. We know, as I said, that these people depend on penalty rates. If the government really wanted to do something about vulnerable workers, it would support our bill and ensure that the penalty rates or wage cuts cannot just be determined by the Fair Work Commission. These are things that are negotiated between the workers and their employers— (Time expired)
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (13:01): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. It is an area of law and of practice where I have had some experiences, given my previous work with the business sector and my former role in the retail sector. I will start by putting on the record my strong and unequivocal support for cracking down on the deliberate underpayment of workers, and vulnerable workers especially. This bill before the parliament follows some headline cases of systemic and deliberate underpayment of mostly young, mostly foreign and mostly vulnerable workers. It is always a reasonable observation to make, of course, that there are good and bad employers and there are good and bad employees. My personal experience is that the vast majority of employees and the vast majority of employers are overwhelmingly good and trying to be so. The member for Gorton made the same point.
Yet, when it comes to that small number of bad apples, we cannot throw the book hard enough at those who would seek to deliberately flout the law. Any business which deliberately and systemically underpays its employees is not just committing a terrible act that directly hurts its own team members; it is also hurting every other small business with whom it competes by gaining an unfair cost advantage over them, and it is potentially attracting the patronage of customers who would be appalled to know that they are supporting a business that would break the rules.
I want to also put on record a comparison of how this government is taking action compared to the former Labor government taking no action in this space. I note that the member for Gorton in his initial comments and other Labor speakers including the member for Hindmarsh just then were using weasel words along the lines of this bill not going far enough. But, for the record, Labor had absolutely no policy to protect vulnerable workers during their six years in government recently. They actually slashed the funding of the responsible agency, the Fair Work Ombudsman, by 17 per cent, from $150 million down to $124 million, over those six years. That is when the now Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, was the minister for employment, incidentally, and directly responsible for this. As a consequence of Labor's funding cuts and approach, that regulator cut its staff numbers over those six years of their government by 20 per cent, down by about 173 workers. That was effectively a reduction in the number of cops on the beat that Labor oversaw when they were in government and, as I said, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible for this important area.
I will give some credit to Labor here. They did finally come up with a worker exploitation policy at the very end of the campaign last year. The member for Gorton confirmed that when he referred to their policy as being initially announced 12 months ago. But you always have to remember to judge Labor on what they do, not what they say. Their policy came three years after they were in government and responsible for the portfolio. Sadly, as always with Labor policies, it was full of good intentions but massively flawed. Labor's policy proposal applied higher penalties but exempted businesses like most 7-Eleven franchisees on the basis of their size, which is pretty shocking when you consider that the 7-Eleven case has really been the headline case when we think about this bill.
In stark contrast to the record of those previous Labor governments, this government has already taken a number of significant actions in the area of protecting vulnerable workers. Two years ago, before any Labor policy had ever existed in this area, this government established Taskforce Cadena, a joint task force between the Australian Border Force and the Fair Work Ombudsman, to target and disrupt criminals organising visa fraud, illegal work and the exploitation of vulnerable and foreign workers.
This government made changes to require a valid payslip as proof of paid work before a second working holiday visa could be granted to a temporary migrant worker. This government outlawed payments to the sponsors of foreign workers by making it a criminal offence for employers and visa applicants to solicit or receive a payment in return for visa sponsorship. This government has better funded our enforcement bodies to ensure that employers comply with their obligations as sponsors of 457 visa holders. That is the record of this government to date, and anyone who really cares about protecting vulnerable workers would compare those very real achievements, together with the proposals in this bill right now, to the lack of any policies or actions under any Labor government to date, and they would draw certain conclusions from that.
This bill before the House now proposes to build on everything this government has already achieved and makes essentially six further changes to the Fair Work Act, but these amendments to the law are not being proposed in a vacuum. On top of the amendments to the law, this government is boosting funding to the regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman, by $20 million. This is about ensuring that the regulator, the cop on the beat, has the resources to better investigate and prosecute those who do deliberately exploit workers. Of course, we established the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, chaired by the former ACCC chair Professor Allan Fels to target employers who exploit migrant workers and continue to monitor the progress of 7-Eleven in rectifying its terrible cases of worker underpayment.
In terms of the six main changes this bill proposes to make to the law, firstly, this bill will amend the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for serious contraventions of payment related protections in the Fair Work Act. These higher penalties—10 times the current penalties—will apply where contraventions are systematic and deliberate. Secondly, the bill will amend the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for breaches of recordkeeping and payslip requirements to make them consistent with the existing higher penalties that apply for the underpayment of workers. That will be a doubling or a tripling of existing penalties. On the topic of increased penalties, I want to make it clear how strongly I support higher penalties for those found to be involved in deliberate and systemic underpayment of employees. All of my experience working with retailers and small businesses leads me repeatedly to the important and significant distinction between deliberate and systemic noncompliance and technical, inadvertent and minor breaches that, sadly, too many small businesses occasionally do commit due to the complexity and ever-changing nature of their regulatory environment.
I will return to this fact in a moment, but, when regulators such as the Fair Work Ombudsman audit small businesses in sectors like retail, fast food, hospitality, liquor, and hair and beauty, they often find noncompliance rates of about 40 per cent. A long list of regulators actually finds similar rates of noncompliance in small business—around that 40 per cent number—in a whole heap of areas, not just in industrial relations. We are talking, say, health and safety or consumer law, by way of example. This noncompliance the regulators frequently find is substantially minor, technical and inadvertent in nature rather than serious or deliberate, but the point needs to be made that we have so many areas of regulation now with the rules changing so frequently in so many of those areas that small businesses in Australia are often already overwhelmed. So it is vitally important that we do draw this important distinction that these amendments seek to make between conduct that is clearly deliberate and systemic versus conduct that is inadvertent, minor or technical in nature.
I said in my maiden speech last year that many small businesses survive right now in a fraught purgatory of noncompliance and nonenforcement and that they do need a strong voice. I do not want to see well-intentioned but ill-considered or poorly administered new rules further strangling or unnecessarily killing our struggling small businesses. So I support amendments which would seek to tie harsher penalties to conduct which is systemic and deliberate in nature. I suggest it is a good approach for policymakers to consider on future occasions.
Further amendments the government is proposing to make to the Fair Work Act include outlawing cashback, another coercive behaviour by employers, where employees may be paid correctly but are then forced by their employer to repay part of their wages. That was a very specific type of conduct we saw emerge in that 7-Eleven case, and it is clearly inexcusable.
On top of the increased funding provided to the regulator to be a better resourced cop on the beat, this government is also proposing amendments to the Fair Work Act to increase its capabilities and powers. These amendments seek to expressly prohibit hindering, obstructing or providing false or misleading information to Fair Work inspectors who carry out investigations into compliance. These amendments also seek to strengthen the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure the regulator can gather evidence where proper records to do not exist and to overcome that culture of fear that often prevents vulnerable workers from coming forward. These are similar to the powers held by ASIC and the ACCC.
I support these amendments and I want to add a comment in passing that it will be incumbent on the Fair Work Ombudsman, as it is on all of our regulators to use their powers wisely and proportionately on the cases of potential noncompliance they are investigating. I am all too aware of the temptation for regulators, and the individual investigators within them, to sometimes shy away from larger or more complex cases and to target smaller, easier cases, such as small businesses with a lower capacity to respond to investigations and achieve natural justice.
I have spoken before in this place about the need to ensure the culture within Australian regulators is one that avoids any preference for seeking scalps, through media releases or high profile court rulings, if that comes at the expense of pursuing more serious or systemic noncompliance or if it comes at the expense of achieving better overall rates of compliance in particular industries of concern. It comes back to my comments earlier about throwing the book at those involved in the most serious, deliberate and systemic cases of noncompliance, whilst understanding that small businesses are sometimes found to be noncompliant in minor technical and inadvertent ways.
The final amendments the government proposes to the Fair Work Act are to clarify the accessorial liability provisions to ensure franchisors who are complicit or turn a blind eye to underpayments are responsible for rectifying them. That involves the introduction of a three-step test. If a franchisee or a subsidiary contravenes a payment related provision of the Fair Work Act and the franchisor or holding company (1) has a significant degree of control over the franchisee or subsidiary and (2) reasonably should have known of some noncompliance, then the franchisor or holding company will be found to be liable for the noncompliance, unless (3) they took reasonable steps to prevent it.
On the specifics of that drafting, I note comments by the member for Gorton earlier and indeed some other members here about the drafting and about the Senate Education and Employment Committee inquiry into this bill. The inquiry conducted hearings and I was very interested to observe the contributions of many of the stakeholders with experience in these matters. That Senate inquiry reported back last night, and I have had the opportunity to read its recommendations this morning.
The Labor opposition and the Greens in dissenting comments in that report have proposed additional amendments that would be just crazy. They have proposed reversing the onus of proof. They have proposed imposing strict liability and they continue to show that they have no sense of proportion or context or understanding of how businesses actually operate. It is not a question of being pro business or anti business it is about having enough of an understanding of how things work to make a meaningful and practical contribution to solving problems like this. It is all shallow posturing and undergraduate solutions with modern Labor. Of course we should not be surprised; very few of them have ever been involved in small business or the private sector. They do not have the context to understand how franchising works or how small business works.
The majority report of the Senate committee, however, did hear and understand the evidence given to them by many of the experts and those with experience in these sectors. They made a number of recommendations, and I would like to note and commend one of them in particular: the first recommendation of the committee, which is that the control exerted by a franchisor or holding company be linked to workplace relations matters. Anyone who has been involved in franchising will understand the common sense behind that recommendation, and witnesses to the Senate inquiry made that point very strongly. Franchising by its very nature involves control; it involves quite detailed contracts full of obligations, responsibility, liability and certain rights. Even in cases where a franchise system is fairly limited—to, say, bulk buying or joint marketing—there is going to be some evidence there of significant control. Finding a link between the arrangements that shows the franchisor or parent company having some oversight or influence in the payroll functions or rostering functions is a necessary precondition towards allocating blame and responsibility in cases of systemic underpayment. Of course in the 7-Eleven case that test would have been easily met. The 7-Eleven head office had direct oversight of rostering and was involved in processing payroll after all.
Lastly, I believe it would be helpful to provide clarification around what reasonable steps might be in relation to the third limb of the proposed test. Whether that clarification is proposed in the legislation or by the regulator, the point is that the certainty it would provide would be helpful, which was also a point made very strongly by witnesses to the Senate inquiry. We are, after all, aiming for compliance here, not the creation of further cases of inadvertent and technical noncompliance. I strongly and unequivocally support cracking down on the deliberate underpayment of workers, and vulnerable workers especially. Labor did nothing in office, and are now proposing crazy and extreme responses. This government is acting.
Mr HART (Bass) (13:15): I am pleased to be able to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 which is currently before the House. The bill goes some way to addressing the ever-increasing community concerns around the exploitation of vulnerable workers by unscrupulous employers.
The Fair Work Act is amended in several key ways by this legislation. Firstly, it introduces a higher scale of penalties for serious contraventions of proscribed workplace laws, as well as increasing the penalties for record keeping failures. The bill makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought to have reasonably known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. I note that this responsibility only applies where franchisors and holding companies have a significant degree of influence or control over their business networks. The bill also expressly prohibits employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments—for example, demanding a proportion of their wages paid back in cash, a sickening situation that was recently revealed by the Fair Work Ombudsman's recent inquiry into 7-Eleven. Lastly, it strengthens the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure that exploitation of vulnerable workers can be effectively investigated. The new examination powers will provide the Fair Work Ombudsman with a greater suite of options to investigate potential noncompliance with workplace laws. The ombudsman is also given new avenues to pursue those who hinder or obstruct investigations or provide false or misleading information to the regulator.
What this bill does not do, however, is go far enough in protecting our most vulnerable and low-paid workers. Labor will support the passage of this bill through the House because the current extent of worker exploitation within Australia's economy is such that anything is better than nothing. I would make the point, however, that this bill falls well short of the policies and legislative reforms Labor took to the last election directed towards combating sham contracting, licensing labour hire companies, shutting down the practices of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities, reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers and criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers or making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies.
Significantly, there is one particular group of vulnerable workers which it is clear the Turnbull Liberal government has no interest in protecting. We just heard the member for Brisbane giving us a lecture on how Labor could or should have acted earlier. Strangely, he was silent when addressing the issue of protection of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. This government has wilfully refused to support the wages of low-paid workers. The evidence is there for all to see. Not only has the government refused to take any action in support of preserving the pay of those affected by the Fair Work decision with respect to penalty rates, the government also does not support any move to ensure that low-paid workers receive reasonable increases in their remuneration so as to keep pace with increasing costs of living. Paradoxically, this wilful refusal to support the incomes of low-paid workers also hurts the substantial constituency that is small business which must suffer if their customers have reduced spending power, in that discretionary spending is eroded by low wage growth not meeting the costs of living pressures. This underscores a fundamental difference between a government which claims a focus on jobs and growth but through its actions can be seen to be favouring large corporations, at least with respect to the government's failed proposal to deliver $50 billion worth of tax cuts over 10 years, which was recently reaffirmed in the budget last night. This tax cut will be delivered to the largest corporations in Australia. In contrast to that, Labor puts people first.
Labor accepts that small business is the engine room of the economy an drives employment. However, there is a consensus, particularly amongst economists, that low wage growth is a real risk to the present economy. Ideological insistence by those opposite on driving down the costs of doing business, which ignores that labour costs also represent the discretionary income of consumers within an economy, can ultimately destroy the living standards of our community. This is why Labor is particularly concerned to ensure that low-paid and, in the present case, vulnerable workers receive appropriate protections. This is another example of what Labor stands for: the rights of ordinary people so that all within our communities can benefit. Putting people first benefits all, including businesses.
The list of areas which are not addressed by this bill has already been outlined. The fact that these issues remain to be addressed is of concern. It is perfectly obvious from the conduct identified in multiple inquiries and reports that a culture of avoidance of employer obligations with respect to employees has infected a range of workplaces. Exploitation of temporary work visa holders, the appalling revelations with respect to the 7-Eleven franchise abuses, the misuse of labour procurement arrangements of the Baiada Group and, indeed, other reports of workplace abuses indicate that this may be fertile ground for further legislation should a government take further interest in the issues identified in these reports.
In its Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016, introduced into the Senate on 15 March 2016 and restored to the Notice Paper on 31 August 2016, Labor acted to address serious allegations of disgraceful treatment of workers by well-known companies. This government was silent until now despite the appalling nature of the revelations.
The present revelations include subcontractors engaged by Myer employing cleaners on sham contracts where workers were paid below award wages, workers were denied penalty rates and superannuation and workers were employed without appropriate OH&S protections. The 7-Eleven stores operated a business model based upon a methodical, systematic exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers, including underpayment of wages, fraudulent manipulation of pay records and workers threatened with deportation and physical intimidation in order to extract payments of cash to cover up award noncompliance. Pizza Hut delivery drivers were paid as little as $6 an hour under sham contracting arrangements. Poultry processing involved exploitation of temporary overseas workers forced to work dangerously long hours for less than the minimum wage housed in overcrowded and substandard accommodation.
Just this year we have heard further allegations with respect to other high-profile businesses. Caltex staff were working night shifts for $13 an hour, half the legal entitlement, and there was widespread underpayment of staff across the outlets. At Domino's claims have been made of franchisees selling visas to prospective overseas workers together with claims of systematic underpayment of workers.
Reform is a priority. I say that this is a real priority because a failure to address these issues has the potential to strike at the heart of our workplace relations system. Labor takes the view that a comprehensive approach should be taken to workplace relations so as to protect all workers. Employers who do not do the right thing and regard compliance with their obligations of minimum payments and workplace entitlements generally do not just exploit the workers they steal from; they also undercut employers who do the right thing. This undermines the integrity of our workplace relations system and arguably is a cost to the whole community in that the labour market is distorted, fair competition is impossible and, ultimately, our economy loses, whether by way of taxation which may be avoided through undocumented transactions or simply by way of exploitation of a worker who might otherwise participate in the economy in a more meaningful way with all the associated consumption that that implies.
The problem that I see with this bill and, indeed, with this government despite this bill is that the government sends an implicit message that avoidance of award obligations towards employees is in some way accepted or desirable, because they have a consistent message that the Australian employment framework is inflexible. We often hear from those opposite about the necessity for flexibility with respect to employment arrangements and that high wages mean that additional employment is more difficult. There is, of course, no suggestion that other business inputs such as rentals should be reduced so as to facilitate the employment of further employees or the opening of a business on a Sunday or a public holiday. Rather, each time, there is a call for low-paid workers to give up an entitlement so that the employer can choose whether to redirect that saving towards other purposes.
It is usually suggested that an employer will choose to employ additional employees on the basis that the current cost of overall cost of employment will be less. There is nevertheless scant evidence to suggest this will in fact follow. Employers are of course free to apply any such saving in any way that they rationally wish. No assumption should be made that a savings measure should result in any particular pattern of behaviour, including adding additional employment. I would like to see this government take real steps to protect low-paid workers in addition to those who were subject to the worst form of exploitation covered by this bill. In my view, the support of low-paid workers is just as important as ensuring the most vulnerable workers are not exploited and, for this reason, Labor will continue to press the government to support our private member's bill.
Returning to this bill, the opposition is broadly supportive of the measures within the bill but has some concerns with respect to the drafting of the legislation. The legislation has been the subject of an inquiry before the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment. There are some provisions which do not go far enough such as the prohibition of the practice of employers demanding unreasonable payments from their workers—for example, employers demanding a proportion of their employees' wages be paid back in cash so as to cover up an underpayment under an award, in the case of 7-Eleven, which does not apply to prospective employees. The effect of this does not capture the situation where employers in Australia might effectively sell sponsorship of working visas to people before they enter Australia—that is what is alleged to have occurred at one of the Domino's franchises.
The Fair Work Ombudsman has attracted the power to compel people to answer questions for certain purposes. However, there are not procedural protections within the bill which might have been expected to be included in such legislation. The bill falls short of the procedural protections that apply to the ABCC compulsory questioning power. As the shadow minister, Brendan O'Connor, has stated in the second reading speech, the power to give a government agency to compel citizens to answer questions is not a trivial power; it removes a right to silence. We must be vigilant to ensure that such powers are proportionate and that there are appropriate safeguards with respect to the exercise of that power.
Stakeholders have argued that the same procedural protections which apply to the ABCC should apply to the FWO; I agree. There are other provisions which appear to fall short of an optimal response to the identified misbehaviour. Multiple inquiries have suggested that franchisors and holding companies have effectively exploited underpayments by franchisees or subsidiaries. In a case where the franchisor or holding company knew or reasonably ought to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them, that franchisor or holding company should be responsible for those underpayments. The position as expressed in the bill does not include a reversal of the onus of proof, a position which Labor supported at the last election which would make the establishment of liability much easier without imposing a legal burden on the franchisor. In other words, this would be an evidentiary provision.
Labor favours the proposition that accessories to contraventions of workplace laws such as franchisors are required to establish that they did not know or could not reasonably have known about the contraventions. Labor supports the bill. However, it can and should be improved if this government is committed to the task of combatting exploitation of vulnerable workers.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:28): Deputy Speaker Coulton, I am conscious we have only got about a minute to go before 1:30. I will start off making of brief contribution if you are happy for me to proceed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms HENDERSON: I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. In the short time I have to speak before 1:30, I am absolutely delighted that the Turnbull government is introducing tougher laws to protect vulnerable workers from so-called cashback scams and other types of exploitation and I am pleased to hear that members opposite in general are supporting this bill. Frankly, the deliberate underpayment of workers has been all too common in Australia. We have seen this widespread exploitation, which was not addressed by members opposite when they were in government, uncovered at employers like 7-Eleven, Muffin Break, Gloria Jeans, Subway, Caltex, Dominoes and Pizza Hut franchises. Some franchise operators were operating on a frolic of their own but nevertheless we are very proud of the action we are taking on this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (13:30): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. I thank the member for Corangamite for her contribution so far. She will be given an opportunity to continue at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Volunteer Week
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:30): Today is Wear Orange Wednesday. I have a little bit of orange on for you today. The day recognises the efforts of thousands of State Emergency Service volunteers across Australia who help serve their communities in floods, storms and other emergencies. Considering this week is also National Volunteer Week, I would like to acknowledge the many hours put in by about 170 volunteers for the SES in my electorate, whether it be the assistance provided to residents and properties during the Tasmanian floods in June last year or the 1,100-plus hours of support during the devastating fires just six months prior to that. The SES is always there to help. In both of these emergencies, fire service volunteers also provided exceptional leadership, support and assistance.
Tasmania's 600 SES volunteers have also continued to provide road crash rescue services across rural Tasmania and many have worked alongside Tasmania Police in a significant number of search and rescue operations for lost or injured bushwalkers. Many of the volunteers also sacrifice their long weekends and valuable family time to staff driver reviver sites as part of the broader road safety initiatives to encourage motorists to take a breath and reduce fatigue during their travels. Of course the SES is just one example of the contribution of volunteers in our community, so thank you to all of them and to those who go above and beyond and are there to help in such times.
Anzac Day
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:31): As part of this year's Anzac commemorations, students and teachers from McAuley Catholic College in Grafton travelled to the battle sites of the Western Front. It was a very special trip for Katelyn Warby, Hannah Brodin, Niamh Cormick, Grace Reeves, Luke Solomon, Dan Norton, Nicholas Power-Geary and Sam Page—all of whom had relatives who fought on the Western Front. Sam Page is in fact the great-great-grandson of Sir Earle Page, who is a former leader of the Nationals and is a former prime minister. Sir Earle was a field surgeon on the front lines during World War I. Indeed, my seat of Page takes its name from him. Other students who also took part in this commemoration were Mishka Ashokumar, Jack Bartholomew, Oscar Dougherty, Nathan Eddy, Lachlan Goodall, Christy Kun, Braden Lewis, Justin Li, Austin Millett, Dylan Newton, Lexie Ostrowski, Peter Redwood, Nicholas Webster and Morgan Welldon.
On Anzac Day, Nicholas Power-Geary and Cayla Sippel had the honour of laying a wreath on behalf of the Clarence Valley community at the official dawn service at Villers-Bretonneux. Mason Walker and Hannah Brodie laid a wreath at the Menin Gate at Ypres, a memorial for those listed as missing and in unknown graves. I would like to thank the teachers: Mark Bellamy, Kathryn Warby, Matt Lobsey and Leanne McLennan. I would also like to thank the Rotary Club of Grafton for paying for the wreaths. I know the students and teachers were honoured and moved to take part in these commemorative services. Lest we forget. (Time expired)
New South Wales Physical Disability Rugby League Association
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:33): A few weeks ago I was very pleased to meet up with George Tonna and Bill Bussell from the New South Wales Physical Disability Rugby League Association. Both have cerebral palsy and both are Indigenous. Bill is quite severely affected, George is moderately affected.
The New South Wales Physical Disability Rugby League was started in 2010 to enable people with a physical disability to have the opportunity to compete in a modified form of the great game that is rugby league. The tournament puts together teams from all over Sydney in the north, south, east and west. Any adult or child with a disability can participate in the program and it can be modified to their needs. Team sport is one of the best ways to keep mentally and physically healthy while having fun at the same time and engaging with the community.
Bill and George are heading over to New Zealand to represent the New South Wales Physical Disability Rugby League Association when it plays against the Physical Disability Rugby League of New Zealand. I am sure it will be a great competition. I wish them all the best and I hope to see more and more sporting competitions in which everybody can participate. I admire them. I admire their courage, their resilience and their tremendous community spirit in engaging with the sport of rugby league and helping others to compete.
Budget
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:34): Manning Road is in my electorate, but I will get to that shortly. I would like to first begin by congratulating the Treasurer on the delivery of his 2017-18 budget last night. It is a budget with substance and a budget with depth that strives to achieve fairness, security and opportunity for all Australians. I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for their ongoing hard work and contributions to the budget, which includes a $1.6 billion investment from the federal coalition government for a road and rail infrastructure package in the great state of Western Australia. Included in this package, the federal Liberal government will boost the previous funding commitment I secured for a southbound on-ramp at Manning Road and Kwinana Freeway to $28 million to make sure this project goes ahead. That is a further $8 million for this much-needed on-ramp. Under the budget agreement, the federal government will contribute $28 million of the $35 million project, with the state government funding $7 million.
The new Labor state government were very quick to jump on the bandwagon to claim a win over receiving the federal government's funding, despite not committing any funding—not one dollar—before the state election. As residents in my electorate of Swan and across Perth know, the Manning Road on-ramp will remedy what is currently a very difficult and dangerous stretch of road. The on-ramp is something I have been campaigning on since 2009 with the member for South Perth, John McGrath, MLA. It is fantastic that this federal coalition government has again delivered for the people of my electorate of Swan.
National Volunteer Week
Budget
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:36): I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Braddon in mentioning National Volunteer Week. It would be remiss of me not to mention the fantastic work of the Rural Youth Organisation in Tasmania, which organises the three-day Agfest which I had the pleasure of attending over the last three days of last week. To Kate Birch, the chair of Agfest; Allan Roark, who is the patron; and of course the wonderful volunteers at the SES who do all the hard work in organising the roads: well done on another great Agfest.
I also rise to talk about the great tragedy of last night's budget for Tasmania. Last night the Treasurer left Lyons off the map. The Treasurer did not mention Tasmania once in his budget speech, and when you look at the budget papers you can see why. The only mention of Tasmania, let alone my electorate of Lyons, is previously announced projects. In a budget that claims to offer $70 billion for infrastructure across the nation, including a new airport for Western Sydney and a rail connection between Melbourne and Brisbane, Tasmania is left out in the cold. We are an island state of this nation. It would be nice if the decision-makers in Canberra remembered that from time to time. This budget hurts ordinary families but makes life even more comfortable for those at the top. It is a budget of unfairness.
Budget
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (13:38): In political terms, the federal budget is a bit like Christmas for communities. A lot of thought goes into putting together a list of things we think will make our communities' lives better. We research, we gather input and, when we are happy with the list, we start to lobby—not Santa but ministers, of course. Last night the budget delivered in spades for Australians, particularly for the people of Petrie. I do not have time to mention everything, but along with funding for veterans' support and domestic violence, secured funding for the NDIS and community grants, there are a couple that I want to highlight in particular.
There is $120 million to upgrade the Deception Bay Road overpass. I have been lobbying for this for a couple of years. It is very much needed in our fast-growing community of Moreton Bay, which has a bigger population than Tasmania. We have also given the Bruce a boost. Finally the Bruce Highway is getting a boost. There is also $100 million made available to the Moreton region university campus, which comes in addition to the $35 million already provided and gets the project off the ground. This is a big win for local people. The locals are thrilled. The mayor even said that the announcement brought a tear to his eye. Combined with the announced boost to early learning and a cash injection of $369 million to local schools in Petrie over the next 10 years, this is great for communities and families throughout Petrie. (Time expired)
Macquarie Electorate: Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:39): I rise to speak on an important project commemorating Aboriginal diggers from the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury in my seat of Macquarie. A collaborative effort by Mountains Outreach Community Service, Blue Mountains People for Reconciliation, ANTAR and local Aboriginal families and groups has produced a book and exhibition, Remembering the Forgotten, currently at Hawkesbury Library. I commend these groups on seeking recognition for Dharug, Gundungurra and Wiradjuri men who served. There are still many gaps in what we know about the history of Indigenous Australians in our defence forces, and a great many individual stories were forgotten for a time—some lost for ever but others able to be recovered.
The exhibition focuses on the World War I service of the descendants of Maria and Robert Lock. Maria was the daughter of Dharug elder Yarramundi. The exhibition covers 11 members of the wider Lock family, including Private William 'Billy' Hughes, who shared a name with the Prime Minister at the time. The project received funding from the Department of Veterans' Affairs Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. I think we need to recognise that the work of local community groups like these, as we have seen here, will continue to add to the efforts of the Australian War Memorial and others in uncovering incredible accounts of service, bravery and sacrifice by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who served in every conflict from colonial forces before Federation through to recent peacekeeping missions.
Hughes Electorate: Energy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:41): I wish to raise my concerns on behalf of the residents and businesses in the electorate of Hughes on the forecast increases in electricity prices in the coming months. The wholesale electricity prices are currently around $120 per megawatt hour. In the middle of last year, they were around $50 a megawatt hour, and it is the same in every other state. Industry simply cannot operate with electricity prices at this scale. Earlier this week, the CEO of Glencore warned:
We are beyond the tipping point in terms of industrial demand destruction.
He said:
Unless we make decisions really quickly, and I mean in the next 12 months, that re-establish base load capacity then we have no chance of sustaining the economy in the shape that it is in now.
For consumers, Delta Electricity have estimated that next financial year alone the additional price for consumers will be approximately $4 billion in New South Wales, $1 billion in South Australia, $2.8 billion in Victoria and $2 billion in Queensland. They said that these increases were a direct consequence of governments mandating and subsidising renewables by law, and the media and the education sector creating a renewables obsession as a populist cause. For those that have cheered on the Renewable Energy Target, we are about to reap what we have sown.
Canberra Electorate: Budget
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:42): As usual under a coalition government, there is no good news for Canberra in this budget. On top of the 13,000 public servants that have already been axed, we saw thousands more jobs go last night: 1,200 just in Human Services, more than 400 in the ABS—that is 14 per cent of the agency—more than 200 in Immigration, more than 200 in Health and more than 150 in the AFP—the list goes on and on and on. Thousands more jobs are being cut on top of those 13,000.
The national institutions continue to be targeted, even though we are now cutting into vital organs. We are not cutting into flesh anymore. We are not cutting into bone. We are cutting into vital organs now with the national institutions. Fifteen jobs will be axed from the National Archives and three jobs at the War Memorial, on top of the cuts that have been going on over years and years under this coalition government.
I have gone searching for what is in the budget for Canberra, and there ain't much. There are cuts to schools, to health, to universities and to jobs—thousands and thousands more jobs on top of the 13,000 that this government has already cut from the Public Service. When will the Turnbull coalition government let up on Canberra? Give us a break. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr LAMING (Bowman) ( 13:44 ): A great nation has all of its working-age population ready to pick up tools, trained and able to join the workforce. But, in reality, we have 450,000 Australians of working age who cannot get a job at the moment, and there are 150,000 new ones each year. I am delighted that according to the budget last night the 150,000 who join Newstart next year will sign up, if they choose to take payments, with the condition being that they will take a drug test if required. No-one believes that the federal government should be funding a drug habit. But we know when we analyse it that there are around 37 doses of drugs per thousand people in wastewater around Australia. There is no case for taxpayers in this chamber to be paying for the drug habits of those who are not at work. Every one of them should be ready to go on a Monday morning. Only by random drug testing that will start under this coalition government with a high acuity approach to welfare can Australia know that they will be. If they do test positive, they will be welfare quarantined. They will get a second test within 25 working days and, if they do not show up, their welfare will be stopped until they do. They will receive daily SMS reminders. Two consecutive positives will lead to mandatory rehabilitation, which we have invested $680 million in for drug and alcohol and a further $400 million in over four years for ice. There are plenty of services available, but no person will use the taxpayers to fund their drug habit under a coalition government.
Fletcher Insulation
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:45): I recently visited the workers at Fletcher Insulation in Victoria. They have been on strike for the last 83 days. These 89 dedicated workers have assisted their employer over many, many decades in reaching record productivity and profit levels. Some of them have loyally worked at the Fletcher Insulation company for over 40 years. In response, the company in the latest round of negotiations over pay and conditions has offered a zero per cent wage rise and an increase in weekly working hours, slashed redundancy packages and removed protections on job security to allow for contractors to replace full-time jobs. Successful businesses like Fletcher—and it has been successful—are built on the back of the dedication and hard work of their staff. The way this company has treated these workers is a slap in the face. It really is a disgrace, and it is bad for business as well because they are alienating and pushing back the people who have made the company successful.
But these brave people decided to stand up for their rights. They formed a picket line and they will stand strong until they get a fair go. I know it is not easy. They have been there for 83 days. It is tough on them and it is tough on their families. We are all there to support them. They have endured months without pay in this fight for what is right. It takes guts to do what they are doing and I commend them, stand with them and support them in this fight.
Infrastructure
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:47): I applaud the ministers and their teams for putting together funding packages that will give power back to the regions and the people of Capricornia. We are allowing the regions to decide what projects best suit their needs and giving the financial support to build them. Capricornia is a diverse region with a diverse range of needs. The additional funding towards Building Better Regions will allow Rockhampton Regional Council to apply for a feasibility study to flood-proof the airport, Livingstone Shire Council to develop their conference centre plans and Eungella to develop the rainforest walk to boost tourism. But, most importantly, we are committing to actually building these important infrastructure projects.
The Regional Growth Fund will see the plans turned to reality, with a minimum investment of $10 million to making sure these dreams become a reality. We have already seen the difference this investment has made transforming the Yeppoon Foreshore and the Rockhampton riverbank. This additional funding can see these projects delivered. It can see the Rockhampton CBD transformed and boost visitation to the region through key tourism projects. This additional funding will be a welcome boost to rejuvenate the local economy and create the right opportunity for growth and investment. This is a great opportunity for Capricornia—a testament to what happens in regions with a coalition government.
South Australia: Roads
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:48): I welcome the federal government's announcement to bring back local road funding for South Australian councils. This is a huge win for road safety in Mayo. This announcement will mean more than $40 million over two years will be poured back into council managed roads in South Australia. This includes more than $4.6 million in my electorate of Mayo for the Adelaide Hills, Mount Barker, Victor Harbor, Yankalilla, Kangaroo Island, Barossa and Onkaparinga councils.
This money was originally cut from the budget in 2014 by the Abbott government. It created a huge gap in funding for South Australia. It was completely unfair that we lost so much money, to the point that, when that funding was cut, New South Wales received more than $1,400 per kilometre and South Australia received just $500 per kilometre from the federal government. So I am pleased that, with our negotiations and advocacy, the Nick Xenophon team has produced this result. This is a win for road safety not only in my regional electorate—which has a disproportionate number of casualties, fatalities and serious injuries—but for all South Australians. I am so pleased that the council has listened to NXT and made sure our supplementary road funding was reinstated.
Berowra Electorate: Hornsby Men's Shed
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:50): It is always a joy to see amateur craftsmen at work—the whirr and hum of machinery, the sense of satisfaction from a job well done and the sense of camaraderie from people working together on a shared project. All of this was on show when I visited the Hornsby Men's Shed on 2 May at the invitation of their president, Ian Raper, their treasurer, Mark Wilson, and Hornsby local councillor Robert Brown, who has been a supporter and advocate of the shed.
Interestingly, I think the notion of a men's shed is changing. To call Hornsby Men's Shed a men's shed is perhaps something of a misnomer now, as men's sheds, particularly Hornsby Men's Shed, attract a lot of women. One of the other things about men's sheds that is changing is the demography of its membership. The idea of men's sheds as purely a place for retirees is not the case anymore. Hornsby Men's Shed attracts a diverse membership of people aged from 14 to 91. It is open on Saturdays. Younger people are using the shed as a place to learn skills and enjoy their crafts. The shed fulfils a very important function in relation to creating community and improving mental health outcomes in the area by bringing people together and creating a sense of camaraderie. As one member told me, the shed was a lifeline for him after the death of his wife. The shed specialises in woodwork. I want to congratulate the Hornsby Men's Shed for all the great work they do for our community.
Lalor Electorate: Community Events
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:52): It was wonderful to be home for five weeks recently and attend community events cross the electorate of Lalor. During that time, I had cause to think about Australian values. As it happened, I had been to a series of community events. We had Easter—a time of family for me—and then we had Anzac Day, where we honour tradition. In my electorate we also had Sikh Heritage Day—where, again, we honoured a tradition of Australians. I also attended a citizenship ceremony in that week. Listening to the Australian National Anthem, particularly the second verse, I focused on the Australian values being celebrated. Courage is celebrated in the second verse of the Australian National Anthem. Hard work is celebrated in the second verse of the Australian National Anthem. My favourite line is: 'We'll toil with hearts and hands.' It captures something very special about Australia. Of course, it also celebrates a welcome to hearth and home—not specifically an Australian value, but a universal value. It celebrates putting out your welcome mat and putting the kettle on to make a cup of tea for a visitor. I was pleased to be home to share time with my community across that five weeks and, most of all, I was pleased to share Australian values.
Farrer Electorate: Pooncarie Field Day
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:53): Last weekend I attended the 10th Pooncarie Field Day. Pooncarie is a little village with a population of about 300 on the Darling River about 140 kilometres from Mildura. This is no ordinary field day—not just because of the breadth of the exhibits but because of the people, the wonderful families from the Western Division of New South Wales. Patty Byrne, who was there, started the field day 20 years ago as a way of supporting and bringing the communities together during a time of drought. This event does much for the mental health of the people from the back country—people who have strong voices but almost never raise them to complain about their own circumstances. Last weekend we had special guests Jane Bunn, a TV presenter and meteorologist, and author Fleur McDonald, who has spent a life living and working on farms and whose latest book, The Missing Pieces of Us, looked to be selling well.
The shearing competition was a highlight—the blade shearers in particular impressing with their skills. It was great to see and experience the Yanco Agricultural Institute demonstrating why they offer a quality rural education. There was the photography, the kids' colouring competition and, always, the friendly atmosphere. Marg White's artistic talent was on display with her funny and beautifully-drawn cards. School of the Air cookbooks demonstrated the versatility and uniqueness of the kitchens out this way, and Gus White was on the mike, bringing it all together.
Congratulations to the committee—especially to Rachel Strachan, whose determined advocacy for the growers on the Lower Darling and sense of community spirit for her people never fails to touch me.
Northern Territory: Budget
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:55): Unfortunately, there was very little for the Top End of Australia or for Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate, in the budget. The one mention that we did get was in relation to jobs moving out of Darwin into Queensland, in the form of the Australian Electoral Commission. Half of that office will move from Darwin to Queensland. That is a common story that we hear up in the Top End of Australia, and it leaves the Northern Territory government fighting. Given that they are down $1.17 billion in GST amendments, it is very difficult for them to be able to develop the north when there is nothing actually in the budget to help them to do that.
I just want to thank the NT government, because they are helping us to save World War II heritage in the harbour and they are also doing their best to promote the Territory interstate. It becomes incredibly difficult to do that when the tourism minister presides over a $35 million cut over four years to Tourism Australia. Some of that flows down locally to the NT.
But we are doing our best. We are going to host the National Recreational Fishing Conference in Darwin in November. I am just waiting for someone from the other side to meet with me to co-convene the Parliamentary Friends of Recreational Fishing group so that we can start to get that initiative moving. Thank you.
Maranoa Electorate: Polocrosse World Cup 2019
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (13:56): I am proud to advise the House that the Warwick Polocrosse Club, led by Les Fraser and his dedicated team, will host the next Polocrosse World Cup in 2019 at Warwick's premier polocrosse grounds, Morgan Park, for the third time. It is expected that when this major event returns to Warwick in 2019 that it will be the largest international sporting event to be held in rural Australia.
Many would be surprised to learn that polocrosse has a rich history in Australia, having been created here in 1939. The world cup in 2019 will mark the 80th birthday of polocrosse, also known as 'rugby on horseback'. It will draw thousands of Australian and international competitors to the Southern Downs to battle it out for the title. There are eight nations eligible to play at the world cup level, including Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the USA, United Kingdom, Ireland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Over a seven-day competition, all eight will vie to be crowned the next world champion.
It is expected that this prestigious cup event will attract more than 60,000 visitors to the region, including thousands of international visitors. With the new Toowoomba-Wellcamp airport on our doorstop, our region is set to benefit infinitely. Aside from a swell in tourist numbers to the region, this event will pump more than $10 million dollars into Warwick's local economy.
I would like to commend Les Fraser and his team for their energy and passion in securing this event, and also extend my gratitude to the Southern Downs Regional Council for their efforts in ensuring the return of this great sporting event.
Budget
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:58): When you drop $50 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town in your budget, you do not have a lot of dough left over to do the things that matter to ordinary Australians.
The one big disappointment in this budget is jobs. This is a government that used to run on the slogan of 'jobs and growth'. But if you look at the jobs projection in this budget, there will be 95,000 fewer jobs in the economy at the end of the forward estimates. No wonder they have dropped the jobs-and-growth slogan!
The Prime Minister spent a lot of time in this budget trying to distance himself from the member for Warringah. But the people of Australia will not be fooled by this. The proposition to extend the pension age to the longest and the oldest pension age in the Western world is still there. Only a bloke who has worked as a merchant banker for his entire life would think that you can work until the age of 70 and that everything is going to be okay. The working people of Australia are not buying it.
And when it comes to infrastructure, the bloke who called himself the 'infrastructure Prime Minister' is the guy who is actually spending less money on infrastructure in this budget than their woeful performance in the last budget. Is there any reason why they are looking at this bloke and saying, 'This is the greatest pea-and-thimble trick in Australian politics'? The people of Australia deserve a better Prime Minister and they deserve a better budget.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Jones, Mr Gerry Norman Francis
The SPEAKER (14:01): I inform the House of the death on 21 April this year of Gerry Norman Francis Jones Former senator Gerry Jones represented the state of Queensland from 1981 until 1996. As a mark of respect to the memory of Gerry Jones, I invite all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that a millionaire will receive a $16,400 tax cut while every other Australian has to pay more tax?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): How is it fair to sell out low-paid workers at Clean Event and trade away their penalty rates? How is it fair to promise parents of disabled children that there is a National Disability Insurance Scheme and never fund it? How is it fair to go to an election with a financial plan that involved flinging $16½ billion of additional deficits and debt on the shoulders of Australians? The Labor Party has no concept of fairness. This is the party that claimed to be in favour of needs based funding. So eloquent was the Leader of the Opposition! He said only today, 'For me it's not about, in education, the government system or the non-government system; I believe in a sector-neutral approach which prioritises needs based funding,' and yet he delivered exactly the reverse.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Shorten: On relevance: my question was specifically about the tax cuts that the government are giving to millionaires and the tax rises they are giving everyone else.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, I will address the point of order. Members on both sides will cease interjecting, or I will have to deal with them. I recognise that it is the day after the budget and I might have a busy day. The Leader of the Opposition is correct to say it was a very short question, but the Prime Minister is in order when he is referring to the concept of fairness.
Mr Burke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the ruling that you—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite is warned!
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, the rulings that you have been making to date with respect to questions go to the topic area or policy area that we ask. If we are in a situation now where the adjective or the noun that we use to describe a policy opens up the entirety of government policy, where an impossible—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Health is warned. I cannot stop members on both sides interjecting on each other, but, I tell you what, you are not going to interject on me. I have heard enough of the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order. That is not my intention. I have also referred to preambles as well, and the Prime Minister is part way through the answer. But I did not mean to leave the impression with him that I have come in here and announced a new ruling. I am listening to the Prime Minister. So far, I judge him, in comparing and contrasting, to be in order.
Mr TURNBULL: There is nothing fairer than telling Australians the truth about the public finances of their country and ensuring, as we have in the budget, that there are the funds to deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to be able to say to the parents of disabled children, 'The money is there,' and not as you did—you ranks of serried hypocrites, all of you—you never put the money in place. Dripping with empathy—hypocrites to the last degree.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: Simply for the Prime Minister to direct his remarks through the chair.
The SPEAKER: That is a very fair point of order.
Mr TURNBULL: Mr Speaker, the opposition have perpetuated this myth that they are the party of empathy. They claim to be fair. They want to be fair to Australian students. Well, why don't they tell parents the truth? Why don't they tell them that they never implemented Gonski? They never delivered a needs-based system. They said they did but they didn't, and they know they didn't. They talked about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and never funded it; we have. We have delivered. We told the truth. We have brought the budget back into balance. The forecasts are stronger than ever. We have raised the money and made the tough decisions. This budget is fair. Labor has failed on fairness, just like the Leader of the Opposition failed the members of the Australian Workers' Union on fairness. This is a fair budget—one that delivers the opportunity and the security. And the only thing that matches the anxiety of the Leader of the Opposition is the energy of the member for Grayndler in the press gallery today.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right are preventing me giving the call for the next question. I call the member for Gilmore.
Budget
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's fair and responsible budget and plan for a stronger economy, including in my electorate of Gilmore, because we know it is funded—not unfunded.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:08): I thank the honourable member for her question. The member for Gilmore was a school teacher. She has not only been a school teacher; she has trained schoolteachers. She knows that this budget delivers the needs-based funding that Australian schools and Australian students need, the needs-based funding that the Labor Party never delivered and the needs-based funding that David Gonski recommended. They took David Gonski's name in vain and plastered it up all over the country—an exercise in massive hypocrisy, because they never delivered what he recommended. As Ken Boston said, Labor's education policy was a 'corruption' of Gonski's recommendations. No less than that.
This budget demonstrates our commitment to securing Australia's future opportunity and doing so fairly. We are dealing with the big issues that we confront fairly. So, we are fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are bringing the budget back into balance so that our children and grandchildren are not burdened with a mountain of debt. We are ensuring that we are making the big nation-building investments in infrastructure: the inland rail—$10 billion into rail—and the Western Sydney Airport, and another $1 billion into rail in Victoria. These are nation-building investments—Snowy Hydro 2.0. These secure the future for our nation. They secure the economic prospects of our children.
We are guaranteeing Medicare—securing Medicare. Every year the Medicare levy and the amount from income tax that is required to pay for Medicare and the PBS will go into the Medicare Guarantee Fund—every year. That will be the law. Medicare will be guaranteed by my government, guaranteed by the coalition—and the PBS. That is our commitment: to give Australians the security they need.
We believe—we know—that in order to secure investment you need lower business taxes. And what we have done is reduce tax on small and medium businesses, and we will go further to make Australian business competitive. But we do not believe, as Labor apparently does, that paying tax is optional. Who will forget, at the end of 2015, when the Labor Party voted against the multinational tax avoidance measures? They voted against them. If it had not been for the Greens, the measures would not have got through the Senate. We stand for fairness, opportunity and security, and this budget delivers all three.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms Burney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barton is warned. And members on both sides need to be mindful that I consider the level of interjections to be far too high and constant, and if I need to pause question time to deal with some members I will do so. I am giving fair warning right now.
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that the Prime Minister is cutting $22 billion from schools but can find a spare $50 billion for big business tax cuts?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House; the member for Gilmore—I have not called the Prime Minister, because the Leader of the House and the member for Gilmore are interjecting, as are members on my left.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:12): It was hard to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition over the gasps of disbelief from her own side when she had the gall to mention $22 billion, because only this morning, after being pushed four times on Adelaide radio to answer whether the Labor Party was committed to its $22 billion commitment for school funding, the member for Port Adelaide said: 'It's not going to be $22 billion necessarily. Between now and the next election we'll be updating all of our funding commitments.' And then of course only a few days ago—six days ago, on 4 May—the deputy leader herself was asked about this. 'Are you still committed to the additional $22 billion over the next decade?' asked David Speers. The deputy leader said, 'Well, we'll have to work out exactly what the figures are as the next election approaches.'
The fact of the matter is that Labor never had the $22 billion when they promised it. It was never there. The fact is that we have fully funded our schools commitments in accordance with the Gonski recommendations: over $18 billion over the next 10 years, going from $17 billion this year to $30 billion 10 years hence. It is fair, it is equitable, it is needs based, it is consistent, and it stands in marked contrast to the patchwork of conflicting secret deals which would have taken 150 years to reach the consistency of the schooling resource standard. So corrupted was the Labor Party's politicisation of the recommendations David Gonski made that they have got an F for education, an F for resourcing schools and an F for integrity when it comes to the future of our children.
Budget
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the right choices the government is making to secure better days ahead for all Australians? How will this budget help Australians to share in the nation's growth story?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:15): I thank the member for Forde for his question. The Australian economy has achieved remarkable things in spite of tremendous headwinds. That growth, that 25 years of growth, means that children have grown up and never known a recession. That is something that every single Australian can take some pride in. Going forward what we need to ensure is that all Australians share in that growth. The world economy is growing and we will grow into that growth, because this government is positioning Australia well for that growth.
But it is important that all Australians, in regional Australia, across the suburbs—right across Australia—can share in the benefits of that growth. That is why the budget that I handed down last night does four key things. We are growing the economy with the investments that we are making, to ensure more and better paid jobs, and we are doing that with $75 billion in investment in nation-building infrastructure over the next 10 years. We are doing it by making our tax system more competitive. Already we have delivered tax cuts for small and medium-size businesses that cover more than half of the employees in the country today. On top of that, we are extending the instant asset write-off to hardworking small businesses to ensure they can continue to get ahead. We are ensuring that we are supporting companies to train Australians. We are investing in a new apprenticeships fund to be shared with the states to ensure the states and territories draw down as they train new apprentices to make sure that those Australians can get those Australian jobs as our country continues to expand.
We are guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on, whether it is Medicare, whether it is needs based school funding, whether it is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Whether it is in any of these areas, these are the things that Australians rely on, and we are guaranteeing them in this budget. We are putting downward pressure on rising costs of living, because we on this side know that, when you have been struggling with weak wages growth, when you have been working against the stiff headwinds, the rising cost of living matters. That is why the energy plan of the Prime Minister, together with the Minister for the Environment and Energy and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, is delivering more-affordable, more-secure, more-sustainable energy and putting downward pressure on rising costs of electricity prices, with our Snowy 2.0 scheme, in addition to the many other infrastructure projects we are pursuing.
In addition to that, we are putting downward pressure on the rising cost of living on housing. We are doing it not with a silver bullet strategy, which those opposite to put forward, which is a cruel hoax on the Australian people, but with a comprehensive plan that deals with everyone who slept rough last night and for everyone who is seeking to buy a home today.
Budget
Health Care
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister really got the message on Medicare, why do his cuts to Medicare continue for years?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:18): I thank the honourable member for her question. What the government committed to in the budget was to unfreeze the freeze on indexation put in place by the Labor Party. It was your freeze. What we are doing is restoring indexation in a measured and consistent way, and we are doing that to ensure that Australians have the services they need.
The Labor Party cannot rewrite history. The freeze was imposed by the Labor Party. We are restoring indexation, and we are doing that with the support of the colleges, with the support of the profession. I will ask the health minister to add to that the way in which he has secured by careful consultation the support of the doctors and allied health professionals to get to this important reform.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:19): Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister. Last night we secured five historic partnerships: with the doctors, with the AMA; with the Royal Australian College of GPs; with Medicines Australia; with the Pharmacy Guild; and with the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association. Five fundamental partnerships, delivered in writing, which delivered reform and allowed us to reinvest in the system. Ten billion dollars of reinvestment in our health system.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat on a point of order.
Ms Catherine King: Is he going to resume his seat?
The SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister for Health will resume his seat.
Ms Catherine King: If the minister is going to be relevant, he needs to explain the billions of dollars of savings in the budget that he is banking on—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will resume her seat!
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have not called either of you! You can both go outside and have a chat, if you feel like it. I have asked the Minister for Health to resume his seat a number of times. The member for Ballarat can resume her seat. I refer the member for Ballarat to my previous reactions to her abuse of points of order, and warn her. The Minister for Health has the call.
Mr HUNT: Labor introduced the Medicare indexation freeze and we are removing it.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr HUNT: We are investing in Medicare. We are guaranteeing Medicare. We are putting $1 billion of additional expenditure into removing Labor's indexation freeze. We are putting $2.4 billion into Medicare overall. We are putting $10 billion into the health system, and here is what the AMA said: 'Farewell freeze—government wins back goodwill with positive health measures'. It said:
Lifting the Medicare rebate freeze is overdue, but we welcome it.
Michael Gannon, the RACGP—the College of General Practitioners—said the lifting of the freeze is exactly what the RACGPs' campaign was aiming for. We struck partnerships with the profession. We have delivered reform. We have delivered reinvestment. We have guaranteed Medicare in law. And these agreements will mean better access for patients, lower costs for patients and better access to medicines for patients. That is what people who really believe in Medicare do. At the end of the day, the 'Medifriends' are on this side and the 'Medifrauds' are on that side.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:22): I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Ambassador for Cuba, His Excellency Mr Jose Montano. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (14:23): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In last night's budget speech, the Treasurer announced $75 billion for national road infrastructure and financing, but only $3.1 billion of this money was earmarked for South Australia. Based on our population, an equitable share for South Australia would have seen us receive over $5 billion. Given South Australia is being short-changed on nation-building infrastructure, will the federal government at least guarantee that Australian steel will be used—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will resume her seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. I was unable to hear the member the Mayo for the last 10 or 15 seconds. I will ask her to repeat question from the beginning.
Ms SHARKIE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In last night's budget speech, the Treasurer announced $75 billion for nation-building infrastructure and financing, but only $3.1 billion of this money was earmarked for South Australia. Based on our population, an equitable share for South Australia would have seen us receive more than $5 billion of infrastructure money. Given South Australia is being short-changed on nation-building infrastructure, will the federal government at least guarantee that Australian steel will be used in its national infrastructure projects, and in particular South Australian steel for its proposed rail projects?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:24): I thank the honourable member for her question. I will shortly ask another great South Australian, the member for Sturt, to add to this answer, but I would remind the honourable member that the government has made substantial commitments to infrastructure in South Australia, not least of which are the North-South Corridor, worth $1.7 billion; the Flinders Link rail project, which I announced in Adelaide not so long ago; the Oaklands Crossing and Marion Drive; and, of course, as the honourable member knows, massive investments in energy—the commitment to the solar thermal project in Port Augusta and the Cultana pumped hydro project, which has great prospects.
But above all the honourable member talks about nation-building. Right across the nation, but in particular in South Australia, we have made the largest commitment to building a sovereign defence industry in our nation's history. We are building the largest commitment to sovereign shipbuilding capability in Australia, and the bulk of that construction is in the honourable member's state of South Australia. I will ask the Minister for Defence Industry to enlarge on this, because this is vital. We are building substantial infrastructure at Osborne, delivering jobs and investment in the honourable member's state.
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Minister for Defence Industry, the member for Mayo on a point of order?
Ms Sharkie: On direct relevance—I asked the Prime Minister whether he would use Australian steel, not what projects he is doing. Will he be using Australian steel, in particular South Australian steel, for the rail project?
The SPEAKER: The member for Mayo will resume her seat. As the member is aware, the Prime Minister has addressed part of her question and he has asked the Minister for Defence Industry to address the question. The Minister for Defence Industry has the call.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:26): I am happy to answer the member for Mayo's question about Australian steel, because in fact one of the key commitments of the announcements around naval shipbuilding—nine frigates, 12 offshore patrol vessels, 12 submarines, 21 Pacific patrol vessels—was that we would use Australian steel, creating Australian jobs here in Australia. The member for Mayo might cast her mind back to when I was the minister for industry, in the golden age of the government, and we committed $70 million to the Adelaide-to-Tarcoola rail line using Australian steel. And in fact just recently the Carmichael mine in North Queensland announced that if the mine goes ahead there will be 800 kilometres of Australian steel railways from Arrium in our great state. So I am very disappointed the member for Mayo would join with the South Australian Labor Party in this canard about infrastructure in the budget from last night.
Not only have we secured $70 million for the proton therapy facility and $110 million for the solar thermal power station at Port Augusta, but the Darlington interchange, the Torrens to Torrens project, the Northern Connector—these are all part of the North-South Corridor, which this government is funding to the tune of $1.6 billion. The member for Mayo might like to do her research before she— (Time expired)
Housing Affordability
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:28): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the right choices the government is making to put downward pressure on housing affordability and help those saving to buy their first home?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:28): I thank the member for Dawson for his question. Members of this House will know that if someone has a roof over their head then that makes all of life's other challenges easier to deal with. And that starts with the commitment we made last night to make sure that the funding that is provided for homelessness to the states is made permanent. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, which was a temporary arrangement put in place by the previous government and supported by this government, has now been made permanent, with some $375 million to support putting a roof over the head of people who have been sleeping rough. It does not matter if you live in Sydney, Darwin, Hobart or North Queensland; that is funding that supports community organisations to deal with the issues of homelessness that are occurring too often around our country.
This government has put real incentives in place to develop affordable housing not just on the eastern seaboard or in the major cities but all around the country, with tax incentives to drive investment to support affordable housing development and ensure that it is available to people who on low incomes who need that support.
On top of that, we are dealing with the supply issues in housing, by working with the states and rewarding the states through the new housing and homelessness agreement. Where the states deliver more housing, they will receive that funding to support their other housing initiatives. But it is not a one-way ATM; it is a two-way street, and we expect to work with the states to ensure they are delivering more housing.
With housing supply on Commonwealth land, we are opening up the Commonwealth land bank. We are starting with the Maribyrnong site, which will see 6,000 homes built in Melbourne. On top of that, we are investing in infrastructure, with the Geelong to Waurn Ponds line, which ensures that places like Geelong are able to connect with Melbourne, and that means people in Geelong can access affordable housing by moving there and still be able to get into the CBD. That is what you do with infrastructure to support housing.
But we are helping first home buyers as well. What we are doing with our first home super savers scheme is enabling people who are saving for their home to get there 30 per cent faster. Before they pay tax, they can put it in their superannuation account and they can use their own savings. This is not their compulsory super savings; it is their own savings, which they would otherwise put in a bank account. And they can build their deposit 30 per cent faster—more simply—which will help those young families trying to get into homes, or even people later in life, in their 50s, because it is not restricted to people under 40. Anyone saving to put in place a deposit for their first home will get there 30 per cent faster, or thereabouts, because of the decisions that this government is making to secure better days ahead.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please advise what figure gross debt is projected to peak at in his budget?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:31): The gross debt position in 2021 will be $606 billion over the budget in the forward estimates. That is what it is in the budget. Accordingly, with the debt limit, which is put in place by the Treasurer—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. Yes, I am going to—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Corangamite has already been warned. I am going to give the Leader of the Opposition the call. I have been listening very closely, and the Treasurer is directly answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Shorten: He has not. Far be it from me to disagree with you, Mr Speaker. It is a point of relevance. I asked: what is the figure that gross debt will 'peak' at?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The budget is the budget for the budget and the forward estimates period. That is what the Leader of the Opposition asked me, and the answer is $606 billion. Look it up. It is in the budget papers. Knock yourself out. I can also inform him that gross debt peaks as a percentage of GDP at 30.7 per cent in 2018-19. That is what it says in the budget.
But I will tell you something else about debt. What this government has done by constraining expenditure is lower the rate of growth in debt by two-thirds. We have taken a growth rate in expenditure under the 'spend everything' policies of those opposite at over 3.5 per cent, and we have got that down to two per cent and under. Those opposite used to say, 'We will keep expenditure below two per cent growth,' but they never achieved it. It went to over 3.5 per cent. But under our budget we got it below two per cent and we continue to keep it there. And we continue to have a projected balance in 2021.
The other thing we have done in this budget is ensure that in 2018-19—that is just over 12 months away—for the first time in a long time we will no longer be putting on increased debt to pay for everyday expenditure. Those opposite put everyday expenditure on the credit card, and we all know that when you do that it never ends well. Under Labor it did not end well.
Budget
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:34): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the right choices the government is making to sustainably and fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Why is it important for all Australians to play a part in ensuring the success of this vital program?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:34): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I take the interjection from those opposite who said 'we started that scheme'. The previous government did start this scheme—and I am very pleased to acknowledge it—and we were very pleased to support it. This program, this project, has enjoyed bipartisan support, and I think it should continue to have bipartisan support. What we have had to deal with as a government is address the issues of the funding gap for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There is a $55.7 billion funding gap for the National Disability Insurance Scheme over the next 10 years. Those in this place will know that the government had sought to try and fill this gap by pursuing savings measures to the budget that could be put against that task. Those opposite did not wish to support those and the Senate also did not wish to support those, but the one thing this government was not going to do was walk away from the commitments that this chamber and the other chamber made to Australians living with disabilities all around the country.
What we have done in this budget is say: 'We've tried to do it through savings and we didn't agree.' So what we are saying now is: 'Meet us in the middle here on this.' We are prepared to do exactly what the Labor Party did in government by putting on a half a per cent levy on the Medicare levy to ensure that we can fully fund the NDIS once and for all. We can stop this argument about the funding. I implore those opposite to come to the middle here, join with the government and together give a commitment to everyone who is counting on this scheme that it will be 100 per cent fully funded. I invite the opposition to give that commitment.
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:36): My question is to the Treasurer. Last night, the Treasurer quietly increased the government's debt limit beyond half a trillion dollars. Why didn't he mention this in his budget speech? How can it be that taking the national credit card beyond half a trillion dollars did not rate a mention? Can the Treasurer now reveal to the House what his new debt limit actually is?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:37): It is $600 billion. That is what the debt limit has been set at. The government will seek to address it—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: No, that was the peak debt over the course of the budget and forward estimates.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon!
Mr MORRISON: I know those opposite are frustrated, but it is a very simple formula. We on this side of the House like to ensure that we keep tension in the cord when it comes to restraining expenditure. Those opposite are quite happy to let it rip on every single occasion. That is why debt was growing at 34 per cent per annum when those opposite left the Treasury bench. Under this government, we have reduced the rate of gross debt by two-thirds.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned!
Mr MORRISON: What we have done is set a new debt limit in accordance with the regulations in the legislation that is required and that has been tabled in the ordinary course of events. The government will always seek to ensure that the government has lower debt than it otherwise might have. Those opposite are the authors of the debt we have today. They are the initiators of the debt we have today, because they set fire to the budget and have poured petrol on it in opposition.
Budget
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (14:38): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the right choices the government has made to ensure the agriculture sector benefits from the measures announced in the budget, particularly for the communities in my electorate of Maranoa? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of alternative policies that threaten the opportunities for regional Australian communities?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for his question and note the substantial investment by reason of this budget that will happen in Maranoa—most substantially, of course, the inland rail, which is a nation-building project to create a corridor of commerce from Melbourne up to Brisbane. I know the people of Goondiwindi, when we were there the other day, are looking forward to the capacity to be part of the connectivity they will have to Melbourne, to Sydney and to Brisbane. That, therefore, gives them the capacity also to connect to markets overseas. This is something that so many people have talked about but we are actually delivering on.
We look forward to the Leader of the Opposition's endorsement of this, maybe tomorrow night, where he will be able to come forward and tell us about his vision for the inland rail and how he is supporting it. It is going to be a great project for the Maranoa. Of course, the Maranoa deserves these sorts of projects. That is why we also support the 35 new and upgraded mobile phone towers in places such as Moonie, Hannaford, Wondai Road and also into the Western Downs. I know we have some people in the gallery here today from the Western Downs.
We also support the $2.5 million to replace the Lemontree-Bostock and Charlies Creek bridges, which are very important for the people of Maranoa, and the $35.6 million for roads recovery across the forwards in the seat of Maranoa. I know that after the Waltzing Matilda Centre, in Winton, burnt down we put $8 million on the table to make sure that that gets up and running again. There is the $5.9 billion for 4G into Windorah, Birdsville, Bedourie, Jundah and Stonehenge. And let us not forget the $100 million election pledge for the sealing of the third road across our nation. We are going from Laverton in Western Australia to Winton in Western Queensland.
It is this government that has had the courage to come forward with substantial infrastructure in such a way that we can get to the coal precincts that reside in the seat of Maranoa and also the grain and the cotton. This is the sort of wealth that is giving us a great economic opportunity in our nation. It is also the agricultural wealth that, under this government, has gone from $48.6 billion in gross value of agricultural production to $63.8 billion. That is a 31 per cent increase on the back of three free trade agreements. That is a 31 per cent increase on the back of diligent work by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to make sure that the protocols were in place so that we can move such things as more chilled beef into China. These are the sorts of outcomes that have been allowed places such as the Maranoa, whose gross value of beef has gone from $638 million when we came to government to $915 million now, a 43 per cent increase. These are the sorts of dollars and cents that are coming back through the farm gate to Maranoa to people in the agricultural sector.
But, of course, what we always await is: what is the vision for the Labor Party in agriculture? Do they have a vision? Are we ever going to see one? We will wait for tomorrow night when the member for Maribyrnong might— (Time expired)
Budget
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:42): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that in this budget the Prime Minister is going after uni students by jacking up their fees and cutting funding to universities but can find a spare $50 billion for big business tax cuts?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for her question. The government's higher education policy retains our support for higher education through both direct funding of the cost of higher education for students and the loan scheme as one of the most generous in the world. The majority of the cost of a student's higher education will continued to be funded by the government. It is reasonable to ask students to pay an increased amount for the extraordinary benefit of a higher education, which of course confers on those students great additional earning capacity in the years ahead.
The honourable member asked also about company tax. Part of our budget and part of our economic plan is to reduce business taxes in Australia. Why are we doing that? We are doing that so that those students and many other young Australians will get a job. That is what we are doing, because that is the whole purpose of higher education. That is the purpose of vocational education. That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. That is what young Australians want. They want to know that there will be a job. What that means is that they need Australian businesses to be competitive. You cannot be competitive with a tax rate at 30 per cent when the US is heading to 15 per cent. That is obvious. That was a rationale and an insight—a penetrating glimpse of the obvious, you might think—that was apparent to the Labor Party and indeed to the Leader of the Opposition. I remember that back in 2012 he spoke quite eloquently about it from this side of the chamber. What we are doing is securing those young Australians' future by investing in reform that will deliver more investment in business, more jobs, better jobs and better opportunities.
Health Care
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on action taken by the government to guarantee Medicare and reduce the cost of medicines? How is the government guaranteeing the essential health services on which Australians rely?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:45): I thank the member for Corangamite, who, along with all of the members on our side of the House, is committed not just to guaranteeing Medicare but also to delivering better access and lower prices for medicines, as opposed to all of the members on that side who are committed to taking the long handle to private health insurance. Labor hates private health insurance. We love private health insurance, and we are guaranteeing Medicare. We are guaranteeing Medicare by law and under law. Medicare, under our proposal—the Prime Minister's proposal and the Treasurer's proposal—for a Medicare fund, will have the first call on the budget. That is the primacy we give it. That is its guarantee. That is its place under law.
More than that though, we have struck agreements, as I mentioned earlier, with five fundamental bodies within Australia: the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the AMA, Medicines Australia, the Pharmacy Guild and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association. Those agreements allow us to make real reform, which, in turn, allows for real investment. Those partnerships mean that we will invest $1 billion in ending Labor's freeze on indexation under Medicare. They started it. We will end it. More than that, we will make a $2.4 billion overall investment in Medicare and a major investment in bulk-billing. We will invest in re-indexation, and, in particular, we will be supporting bulk-billing as well.
We will be supporting cheaper medicines and better access to medicines. As was set out last night, we have secured an agreement with Medicines Australia which will deliver major savings in relation to the cost paid by the Commonwealth for medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Those savings will be reinvested in a $2.2 billion commitment under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As an example of that, and as an act of good faith, what we are doing is immediately listing Entresto. Entresto is a drug for chronic heart failure. 60,000 Australians will benefit from this listing. Previously, it would have cost $2,000 for Entresto, which was way beyond the reach of many Australians with chronic heart conditions. Now they will be able to receive this for $6.30 or $38.80 a script—a dramatic change in their lives either giving affordable access or first-time access to medicines for 60,000 Australians.
We are reducing the price of medicines. We are increasing access to medicines. We are guaranteeing Medicare and we are ending Labor's freeze on indexation. As I said before, the real 'medifriends' are on this side; the real 'medifrauds' are on that side.
Housing Affordability
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:48): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair for this government to continue to give investors buying their sixth or seventh home more support than a young couple trying to buy their first home?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:48): This budget has delivered unprecedented support for housing affordability right across Australia. It is going to deliver stronger supply, which is the answer to housing affordability—particularly in the honourable member's city, and mine, Sydney, and also in Melbourne—and it is going to give young home buyers greater ability to save for a deposit. I want to ask the Treasurer to enlarge on this, because he has put together a comprehensive housing affordability package.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:49): The opposition is seeking to put a cruel hoax on Australian people when it comes to housing. Those opposite seem to think that, if they say to the mums and dads, who actually put a roof over the heads of some 25 per cent of the country, 'We'll put up the rents,' that will somehow make housing more affordable. Negative gearing has enabled a roof over the head of a quarter of the country. Those opposite want to take a chainsaw to the housing market at the peak of the housing boom.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor!
Mr MORRISON: That reminds me of something they once did before.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor is warned!
Mr MORRISON: When they introduced the mining super profits tax—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Lalor then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: they did it at the peak of the mining boom. And we all remember what happened after that.
What is happening in our housing markets is highly sensitive. Those opposite want to go into the housing market and hack away with an axe. What that potentially does to the housing market, with the broader economic shock that can cause across the economy, is cost jobs. It will hurt Australians and their futures and their incomes. What we have done is put a calibrated package together by using the regulators to ensure the regulators can go in with their changes to borrowing requirements, which means we can ease the pressure on the top part of that market with investors. We are reintroducing the cap on foreign investment in residential development, which the shadow Treasurer lifted when he had the opportunity to do something about this. So we are putting in place the caps that they took off and we are ensuring that foreign investors also do not get the capital gains tax concession for their principal residence. We are using the tax system. We are using the regulatory controls that are available to us to put downward pressure on those investors and that investment pressure in the market. Those opposite want to take to the housing market with an absolute axe. It is irresponsible and it has grave economic consequences for every Australian.
Budget
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's reforms to create a fairer welfare system that supports people into work?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:52): I thank the member for his question and acknowledge that he has a deep interest and has done much research into this area. Last night's budget contains a range of amendments to Australia's welfare system. What we are seeking to do is make the system simpler. We are looking to consolidate seven working age payments into one to simplify the system. We are looking to redraft the mutual obligation rules so that there is a consistent system of participation. We want to make the system of mutual obligation fairer, remove inconsistencies and get rid of gaps inside the system that create passive welfare dependence. We are also looking to completely redesign the entire system of compliance to ensure that we have a compliance system that is clear, that is understandable, that ensures that we are helping the people who need help and that ensures that those people who are not doing the right thing and who are gaming the system are not able to continually game the system.
The reason we would hope that members opposite might remain at least a little open-minded to some of the propositions with respect to this system of welfare reform is that there are very deep issues and problems in the system that need fixing. Looking briefly at compliance, there are about 100,000 people who persistently fail to comply with the basic requirements of mutual obligation. We think about half of those are people who genuinely need help, and we need to identify them sooner. The other half are persistently failing to comply, without any real penalties being instituted in the system. Due to the good research of the Minister for Human Services, we can say that we have been unable to find a single person last year who suffered a financial penalty for a failure in job search—not a single person. Seven thousand jobseekers went through a two-week pay series consistently failing to engage, engaged on the last day and got back paid. Three thousand one hundred of that group did it six times in a year. It may surprise some members opposite—indeed, it may surprise many Australians—to know that the mutual obligations that are placed on you in your 20s are completely different than the mutual obligations that are placed on you in your 30s—50 hours a week activity in your 20s; 30 hours a week in your 30s. It may surprise all of us here that there is nothing in the system that requires a 55-year-old Australian to actually search for work when they are receiving Newstart. These are the things that we propose should be fixed. We want to fix them by redrafting the system, but also with very substantial investment: $47 million will be spent reactivating people; $263 million will be spent in helping young parents engage in the workplace— (Time expired)
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the punishment for the big banks if they pass on his new tax to customers, and is that the point when he will finally see sense and set up the royal commission into the banks that the Australian people are asking him to do?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:55): At this rate, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be competing to become the pin-up boy for barristers rather than Prime Minister of Australia. I mean a royal commission into the banks! What is a royal commission into the banks going to tell us that we do not know? What recommendations is it going to make that we have not implemented? We know what is wrong with banks.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left. The member for Griffith is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: We know what has gone wrong, and what we are delivering is one major reform after another. Customers and small businesses that have been let down will have a one-stop shop, a financial complaints authority, to go to: where they can get their matters resolved. Bank executives who do the wrong thing will be out. The level of regulation over their bonuses will be such that they will not be able to get all of their pay in one hit. It will be staggered over a period, 40 per cent post-dated and 60 per cent for CEOs, so that if things come out of the woodwork it can be clawed back. What we are doing is taking the recommendations that have been made over many inquiries and many reviews and that we know need to be acted on now.
What the Leader of the Opposition is doing, in his gutlessness and in his pathetic populism, is promising years and years of lawyers. Honestly, it is as though this was a great idea that the member for Isaacs gave him. Many, many lawyers, lots of fees—
An honourable member: Post-political employment.
Mr TURNBULL: Yes, post-political employment perhaps for the member for Isaacs. He could retire from parliament and join to become counsel assisting. It would be very lucrative for him. The fact is this: we know what has gone wrong with the banks and we know they have let down their customers. We are putting in place the mechanisms to deal with that. The one-stop shop will be in operation, as recommended by Professor Ramsay. It will go into operation now. We are getting on with it. We are getting on with the reforms to executive remuneration. We are getting on with the reforms to regulation so that executives, senior executives, who do the wrong thing, who do not call out wrongdoing and who do not act on malfeasance will be out of the business. Now that is tough. These are tough measures and we are doing them now. So the honourable member may be more interested in litigation than action but we are interested in protecting Australian consumers and customers of the banks right now.
Can I tell the honourable member—I will let him in on a little secret: the banks are not scared of a royal commission, sunshine. They have got plenty of lawyers and big law firms. What they are concerned about is being held to account, and that is what we have done. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:58): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action taken by the government to ensure a secure, reliable and competitive energy system for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any obstacles to achieving this?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:59): I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I acknowledge his deep concern about the rising electricity prices for those in his electorate, such as major businesses like Incitec Pivot at Gibson Island that have 80 per cent of their import costs linked to energy costs. In the budget there was a $265 million energy package, including a $90 million gas package with $30 million for bioregional and geological assessments and $28 million to accelerate the development of gas reserves. There is $19 million to develop pipeline capacity and trading facilities, extra money for the ACCC and studies into two particular pipelines—one from the Northern Territory to South Australia and one from Western Australia to South Australia. Indeed, South Australia was a big winner, because the South Australian government will get an extra $36 million for energy security infrastructure and $110 million for a solar thermal project at Port Augusta. And, of course, there was the Snowy Hydro announcement by the Prime Minister, showing our willingness to take a greater share of that nation-building project.
So no wonder the budget measures that we announced last night were welcomed. They were welcomed by Energy Networks Australia, who said, 'We welcome government support for measures to keep the lights on.' The Clean Energy Council said it was a 'sensible package of initiatives worth $265 million to facilitate the transition of the energy sector'. There was support from the Minerals Council, APPEA and others.
Therefore, I was quite perplexed to see tweets go out from the member for Port Adelaide and from the member for Melbourne minutes after the Treasurer's speech, saying there was nothing in the budget for energy, nothing in the budget for renewables and nothing in the budget for climate change. We announced, of course, $110 million for a solar thermal project and, of course, a major investment in the Snowy hydro scheme. If the member for Melbourne had a look at his own renewables document, nine times that document mentions hydro power and pumped hydro facilities as being an important renewable energy technology. ARENA describes it as being 'the most advanced and mature renewable energy technology'.
So this government is concerned about rising electricity prices, is taking concrete action to deliver reforms and is determined to get a more secure and more affordable system in place as we transition to a lower emissions future, and last night's budget will put in place a number of important measures to get us there.
Budget
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does last night's budget confirm that in this financial year federal infrastructure funding has been cut by $1.6 billion to $7.6 billion and will continue to fall to $4.2 billion by 2021? Is this why the peak industry body, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, have said the budget cuts real budgeted capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade, using a mix of underspend, reprofiling and narrative to cover this substantial drop in real capital expenditure? (Time expired)
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:02): The member for Grayndler has sprung out of the benches there full of vigour. He has been re-energised, and I do not think it is the infrastructure section in the budget papers that has done that. He knows that we are getting on with the big infrastructure projects Australia needs. He did not make the decision to build the Western Sydney Airport—oh, no. That was taken by the Abbott government and continued by the Turnbull government, and we are going to build it. We are actually going to build it. We are not talking about it and not arguing with colleagues in the party room about it; we are building it, and we are going to build the inland rail. We are committing $75 billion of infrastructure funding across 10 years. We are doing that, and there is more to come. We look forward to being able to reach agreement with New South Wales and Victoria to acquire their shares in Snowy Hydro, and that will release billions of dollars for priority infrastructure in both states. We are building the infrastructure future generations need to drive the economic growth and the opportunities they deserve. The honourable member knows that his side of politics failed on infrastructure. They failed on the airport. They failed on rail. They failed again and again. We are building. We are growing. We are developing the infrastructure Australia needs.
Budget
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the right choices the government has made in the budget to reform Australia's skilled migration program? How is the government supporting Australian jobs and Australian skills? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:04): I thank the honourable member for his question and for his great interest in making sure that young Australians, particularly Western Australians, are able to get apprenticeships and go into jobs, because we know that that provides them with a greater future.
In this budget we confirmed the abolition of the 457 visa program, Labor's dodgy 457 visa program, that saw rorts from the west coast to the east coast. The reality was that when the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years he added 40,000 workers under the 457 visa program, who came into our country to take jobs that should have been directed to young Australians and to Australians who had found themselves made redundant toward the end of their working career. Whatever the case may have been, those jobs were given by the Leader of the Opposition in his then capacity as employment minister to people who came from overseas. We have tidied the program up, but in the budget last night we went further. We announced the introduction of the Skilling Australians Fund levy, which will be $1,200 for each applicant under the new arrangement. That $1,200 is for a small business and it is $1,800 for big businesses. It will raise in total a fund of about $1.5 billion. The important thing is what we are going to do with this money. We are going to put it into apprenticeships—300,000 apprentices will receive assistance under this fund: the trainees, pre-apprentices and those people who need assistance to upskill to move into another job.
This government has put Australians first for Australian jobs, and we make no apology about it. We came into this parliament with Labor having lost control of our borders. We have taken back control of our borders, we have put the government back in charge of who comes to this country and we have been determined from day one to make sure that we put Australian workers into Australian jobs. The Leader of the Opposition has a track record of having sold out Australian workers, not only as the employment minister in the Rudd years but also when he was a union leader. We have demonstrated time after time and in question time after question time the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has ripped off workers, whether it was when he was a union leader or when he was the employment minister.
This Leader of the Opposition is known to the Australian public as somebody who cannot be trusted. When the Australian public looks at the Leader of the Opposition—and I saw him on the Today show today—they know he cannot be trusted. They know in the backs of their minds that there is something not right about the Leader of the Opposition. He has one story for one audience and the complete opposite for the next audience that he attends. That is why the member for Grayndler is so excited about this budget. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (15:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that on 1 July, the very same day that cuts to penalty rates become law, the Prime Minister is giving a $16,400 tax cut to millionaires?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:08): I assume the honourable member is referring to the deficit levy, which honourable members opposite described as a 'deceit tax' when it was first introduced. I assume they are referring to the deficit levy, which had a term of three years, which members opposite voted for and which will expire at the end of this financial year.
Honourable members opposite should reflect that what we have done with this budget is demonstrate our commitment to fairness, consistent with what we did in our previous budget. The changes to superannuation are a very substantial $6 billion worth of savings over the forwards. The burden of those savings were borne by Australians on higher incomes and there were many complaints about that, as honourable members will recall.
We have ensured right across the system that burdens are borne equitably. We have imposed a levy on the major banks. We have ensured that we are giving support to people seeking support for disabilities. Parents of a disabled child will know that they are fully funded. We are asking all Australians from 2019 to share in that burden just as members opposite did, as the Treasurer reminded them, some years ago. The big difference in what we are doing is we are ensuring that all of our commitment to disability insurance is paid for. We are not going to do what the Labor Party did for years and mock Australians by pretending the National Disability Insurance Scheme was funded when it knew it was not.
We have faced up to reality in this parliament. We could not achieve all of our savings through the Senate. We accept the reality and we are working with the parliament the people elected. What we are doing is putting in place the measures that ensure we can pay for a national, consistent, needs based school funding system that is transparent and fair—unlike Labor's—that we can guarantee Medicare and the PBS and that we can fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is fair. That is why this budget is about fairness and delivering the opportunity and security Australians deserve.
Budget
Mr PASIN (Barker) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is making the right choices to secure better days ahead for South Australians? How does this budget demonstrate the government's commitment to create jobs and generate investment in South Australia and across the nation?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:11): I thank the member for Barker for his question. As well as this budget being about guaranteeing essential services, putting downward pressure on cost of living prices and the government living within its means, it is also a budget for jobs—better-paying jobs at that—as the Treasurer has outlined.
A state like South Australia is a terrific case in point. I had the opportunity earlier in question time to mention some of the infrastructure investments that this government is making in this budget, like the proton therapy facility at SAHMRI 2 on North Terrace and like the solar thermal power plant at Port Augusta which, for the member for Wakefield, is actually in this budget.
There is more than that. I would like to congratulate the member for Barker, the member for Grey and the member for Boothby. Because of their work, South Australia has had restored $40 million in supplementary local roads funding, which we have been fighting for since the 2014 budget. That is a big win for South Australia and particularly regional South Australia, delivered by our members of parliament.
We have got the $100 million for advanced manufacturing for Victoria and South Australia, which builds on the last advanced manufacturing package of a couple of years ago to keep that transition from the automotive industry to other industries and export markets that has been going so successfully. There is also the feasibility study, of course, for pumped hydro at Cultana, creating potentially 200 megawatts of power. There is also the feasibility study for a gas pipeline linking the Northern Territory and South Australia to open up the enormous opportunities in the Cooper Basin—
Mr Frydenberg: And Western Australia!
Mr PYNE: And Western Australia as well, as my honourable friend the member for Kooyong reminds me. There is also the opportunity, if the South Australian government can get its act together, for them to put together a business case to access the rail funding for the Adelaide link project across South Australia. All of this is underpinned by the $1.6 billion commitment to the North-South Corridor, the Darlington interchange, the Torrens Road project, the Northern Connector and the Flinders Link rail project, which is in the member for Boothby's electorate.
The Turnbull government is delivering yet again for South Australia in infrastructure in this budget to the tune of $3.1 billion. If I could just get a plug in for my particular area of defence industry, this government has committed more to South Australia in investment in defence industry and infrastructure than any government in the history of the Commonwealth. It is arguably the largest commitment in defence industry and defence of any state in the nation since 1901. There is $85 billion of naval shipbuilding and infrastructure going on at Osborne, creating 5,000 jobs directly and 20,000 jobs indirectly.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Budget
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:14): I seek to add to an answer. I confirm that the end of year gross debt in 2020 and 2021 is $606 billion, and the within-year peak is $649 billion.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Questions in Writing
Mr HILL (Bruce) (15:14): Mr Speaker, I have a question pursuant to standing order 105(b). I lodged a question in writing, which appeared on the Notice Paper on 7 February, asking the Prime Minister whether he has written to the Queen requesting she release the correspondence between herself and Sir John Kerr—
The SPEAKER: The member does not restate the question; he points out he has written. You have not received an answer?
Mr HILL: which was question No. 641.
The SPEAKER (15:15): Thank you very much for that. I will write to the Prime Minister in the normal way.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:15): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Budget
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's continued failure to deliver a fair Budget.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:15): A budget normally tells you what a government believes in, a budget normally tells you a lot about a government's core beliefs and its values, but a budget always tells you a lot about a government. This budget tells us a lot about this government, but it tells us in a different way than normally, because this budget tells you that this government is desperate and that this Prime Minister in particular is desperate. It tells you that the most important value for this government is its survival and the survival of the Prime Minister in particular in his party room. That is what now drives every action and what drives this budget, and they will say and do anything to achieve that end.
The government is desperate to tell us that this budget is fair, but we know why. The member for Rankin, the shadow minister for finance, reminded the House yesterday why. The Liberal Party had to spend $200,000 on a focus group to tell them that they have to say that this budget is fair, after the 2014 budget and everything that followed. You should not need a focus group to tell you that a budget should be fair. We have been fighting for fairness against this government since 2013, and we have fought for it because we believe in it. We have not needed a focus group to tell us that fairness should be at the core of economic policy; it is at the very fabric of why we are here. That is why we fight for fairness. This government is coming very late to the party when it comes to fairness, and it is inspired by spin as it does so.
It underlines the point: when this Prime Minister gets up and talks about fairness, he does not believe in it. The people sitting behind him do not believe in it, and they do not believe in him either. If you want a party to defend Medicare, turn to the party that created Medicare. If you want a party to defend the National Disability Insurance Scheme, turn to the party that created that scheme. If you want a party to defend fairness, turn to the party that has fairness at its core in everything it does.
The government have finally dropped some of those zombie measures from the 2014 budget: making unemployed people wait longer for Newstart, cuts for families on less than $80,000 a year, or the infamous 'double dipping' maternity leave and parental leave measure, which they announced on Mother's Day. They have finally dropped these measures, but I looked in the budget papers in the lockup yesterday for the explanation as to why they have changed their minds. I thought, 'Maybe it says, "We accept we got it wrong," or maybe, "Our values have changed."'
Ms Macklin: Here's the page. Here it is.
Mr BOWEN: I read the Treasurer's budget speech—and we see the measures there, Member for Jagajaga. Does it say why these measures are being dropped?
Ms Macklin: Up the top, the heading.
Mr BOWEN: It does. It says, 'Decisions taken as a result of Senate positions'—that is, no change of values, no change of priorities, no change of heart; an acceptance of reality. We know what they want to do, because they admit it. They admit they still think these things are good ideas.
We saw its most spectacular example this morning when the Minister for Social Services came into the House and moved that they be discharged from the House. Now, for newer members of the House, that is a very rare thing. Only once or twice since Federation has a bill been discharged from the House. Normally, you get an explanation as to why this is happening. Not only did the minister not provide an explanation, but he did not even want to utter the words. It was like Harry Potter: there were words that could not leave his mouth. He could not say them. He sat there, through the entire debate, and would not even properly move that they be discharged, because, at its heart, this government still believes in those measures. Well, we are still opposed to them because we believe they rip away at the social fabric of this country. We are still opposed to them because we believe that they are bad policy motivated by the wrong values, and we will continue that fight.
I also want to detain the House briefly on the personal credibility of the Treasurer—I am sure the House will forgive me! Whatever credibility he started with at 7.30 last night was gone by eight o'clock, when he sat down. This is a Treasurer who came to the post talking the big talk. He told us what we was going to do. He told us what his priorities were. He was going to do so much better than his predecessor, whom he undermined and white-anted at every single opportunity, because he was going to deliver big personal income tax cuts. That was his big agenda, the Morrison plan. He told us all about it. I am not going to run through all the quotes, but I will give you the highlights: large personal income tax cuts, significant personal income tax cuts, big income tax cuts, very big income tax cuts, bigger income tax cuts, and strong income tax cuts. That is what he told us he was going to deliver. Remember, he also told us that he would not raise taxes either. He said that quite recently, on 17 February 2017, on The Ray Hadley Morning Show. Remember the Hadley show? Those were the days, when the Treasurer was on the Ray Hadley show. He addressed this on 17 February, when he said, 'We don't want to raise taxes, Ray.' Last night, the Treasurer raised taxes by $20 billion, including $8.2 billion, from almost every single taxpayer in this country, on the Medicare levy. Perhaps we need the member for Higgins to explain to us why a tax rise is actually a tax reduction. She should help the Treasurer out. The Treasurer was patting himself on the back in the last budget for modest income tax cuts, which he has taken back in the very next budget in their entirety in terms of the total tax take. We have seen the highest tax-to-GDP ratio since John Howard was the Prime Minister, and the highest increase since John Howard was the Prime Minister. Just last year, at the dispatch box, in his budget speech, the Treasurer said—and it was very moving:
This is not a time to be splashing money around or increasing the tax burden on our economy or on hardworking Australians and their families.
Apparently, that was not the time—this is the time! This is the time that we should be doing this; the next budget. And the Treasurer told us there was no revenue problem. I would hate to see what he would do if he thought there was a revenue problem. I knew last night when the Treasurer was saying something he did not believe in, because his lips were moving whenever that happened. This is a Treasurer lacking credibility entirely.
Then we come to the bank levy. I know a thing or two about bank levies, if I may share with the House. There are two treasurers who have introduced one: me and him. When we introduced the bank levy, when I was Treasurer, we were told it would be the end of Western civilisation and it would bring pestilence and locusts upon our country. It would curdle the milk, and the curtains would fade if we had a bank levy. The Treasurer explained this. He said, 'Oh, this bank levy's different,' and I give him some credit. It is different: it is 10 times bigger than the bank levy imposed when we were in office. And didn't you hear the backbench go wild last night as he announced the bank levy? They were very difficult to control.
So we have a Treasurer lacking in credibility, and in no area is that more stark than when the Treasurer is talking about fairness. When it comes to tax, he has increased tax—we have the bank levy, and we have the Medicare levy—but he has also reduced tax. On 1 July, somebody earning half a million dollars will receive a tax cut of $4,000, and somebody earning $1 million will receive a tax cut of $16,400. Now, the Prime Minister dealt with this in question time, and he said, 'Oh, well, that was the deficit levy.' Yes—and there is still a deficit and it is bigger than it was projected to be at this point. The government tell us they are making choices and they are: they are making the wrong choices. These tax rises would not be necessary if the government were not so insistent on a $50 billion corporate tax cut. These tax rises would not be necessary if we had a government that was not so insistent on giving a tax cut to people on over $180,000 a year. These tax rises would not be necessary if the government actually had the courage to deal with negative gearing and capital gains tax—if they had the ticker to engage in some reform.
These tax rises would not be necessary if we had a government that actually believed in fairness and was not inspired by a focus group but inspired by a vision for our country which involved every single Australian having some stake and ownership in the future of our country. They would not be necessary if we had a government that recognised that we are stronger when we work together and that, when we have growth that is inclusive, every Australian can share in that growth. We have a government which simply does not believe that.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (15:26): I see before me honourable members representing the Australian Labor Party but, more so, members who represent tens of thousands of small businesses in their electorates. I am sure that those members opposite will rue the day when they did not support the government's tax cuts to small business. I am sure they are going to rue the day because their small-business owners and operators will tell them how disappointed they are that Labor members did not want them to get access to that instant asset write-off. Yesterday was a milestone day in the history of this parliament. The tax rate for small businesses was lowered to 27½ per cent. The definition of a small business was redefined to include businesses with up to a $10 million turnover threshold. That is significant because it assists tens of thousands of small businesses, many of them in Labor electorates, where the members did not support those measures. How sad that was.
We just heard the Shadow Treasurer talk about the fact that budgets are about choices, and I agree with him. Last night, the Liberal-Nationals budget chose fairness, it chose opportunity and it chose security for all Australians—Australians in the cities and Australians in regional Australia. It is a plan for a brighter future, for more opportunities and to create more jobs and higher wages for Australians. It is a blueprint for success. The government is getting on with the job by creating new opportunities to secure Australia's future.
I listened very closely to the Treasurer's budget luncheon address today and he spoke about the government being focused on making the right decisions. He emphasised again and again the fact that this is a budget about getting things done. That is what he said. He was right of course. Our economic plan outlines a vision with a responsible and fair pathway to get Australia back on track whilst living within our means. When our economy is strong, our small businesses are strong. When our regions are strong, indeed, the nation is strong. When small business does well, there are more jobs, more opportunities and higher wages. That is why this government backs small business.
Our choices respect future taxpayers, as Australians expect us to, and our budget is on a path and projected to return to surplus in the 2020-21 financial year. We have quarantined the Future Fund, we have stopped borrowing for recurrent spending and we are making sure that taxpayers' money is invested in infrastructure assets—good assets and wise decisions. Our plan makes the right choices to build an Australia for our children and our children's children. I have heard the Prime Minister mention, on many occasions here at the dispatch box and in speeches right across the nation, our children and our children's children. We want them to have jobs, we want families to have security and we want small businesses leading the way. Small business is central to our plan—to the Treasurer's plan—for fairness, for opportunity and for security.
Small business, not government, creates local jobs and new opportunities. I have really appreciated the input that I have received from small businesses on my national small business roadshow, where I have been going around the countryside. I see the member for Boothby here. I had a fantastic small business roadshow forum in her electorate. We are off to the Sunshine Coast and the member for Fisher's electorate just next week. And I am very much looking forward to going to more electorates or even indeed to some Labor electorates not only to talk to small business owners but, more importantly, to hear what owner operators are saying about our vision for success, our vision for the future because the lowering of the company tax rate and the additional access to the instant asset write-off have been welcomed. They are cheering in the streets of the member for Shortland's electorate today, I am sure, about those measures.
Every day more than 5.6 million Australians wake up and go to work in one of our country's 3.2 small businesses. Small business employs almost half the workforce. That makes a big impact on the economy. It generates $380 billion worth of economic growth and GDP—how good is that? That is why we have delivered tax cuts for small business and a budget which backs small business owners. While those opposite stood in the way, unfortunately—and they will rue the day they did that—I have been across the country to hear first-hand from small business owners and operators in more than 40 communities in 24 electorates just in recent weeks, in the parliamentary recess. I have seen the hard work and the pride of Australians in their small businesses. I have heard their plans for the future. I have heard their ideas. There are some remarkable stories, some truly innovative stories. They tell me that the tax cuts are going to provide more money in their pockets. What business small-business owners do is they generally reinvest in their business. They hire that young Australian; they hire that older Australia; they put on that apprentice, that trainee. They tell me that it also allows them to pursue their ideas to grow and expand their operations. I have no doubt that they are telling me the absolute truth because they want to succeed. They want to hire more people. They want to be on the pathway to success. They want to have jobs there for their children and for their children's children. Indeed, in these communities, I also heard how the instant asset write-off is helping small business owners upgrade and purchase new equipment. I have heard how it helps provide the necessary building blocks to support small businesses to grow and expand. Here is a quote:
It helped immensely. It was necessary for us to produce good food for staff morale and it actually was a chain reaction.
That is what Alana Laliotitis told me of the impact of her small business's new equipment thanks to the instant asset write-off that she utilised. 'It increased efficiency; it increased customers.' They are her words, not mine. Alana runs a successful Greek restaurant in Parramatta with her husband, Peter—they are great folk. They have very good food, very good coffee—I recommend them. I visited that small business with the defence minister Senator Marise Payne. As any Australia in any small business knows, Alana told me that the instant asset write-off helps her get through the busy days. She said that Mothers' Day was her biggest day. She said that without the capital equipment that she bought, she just did not know how she would have got through Mother's Day.
This will help small business owners invest in their business, improve productivity and expand their horizons. As I stand at this dispatch box today, I look out over this side of parliament and I can see many of my colleagues who understand small business because they have filled out a business activity statement. They have run a small business. Through the sweat of their own endeavours, they have taken a risk and they have backed themselves. I do see people who, like me, have filled out a BAS. From 1 July, the BAS is going to be simplified. Instead of having seven areas, it is only going to have three—GST on sales, GST on purchases, total sales—so we are simplifying what the BAS is. We are getting on with cutting red tape, cutting compliance. We are making sure that we are listening to businesses and acting on what they want, what they expect and what they demand. The budget last night did just that.
That is why we also know that small businesses do not stop at a $2 million turnover. When in question time today the Prime Minister was annunciating how good a policy this is—effusively and confidently and optimistically as the Prime Minister always is about small business—some Labor member yelled out, 'You are supporting rich people.' Some of these people are not rich people. Just because you might be turning over $5½ million in your business, it does not mean to say that you are 'a rich person' as the Labor member from the back yelled out scornfully in question time. Sometimes, these small business owners and operators take home less pay than the workers they employ. Just because you might have a turnover which goes up and down each and every month, you still have to pay the employee. You still have to pay them the wage.
When a small business gets the impetus that we gave them last night in the budget through the Treasury legislation amendments yesterday, they get on with the job of backing themselves, they take even further risks and they make sure that they try to turn a profit, because they want to succeed. It is in their best interest to succeed. That is why these many small businesses and family enterprises want to succeed. It is fair and reasonable.
The budget has already made sure that we are going to cut through even more red tape. We have cut through $5.8 billion in red tape, smashing our initial target of achieving a billion dollars in cuts to red tape annually. But we know there is more work to do. That is why we are getting on with the job. That is why I was so pleased that Treasurer Scott Morrison's budget last night backed small business all the way. I am so delighted with the tax cuts for small business. I am so delighted about the instant asset write-off. It was a fantastic budget. (Time expired)
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:36): I was so enjoying the Minister for Small Business's talk. In the early part of it he just sounded like he was reading out the press release. I have never heard a budget press release read more fluently than that. He was talking a lot about the instant asset write-off too. That is the instant asset write-off that Labor introduced that the Liberals tried to get rid of that we stopped them getting rid of. And now he is boasting about it. It is beautiful. I love the front.
What kind of government takes money away from schoolchildren and uni students to give a $50 billion big business tax cut? That is the heart of the question before us today. They are robbing our kids of $22 billion, taking it from their schools, and making sure that uni fees go up while spending in universities goes down. So that is higher fees for a worse product, at the same time that millionaires get a $16,440-a-year tax cut and big businesses get a $50 billion tax cut. That is the heart of this budget. We invest in education because we believe there is nothing better for our society and economy than a highly skilled well-educated worker in a great productive job. That is what we believe.
The $22 billion of cuts means that every school in this country will lose the equivalent of $2.4 million a year over 10 years compared to the Labor policy.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Ms PLIBERSEK: The minister at the table says that it is not a $22 billion cut. Here is the government's own briefing paper, handed out to journalists on the day they announced the policy: 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving over four years of over $22.3 billion over 10 years from 2018 to 2027 compared with Labor's arrangements.' It is not me saying it. It is in their own briefing paper. What does this mean in practice? In practice it means public schools will be very hard hit.
Let's take the Northern Territory as an example; the nation's most disadvantaged schooling system with the most disadvantaged students gets the least help. I will give you this one example. A primary school in suburban Darwin—lots of Indigenous and lots of kids who speak languages other than English—by 2027, it will receive $4,232 per child. It gets an increase of just $554 over 10 years. They are addressing the overfunded schools, aren't they! Trinity Grammar School in Sydney—a terrific school—has fees up to $24,000 for primary school children. By 2027, it will receive $7,799 per child, an increase of $2,734 over that 10-year period. That is a five-times greater increase for that school than for the Northern Territory poor public school.
Good Shepherd Catholic Primary School, in the ACT, with fees around $3,300 a year, gets a funding cut—a cut—of $2.6 million over 10 years. Geelong Grammar School, one of Australia's wealthiest schools, gets a funding increase over the same period. Guess how much? $16.6 million. So a little Catholic school in Canberra gets a $2.6 million cut; Geelong Grammar, a $16.6 million increase. That is what they call fair. That is what they think is fair.
And look at university students. University students are paying more for their degrees, paying it back sooner than they had to, from $42,000 income a year, and getting less for it because the universities are seeing billions of dollars cut from their operating grants. So uni students graduating on $42,000 a year, not a high income, not like the million bucks a year you earn when you get your $16,000 a year tax cut, will be paying back more and sooner for a worse product as the universities have to absorb those cuts. That is what they think is fair: a $50 billion tax cut for big business, cuts for schools and cuts for universities.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (15:41): It is very interesting that the person who proposed this discussion is not here right now. He obviously does not have the courage of his convictions to hang around. He does not have the courage of his convictions to hear the truth. This side of the House is all about fairness. Over on that side, you think you have a licence on fairness. Well, I am here to tell you that you do not.
Just take for example what is going on in my seat of Fisher. Last night, the Treasurer announced $530 million for priority upgrades to the Bruce Highway in my seat of Fisher. I note that the member for Grayndler has come in this afternoon—the people's choice has come in this afternoon—to listen to the great infrastructure projects that are going on in Fisher, infrastructure projects that he did not deliver when he was the infrastructure minister. There is $530 million for upgrades to the Bruce Highway between Pine River and Caloundra roads, a fantastic result. There is another $120 million for an upgrade to the Deception Bay interchange. That is $650 million which is going to directly benefit my constituents. You did not do that when you were infrastructure minister, did you, Member for Grayndler? Not a chance.
There is another $182.6 million for safety upgrades up and down the Bruce Highway and another $4.9 million for local roads going to the Sunshine Coast Council. What this is going to result in is jobs, jobs and more jobs for Sunshine Coast locals, and it is going to mean that people will be able to get in their cars in Brisbane and drive up to the Sunshine Coast for the weekend without spending four hours in the car on the way home. It is a fantastic result for Sunshine Coast tourism and Sunshine Coast businesses.
But do you know what? We cannot start these works on the Bruce Highway until the state Labor government, the state Palaszczuk government, actually releases a planning study. The Palaszczuk government cannot provide this planning study, and we cannot start these works until that planning study has been done. We have called on the Palaszczuk government time and time again to get this planning study done. What has the result been? Nothing. Zip. Nada.
The next infrastructure project which is so important to Sunshine Coast locals is the $10 billion National Rail Program announced last night. This is a rail program that the state Labor government can bid for to upgrade and duplicate the rail line from Beerburrum to Nambour. The ball is now in the state Labor government's court to apply for this funding to build this rail. I am talking about the duplication of the North Coast railway line. I know it is north of Brisbane. I know that, living in Brisbane, it is a world that you cannot see. This is the North Coast railway line—the same line that you guys promised and failed to deliver time and time again. I am putting it fairly and squarely on the Palaszczuk government: come good. They should, because the people of the Sunshine Coast will never forgive them, now that they know that there is $10 billion in funding. It is now for them to bid for that $10 billion so my people—the people of the Sunshine Coast—can get access to that money.
But that is not all. The Treasurer announced last night a much smaller project with much smaller funding, but it is one that is very important. I know that everybody in this House would join with me on that. It is $5 million for the Thompson Institute for treatment and research into mental health. This is something that will save young people and help people with dementia. It will see research into suicide prevention.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Before I call the member for Jagajaga, I will remind members over there that they are out of their places. The member for Shortland is not, but he has been making a lot of noise anyway. They are out of place and, if they continue, I will treat them accordingly.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (15:46): I ask you all: what is the Liberal definition of fair? Their definition of fair is that a millionaire should get a $16,000 a year tax cut while, at the same time, they axe the energy supplement for age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers and the unemployed, so that a single age pensioner—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MACKLIN: What?
An honourable member: Sit down.
Ms MACKLIN: This is relevant to the topic.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. I call the minister.
Mr Tudge: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, you just made a very clear ruling about interjections when you are not in your place, and people are immediately breaching that ruling. I ask them to be brought to account.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Jagajaga.
Ms MACKLIN: Let's just get back to the topic, which obviously the member for Minister for Human Services really does not understand, and that is that this budget is not fair. It gives a massive tax cut to millionaires and the largest corporations in this country, and says to pensioners, carers and the unemployed that they will lose their energy supplement. For a single person on the age pension, that is $366 a year, while a millionaire gets a $16,000 tax cut. How can that be fair? That is the Liberal definition of fairness if ever you wanted to hear it.
Of course, the other extraordinary unfairness in this budget that remains from the 2014 budget is that this government wants Australia to have the oldest age pension age in the developed world. They want to say to people, no matter how hard their working lives have been, that they are going to have to work to 70 before they will be eligible for the age pension. We will not be supporting that, I can tell you, because we understand just how difficult it is, particularly for those who have worked in very hard blue- and pink-collar jobs. Axing the energy supplement and keeping the age pension age at 70 while at the same time giving these massive tax cuts to the top end of town might be the Liberal definition of fair, but it is certainly not Labor's definition. So all those people that somehow think this is a budget that Labor would have had anything to do with: you are so wrong. These are not the sorts of choices that a Labor government would make.
None of us on this side of the House think for a minute that this Prime Minister would be doing this if he had a bit of certainty about his job. We know the member for Warringah, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and even the non-talker, the Minister for Social Services, who was here all morning, might be after the job. The Prime Minister was asked, on Fran Kelly, why it was that he is getting rid of these zombie measures. The Prime Minister said, 'They can't be legislated.' Fran Kelly said, 'Are they bad? Are they bad measures?' The Prime Minister said, 'It's not a matter of good or bad. These were measures that we thought had merit.' Not to be outdone, the Treasurer, at the Press Club at lunchtime today, was asked by Tory Shepherd: 'Would you have preferred option A: the $13 billion zombie measures'—remember slashing into families, pensioners and all the rest—'to raising the Medicare levy?' That is what she asked the Treasurer. How is this for a defence? The Treasurer said, 'It's now moot. If you are practical you do not dwell on matters like that.' That is it. That is the defence: you just do not dwell on matters like that. Of course he does not want to dwell on it, because he was the one that introduced the cuts to paid parental leave, just to take one example— (Time expired)
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (15:51): I reluctantly remind those in opposition that fairness is not in the minds of the listener; it is just a matter of fact. Prior to the election in 2013 the previous speaker, the member for Jagajaga, added mental health as a disability to the NDIS, yet it was completely unfunded. The myth of funding has gone on for many years, and now we have a remedy that many in our community have suggested themselves. We have delivered a fair budget. We are going to give every Australian a go. In Gilmore, contrary to the ill-informed infrastructure proposals recently announced by Labor for the next federal election to build half a bridge with a guesstimate amount of $50 million—
Mr Conroy: That is untrue. Why are you lying?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Shortland will be quiet.
Mrs SUDMALIS: we will deliver a critical first-stage infrastructure investment of $13.8 million for the construction of the Far North Collector Road. Most people would realise that when you block off an intersection you need an alternative route to get the traffic around the blocked off intersection. I used to have some respect for the previous minister for infrastructure in the Labor government, not so today. Totally inaccurate!
There are three benefits to this infrastructure build. It will help traffic flow for the new, recently released subdivisions, it is ultimately a safety exist road in case of bushfire events and it is an alternative route for our local residents when bridge construction has commenced.
In addition to that, our local Meals on Wheels groups recently met with the Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Ken Wyatt. We talked to them about all things about the social networking they deliver along with their meals. I am proud to announce that the federal government will provide $5.5 billion over two years to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program and Regional Assessment Service. The funding arrangements will contribute to support services such as Meals on Wheels, not just in Gilmore but also throughout all our regions. This is a crucial resource that is in high demand. I congratulate my government on this achievement. I worked very hard for that.
Earlier in the year, after hosting seniors forums in Gilmore, I am proud to announce that the Minister for Social Services announced last night that the pensioner concession card will be reinstated for about 92,000 former pensioner card recipients—
Ms Macklin: Joe Hockey took it off them!
Mrs SUDMALIS: Be quiet! This change will help our very deserving self-funded retirees in accessing discounts and concessions offered by the states and territories. As well as being able to access Commonwealth Hearing Services Scheme they will also retain the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, to ensure they continue to receive energy supplements.
In health, we are increasing Medicare funding by $2.4 billion over the next four years. We will establish a guarantee fund to make sure that the same sorts of scare tactics that were used in 2016 cannot be used again. Proceeds from the Medicare levy, less the contribution for the NDIS, will be paid into the fund and topped up with a portion of personal income tax to make sure it covers the combined costs of the MBS and the PBS.
Since coming into government the coalition has listed more than 1,400 new or amended listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We are providing additional support for public hospitals, with $7.7 billion worth of investment. People living in rural and remote Australia will now receive significantly improved access to psychologists under a new $9.1 million telehealth initiative, set to rollout later this year. We are also providing more than $50 million for mental illness prevention and support packages for serving ADF members, veterans and their families. Enhanced access to counselling for our veterans and their families will benefit their partners and dependents. This includes over 2,000 veterans and their families living in Gilmore. And we have a number of other initiatives from the DVA.
Another thing that I am very proud to list here is that we are delivering the first comprehensive review into the family law system since the Family Law Act in 1975, to better meet the needs of Australian families. We have numbers of families who are ripped apart by the legal system at the moment, by long waiting lists. We need an alternative way of solving problems for the families which are split because they no longer belong together. We cannot use our children as pawns or as emotional targets. We have to have a better system, and I think this review is long overdue—and so do many of the custodial parents or those who are disenfranchised from their children. This is a very fair budget.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:56): In the words of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the peak industry body, this budget confirms the cut to real budgeted capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade, using a mix of underspend, reprofiling and narrative to cover this substantial drop in real capital expenditure. They are onto them, less than 24 hours later. This is what Michael Pascoe had to say:
Morrison has got away with rehashing Hockey's infrastructure PR trick—think of a big number and keep adding years until you reach it.
… … …
Wake up, people! Spread over 10 years, the Commonwealth is only offering $7.5 billion a year, much of it already in Hockey's numbers and a fair swag of that dating from Labor government commitments. It's less than what the state of New South Wales invests annually.
When you actually look at the budget figures you get a different story: you get that this year alone there is a $1.6 billion cut in infrastructure funding, from the $9.2 billion they set in last year's budget. Last night, that figure for this year is now $7.6 billion. It drops to $6.2 billion, it drops to $5.1 billion and then it drops off the cliff to $4.2 billion. This is a government that is failing completely on infrastructure. They set up this Infrastructure Financing Unit in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. There is plenty of capital available in this country—in superannuation funds, in the private sector—for projects that stack up. However, this government has actually cut the infrastructure funding from the Infrastructure Investment program in order to fund this new bureaucracy in the Prime Minister's office.
When you look at the budget—I follow the member for Gilmore—and you look at infrastructure investment programs and new investments, normally there are pages and pages of them. Last night there was one! One project: the far North Collector Road in the marginal seat of Gilmore—$13.8 million. I have to say, we thought it might have been in Collector, but it is not. It is this little local road near Nowra that they are funding in order to show that that is their only priority. The only road or rail line in the country that is actually receiving a cash payment from this government as a result of last night's budget is that one. The rest of it is smoke and mirrors. Where projects for Victoria previously had $1.45 billion in the budget, the government has given them $1 billion and expects them to be grateful. That is a cut of half a billion dollars. It is there in the budget papers at item 134, 'Victorian infrastructure investments'. I will read out the five-year plan: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. That is what Victoria gets out of last night's budget.
The Bruce Highway was mentioned by the previous speaker. It is all existing funding, with not one extra dollar. The Treasurer had the hide to name all these rail projects last night but not deliver a single dollar for any of them. There was not a dollar for AdeLINK, not a dollar for Cross River Rail, not a dollar for Brisbane Metro, not a dollar for Melbourne Metro and not a dollar for Western Sydney Rail. It was a con. They came in here, mentioning projects and saying, 'There's this $10 billion fund.' But you look at the budget. There is nothing this year for this fund, there is nothing next year and nothing the year after, and the year after that there is $200 million, of which not a single dollar flows before the next election—not one dollar. This is a con. Projects like Cross River Rail and Melbourne Metro were already approved by Infrastructure Australia. We had money in the budget for those projects, and then we see 'Investing in our cities' in the glossy. Only Townsville, Launceston and Western Sydney are mentioned—no other cities. Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Bendigo? Nothing whatsoever. It is just a complete con. This is a government that does not have a plan for infrastructure; it just has one big con.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (16:02): This is budget time—this document says 'Budget'. It is not Christmas time. I am told today is actually the birthday of the member for Shortland, and I am sure he would know a thing or two about Christmas time. I am sure, as a good local member, you have dressed up as Santa a few times. You have put on the hat and the wig. You have probably not had to put it in the padding, my good friend the member for Shortland. He has given away gifts. But, you see, after Christmas time comes payment time. This is a budget that is about delivering but also about paying down the debt and making sure we get the economy back on track. I heard the member for Jagajaga say, 'This is not the sort of budget a Labor government would deliver.' You are right. You are jealous of this budget, I know, because this is the sort of budget that is very popular with the Australian people. The phones in my electorate office have been ringing off the hook with people saying, 'You've got this one right,' and that must make you on that side very nervous. This is a budget that is about building, encouraging and providing. We are going to build an $8 billion inland railway. We have a $472 million regional growth fund. This will build stuff for my patch. We have Roads to Recovery. We have small business tax write-offs. That encourages those who are having a go. There is encouragement there for people who want to save to buy a house. The Treasurer was right: if a person can get a job and have a roof over their head, that is the first step towards a stable society. This budget invests in people by allowing them to save. There is a $4½ billion regional investment bank, which will drive productivity in regional Australia. But the budget is also about providing for our security. The budget makes provision for $27 billion in defence. As Australians, we value our freedom. It is there in the budget.
The budget also provides for our health and schools. At election time, in my electorate the Labor Party were handing out how-to-vote cards and they were saying, 'Health and education.' We found that if we stood next to them and said, 'Vote for us—health, education and lower taxes,' we would win people's votes. That is what we are delivering.
Do you know, member for Shortland, that across the electorate of Mallee there are 119 schools. Every one of those 119 schools and their 23,062 students will be better off. Can you believe that? Under our government, we are delivering on education. That is in this budget. Not only that, one of the things that has been very dear to my heart is the continuous glucose monitor scheme. A child came and saw me in Birchip and told me about his need for a continuous glucose monitor. That was our initiative. It is in this budget, on page 111, if you want to have a read. Fifty-four million dollars will be spent to subsidise continuous glucose monitors for children with type 1 diabetes. We are building, we are encouraging, we are providing, and this is just an example of what a government really can do.
I want to talk a little bit about the $472 million regional growth fund. This is where it really works well: when communities chip in a bit of their own money and then partner with the government, we see things built. We have seen things built right across the Wimmera and Mallee from these funds in the past. It is in this budget. I notice the member for Bendigo is always critical of us, but what has she got out of the regional growth fund? I think there is a runway about to be opened in Bendigo, delivered by our government. I think there is a sporting facility, if I remember correctly a tennis centre, delivered by our government. Isn't there an indoor basketball stadium? Oh, delivered by our government.
You know, it is not Christmas time; it is budget time. Bills need to be paid. This budget is fair, it is a winner, the Australian people love it. Those opposite are really, really worried about it because they know there is nothing to pick apart on this one. They know that this will win us the next election, and they are scared.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:07): Yet again, what we have seen from this government is a budget that is fundamentally unfair. It might like to say it believes in fairness, that it has suddenly had some road to Damascus conversion. It is not because it actually believes in fairness; it is because it has had some focus group that it has had to pay to tell it, 'You really need to focus on fairness.' You would have thought they might have been listening to the Australian people for the last few years, that they might actually understand that the reason they got themselves in trouble, the reason they went down to the wire at the last election, was because their continued budget measures were unfair. It was not because of Labor's campaign tactics or Labor's messaging, but because of what they stand for and who they are.
No more so is that the case than when it comes to Medicare. What this government has done to Australia's Medicare system is, frankly, an absolute and utter disgrace. We have seen cut after cut to Medicare, and this budget continues the cuts to Medicare, with the government banking billions of dollars of savings to the cuts to the patient rebate for years to come. That is what this government has done to Medicare.
We also saw the very unedifying display this morning where the minister responsible came into this place to discharge certain legislation. Instead of him saying, 'Look, we can't get a number of measures through the Senate, so we're going to have to scrap those zombie measures, those walking dead measures, that this government has had hanging as a millstone around its neck', what did he do in that debate? Did he debate us? Did he say, 'We no longer think these measures are fair; we have actually seen the light and we do not think they are fair'? No, he did not. He said absolutely nothing, because this government, at its heart, is unfair. At its heart it does not believe in protecting vulnerable Australians. It does not believe in investing in a universal care system that lifts everybody up, that makes sure that all of our health is where it should be, that makes sure we contribute into Medicare according to our means and draw down according to our healthcare needs. This government does not believe in it.
This is what it has done in the budget. In its budget, it imposes a four-year freeze on the Medicare Benefit Schedule for GPs, for specialists and for allied health professions. Then, in 2016, it extends it beyond four years to six years and tells everybody this is the best thing it should do, this is going to make Medicare sustainable into the future and this is really the most important health measure we could have. So, in this budget, you would have some expectation, finally, after doctor group after doctor group and after nurses, patients and specialist groups across the country telling the government that this measure has had a huge impact on our healthcare system, that there has been a drop in bulk-billing for GPs—we have seen that in the last two quarters and I suspect that we are about to see it again in the next quarter—that the government would have learnt its lesson. After the election, Malcolm Turnbull got up and had a bit of a dummy spit on election night but said: 'We've heard the electorate when it comes to Medicare.' However, he has basically spent a year whinging about Labor's campaign tactics. So you would have expected that last night the government would have finally said: 'We will totally unfreeze the entire Medicare benefits schedule for GPs, for allied health professionals and for specialists.' That is not what they have done at all. It is a complete breach of faith with the Australian people and a breach of faith with our hardworking healthcare professionals across the country.
There was a pretty lukewarm reception to this measure last night, because we know that within this budget there are fundamentally billions of dollars worth of cuts to Medicare. We even heard the AMA President say:
We would've liked to have seen full indexation from 1 July this year.
They didn't get it. The Australian Medical Association (NSW) said:
[the] Federal Budget is a disappointment and that it won’t have an appreciable effect on people’s access to healthcare.
The association's president went on to say:
At this rate it will be many years before patients see an appreciable difference in out-of-pocket costs.
Malcolm Turnbull promised that nobody would pay—
Mr Hawke interjecting—
Ms CATHERINE KING: The Prime Minister promised that nobody would pay extra under this to see a GP.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Ballarat will resume her seat.
Ms CATHERINE KING: I corrected the mistake, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Hawke: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am reluctant to do this. I have let one or two of them go, but the member at the dispatch box is repeatedly referring to members not by their title—repeatedly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat did correct it. I call the member for Ballarat.
Ms CATHERINE KING: The Prime Minister promised that nobody would pay more to see a GP under his government. This Prime Minister has made sure everybody will continue to pay more every time they go to see a GP.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:12): I am sure that, as the nation looks on, it would be suggested that this is a very aggressive debate. It is budget time and we will have opposing opinions in this fiscal space—and rightfully so. As politicians, we need to own the image that we portray to the Australian public when a budget is put before the Australian people and the opposition is opposing it just for the sake of opposition. To state that this is an unfair budget and that all the measures in it should be repealed or voted against is just such an overreach.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare to you that in the education space every school in my electorate, some 71 primary schools and high schools, will be financially better off, not only next year but over the next 10 years. All Saints' School at Boonah will receive an increase of $71,900. This is a significant amount of money for a small community, where sometimes the biggest fundraiser is the school fete over the course of the year. It will have a one-yearly increase of $71,000 next year. Saint Mary's school will receive $109,000. State schools do not miss out. The Lockyer District High School will pick up $177,000. I will not labour the point by listing all of my schools, of which there are 71 throughout the electorate, representing no fewer than 23,200 students. This is a fair package. Every one of my schools goes up in funding. Every one of my schools is going to be better off under these budget measures. To say that this budget is unfair is either uninformed or an overreach; it is fair.
I also want to mention something else that I think is fair in this budget, and that is the removal of the $7½ thousand childcare cap. If you are a mum or a dad and paying a couple of hundred dollars a day or whatever the rate may be for child care—my daughter is 22 and is well out of that realm now; let's assume you are paying $200 a day—you would make a 50 per cent claim up to $7½ thousand. That cap has now been removed. So, if you are paying for child care, what you can claim up to is now unlimited. You will tap into that. To those sitting on the other side who say that is unfair and that working mums and dads should have that cap left in place, I beg to differ. And that is okay—within this place we can have differing opinions. But to say that it is unfair for our small businesses to be taking advantage of the reduction in company tax rate to 27 per cent is unfounded. For some of the businesses that will benefit from that in my electorate, which I will come to, it is significant, and, in addition to that, my businesses have told me, overwhelmingly, about the benefits of the instant $20,000 cash write-off. To those opposite who come into this place and say that those measures and provisions within this Appropriations Bill (No. 1) are unfair, can I say they are unfounded comments. There is a bolt of stuff in this bill that is fair. It is fair. I can only assume that, when the time comes, those who are claiming that this is unfair will walk into this chamber and vote against those measures. They will vote against my schools receiving their benefits. They will vote against the pensioners getting their support for that one off energy reform.
The budget makes record investments not only in my electorate but also in roads and rail right across the country. I will not labour the point of what some of them are, but some of the things that I think are fair on both sides of the House are the $500 million regional infrastructure package that will fund an additional round, round 3, of our Building Better Regions Fund, which those on the other side have been beneficiaries of, and the third round of the Stronger Communities Program. I challenge anyone to say that both of those programs were unfairly distributed right throughout the entire country. They are well thought out and should be supported.
We are creating up to $1.5 billion in the Skilling Australia Fund to help train up to 300,000 Australian apprentices and trainees in key trade skills. This will get more young Australians into work and help Australians grow into business. How can that be unfair? There are many provisions in this bill which are outstanding. We will support pensioners, veterans, schoolkids, teachers, small businesses, parents and child care, and we will be supporting the banks paying their fair share. This is a fair bill. I recommended it to the House and ask for Labor's support.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate has now concluded.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:17): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator McCarthy has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and that Senator Singh has been appointed a member of the committee.
Standing Committee on Environment and Energy
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:17): The Speaker has received advice from the opposition whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (16:17): by leave—I move:
That Mr Bandt be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered at the next sitting.
Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
(Quorum formed)
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (16:22): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 and Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 before us. I do not intend to take too much of the House's time. We will be supporting these bills. We will be supporting these bills for a very simple reason, and that is that we support any reasonable steps to ensure that the work expenses of people in this building are consistent with what the community expects of us. I think we on all sides of the House appreciate that Australians do not particularly have a lot of faith in the political system as it stands. I will not go into all the reasons for that, but it is true. I think that the Australian people do have a right to expect us to be held to the highest possible standards, and this bill does go some of the way towards that effort.
It is up to us in this place to help strengthen our system to improve, where we can, transparency and accountability as they relate to the work expenses of politicians, because, when we do fail to live up to the expectations the people rightly have of us, we allow fringe groups and others to grow and spread fear and hate throughout our communities. That is the blunt reality of the cost and consequences of people losing faith in our political system.
Some context for this bill: it was under the member for Warringah when the former member for Mackellar used a helicopter on taxpayer funds to go to a fundraiser. The member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister, ordered an independent review into parliamentary expenses. The new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, received the recommendations of that review on 22 February 2016, more than a year ago. Unfortunately, for more than a year there was no action. There was no reform. There were no changes to respond to those recommendations.
On this side of the House we will be offering support for these bills, but it is worth noting that we have always been committed to reforming these work expenses, these parliamentary resources. We have offered to the government every bit of assistance at every stage in passing their legislation and implementing these types of reforms.
We supported, as honourable members would recall, the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. Quite recently, we progressed the legislation through the House and through the Senate without delay. It was only through the support of the Labor Party that these reforms were implemented in such a timely fashion. Honourable members will recall that was Senator Macdonald from the coalition who tried to delay those reforms by trying to protect his own entitlements and expenses. That was what caused the little delay that we saw. But from our point of view, from outside of the parliament, we did what we could to make sure that those changes passed in a timely way and that is what we will do again. We will ensure the speedy passage of this legislation to restore public faith in the democratic political systems or at least take some steps towards restoring that faith in the system. In that context, we are happy to support these bills through this House and through the other place as well.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:25): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. I welcome the measures included in this bill. The Nick Xenophon team has campaigned on the issue of transparency since the day it began as a party and it is certainly something that Senator Nick Xenophon has campaigned on for many years. Transparency is one of our three core principles and one that is raised with me constantly by our community. This bill seeks to provide better transparency regarding parliamentarians' entitlements and for that it has my support.
It is clear that the public has completely lost trust in politicians and with that lost trust comes a lack of respect. We have all heard from the previous government the rhetoric that the age of entitlement is over. But ordinary Australians do not understand how a government or indeed a parliament should be taken seriously when it makes statements such as those and then allows its elected members to hire helicopters to party fundraisers, to have their debts paid by foreign entities. They look at their own lives and the rules that they operate under and stare incredulously at the television screens when elected leaders lecture them for being too entitled and then use taxpayer funds in that manner. This bill begins to address these issues and it is not a moment too soon.
Australians' perceptions of politicians are at an all-time low and we are responsible for that. Constant issues that may have been within the rules by definition but do not pass the logic test—the 'pub test' as we all refer to it—have eroded the respect held for us as elected members. Unfortunately, I must remind members here today that this is an issue that has been raised before. Senator Nick Xenophon, the leader of the Nick Xenophon Team, introduced a bill in 2015 which called for an independent watchdog to administer entitlements claims, more frequent reporting procedures and the right of the public to make a complaint to the watchdog. Surprisingly, the major parties did not support this bill—not Labor, not Liberal, not the nationals—because they did not believe it was necessary. It took yet another scandal and of course another scandal and more public outrage for them to come around to the idea.
The independent watchdog known as the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority has recently been established and is yet another example of the government taking Nick Xenophon Team policies and adopting them as their own. This bill is a step in the right direction but it should have been done long before now. We must all remember that we are here to serve the public of Australia and there is no doubt that we should be afforded the resources necessary to perform that duty. I support the clearer definition of 'parliamentary business' that exists in this bill. This definition leaves no excuse to any parliamentarian who breaches the rules in the future. I support the dominant person test included in this bill. As part of our accountability to Australians, we must ensure that every time we claim an expense or a resource, it is for the purpose of serving the taxpayer. As my Nick Xenophon Team colleague Senator Nick Xenophon said, in the past, it should not be a case of a MP claiming a travel expense for a short meeting over coffee and then enjoying the sun or indeed buying a house.
The provisions in this bill require members to use public resources in a way which achieves value-for-money and that is very welcome. Really, this is a commonsense measure and it is a shame that it has to be enshrined in legislation. I would like to see more of us take responsibility for any unnecessary expenses. Would it really hurt us if we were all sitting in economy seats for flights shorter than two hours? It would save millions if we took economy seats when we were flying for less than two hours. Can you imagine if we put that money into a supplementary bucket for regional communities to assist with small-town projects? Fifty-thousand-dollar one-off funding grants for small towns would make a world of difference to those communities, and we could do that. We could help so many towns if we just elected to be a little bit more frugal.
When I came to the parliament when I became a member, the records of parliamentarians' expenditures were only published every six months. This time lapse is so long that, even though I have been in office since last July, I do not believe my expenditure for the first six months has yet been made available to the public, so I strongly welcome the new monthly reporting regime that will come into effect now that the independent parliamentary expenses bill will pass the parliament.
I also believe that the penalties included in the bill for a breach of entitlements rules are not harsh enough. Essentially, a parliamentarian can breach the rules and, once that breach has been identified, they have 28 days to pay back the money. If, for reasons beyond comprehension, they refuse to pay back the money owed within 28 days, there is a 25 per cent loading on their repayment. It is my belief that this is too low and is not a strong enough disincentive to ensure that the rules and procedures are followed. I will be moving amendments that will not only significantly increase the penalty loading for the breaches of rules but also penalise repeat offenders. I do this for all of us because this will show greater integrity in our parliament and restore integrity to us from our fellow Australians.
I support the measures in this bill. I believe that, as the elected representatives, we must remain vigilant to ensure that we do not erode public confidence in our office. I believe that we must continue to strive to use the resources provided by the public for us in the most efficient way possible. And, most importantly, I believe those of us who breach our responsibility to the public should receive significant penalties in order to deter further indiscretions. This bill is one small step in regaining the trust of the Australian public and could not happen a moment too soon. Thank you.
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) (16:32): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, and can I say how pleasing it is to see you in the chair. I look forward to seeing you on Sunday—or Saturday, I think it is.
I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 and the Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017. Following the recent passage of the bills to establish the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority—the IPEA—the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill represents the next step in the biggest reforms to the management of parliamentarians' expenses in more than a generation. These bills will implement a key recommendation of the Tune-Conde review into the parliamentary entitlements system by streamlining the legislative and administrative framework for parliamentarians' work expenses. It is the new foundation on which we will build the instruments that prescribe all future parliamentary work expenses.
The current parliamentary expenses framework is complex. It is time for a simpler, more transparent framework that governs our access to taxpayers' money for parliamentary work expenses. New rules and obligations will be placed on us to ensure that we spend taxpayers' money—public resources—carefully and responsibly and only for purposes that relate to our duties as elected representatives. Parliamentarians will only be able to claim expenses for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business. The bills will also require us to ensure that the expenses that we incur represent value for money and that public money is used efficiently, effectively and economically.
Under this new framework, parliamentarians will be personally accountable and responsible for ensuring that they use public resources efficiently, effectively and economically. They must also be prepared to justify publicly their use of taxpayers' money. Parliamentarians that incur expenses outside the new rules and obligations will be personally financially liable for the cost of the expense, and may be subject to additional financial penalties. The penalty loading scheme will impose a 25 per cent penalty loading on top of the cost of any expense that is not repaid to the Commonwealth within 28 days from the date the claim is made.
These bills will also provide IPEA with the power to make written rulings relating to travel expenses and allowances. In making rulings, IPEA will be able to consider whether a travel expense or allowance incurred represents value for money and meets the dominant purpose requirements.
As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that our spending of taxpayers' money meets the public's expectations. Following the establishment of IPEA, these bills are the next step in a robust response to the obvious shortcomings of the old entitlements based system. It will provide greater clarity to parliamentarians in their use of taxpayers' money, while further increasing transparency and accountability.
The Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 deals with minor consequential and transitional matters arising from the implementation of the new parliamentary work expenses framework, as set out in the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017. This bill repeals redundant acts under the old work expenses framework and redundant provisions in acts, and makes arrangements for the smooth transition to the new work expenses framework. This supports the recommendations of the Tune-Conde review as far as they relate to consolidating the legislation in the old parliamentary work expenses framework under one single legislative head of authority.
Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and I commend these bills to the House.
Bill read a second time.
The SPEAKER: I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, recommending in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution an appropriation for the purpose of this bill.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:38): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) standing in my name together:
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 27 and 28), omit "25% of the value of the public resources", substitute "200% of the value of the public resources or, if the member has contravened the member's obligations before, 400% of the value of the public resources".
(2) Clause 36, page 32 (line 12), omit "25% of the value of the public resources provided", substitute "200% of the value of the public resources provided or, if the member has contravened the member's obligations before, 400% of the value of the public resources provided".
(3) Clause 38, page 35 (lines 27 to 30), omit subclause (4), substitute:
Loading payable as a penalty for contravention
(4) The member is liable to pay the Commonwealth, by way of penalty for the contravention of section 26, 27 or 28, an amount equal to:
(a) if the member has not previously contravened any of those sections—200% of the amount to which this section applies; and
(b) if the member has previously contravened any of those sections—400% of the amount to which the section applies.
(4) Clause 39, page 37 (lines 9 to 14), omit subclause (2), substitute:
Reduction of future amounts
(2) A resources provider may determine, in writing, that an amount of public resources that is payable to the member by the resources provider is to be reduced by an amount (the loading amount) that is equal to:
(a) if the person has not previously contravened section 26, 27 or 28—200% or any specified lower percentage of the repayment; or
(b) if the person has previously contravened section 26, 27 or 28—400% or any specified lower percentage of the repayment.
The determination has effect accordingly.
I will not take long in the House with this. I moved these amendments to adjust the penalty loading on breaches of the rules of the Parliamentary Business Resources Bill. Under the current definitions a parliamentarian can breach the rules, and once that breach has been identified they have 28 days to pay back the money. Only when they fail to pay back the money within 28 days does the penalty loading apply, and the current loading is 25 per cent for that breach.
I do not believe that that is a significant enough deterrent. It does not go far enough to restore confidence in politicians—to restore Australia's confidence in us. These amendments will add two significant penalties which would go towards ensuring that parliamentarians do not breach the rules. Firstly, they will increase the penalty for a breach of the entitlement rules from a 25 per cent loading to a 200 per cent loading. Secondly, they will implement a penalty loading of 400 per cent for those who breach the rules on one or more occasions. This is about putting some real teeth into these penalties and ensuring that the Australian community does not just roll their eyes at this bill. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Mayo be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan, Ms Sharkie and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
Bill agreed to.
Third 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) (16:45): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (16:47): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) 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:
(1) notes that although the Government pretends through the bill to care about vulnerable workers, those workers who earn penalty rates are also vulnerable as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates, a decision which the Government supports; and
(2 )calls on the Government to:
(a) abandon its support of the Fair Work Commission decision 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
(b) legislate to prevent the Fair Work Commission decision from taking effect, in order to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) (16:47): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:47): It is my great pleasure to rise in continuation to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. As I said in my brief contribution earlier, I am absolutely delighted that the Turnbull government is introducing tougher laws to protect vulnerable workers from cashback scams and other types of exploitation. The deliberate underpayment of workers is all too common in Australia, and I have to say it is with great pride that members on our side of the House are initiating this very important reform. I commend the Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, who has absolutely led the way with this reform, which sends the very strong message that employers who want to rip off workers will no longer be tolerated under a Liberal-National government. That is what this bill is all about. As I mentioned, widespread underpayment, exploitation and ripping-off of workers have been uncovered at a wide range of workplaces, including 7-Eleven, Muffin Break, Gloria Jean's, Subway, Caltex, Domino's and Pizza Hut. Of course, not only is the underpayment of workers unfair and absolutely unlawful for the workers involved; but the competing businesses that do the right thing face higher costs because they are complying with the law.
The government has committed to strong action to protect vulnerable workers, as set out in our policy of protecting vulnerable workers as released in May 2016. Announced then were amendments to the Fair Work Act to tighten the law and increase penalties to prevent worker exploitation and the establishment of a Migrant Workers' Taskforce to target employers who exploit migrant workers and continue to monitor the progress of 7-Eleven in rectifying worker underpayments, chaired by the former ACCC chair, Allan Fels, who was the chair of the Trade Practices Commission. What a shame it was that when Allan Fels—who was doing such a superb job when he was engaged by 7-Eleven to unveil these corrupt and unlawful practices—started to get to the truth, the truth was all a bit too much for 7-Eleven and they decided to terminate his services. Shame on 7-Eleven for that very inappropriate conduct. The policy is also boosting funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman by $20 million to ensure that the regulator has the resources to investigate and prosecute employers who exploit workers. The government has already established a task force and provided the additional funding to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Now, of course, we have the bill before this parliament. As I said before, I am very pleased to see that members opposite have recognised our good work in this area and are supporting the bill. The bill amends the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for serious contraventions of payment-related protections in the Fair Work Act. These higher penalties, which are 10 times the current penalties, will apply where contraventions are systematic and deliberate. There will be increased penalties for breaches of record keeping and pay slip requirements. Cashbacks and other coercive behaviour by employers will be outlawed, where employees may have been paid correctly but then forced by their employer to repay part of their wages. Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems unbelievable that that happens in workplaces, but I can assure you that it does. In fact, I am very proud of the steps that we took in relation to one worker in Geelong. I will only call him by the name of Joseph. I do not want to identify him completely. He worked at 7-Eleven. He was—
Ms Burney: You say you do not want to identify him completely. You just have.
Ms HENDERSON: Excuse me, I will take the interjection from the member opposite. In the media appearances that he made, Joseph agreed for us to call him by his first name only. He did not want his surname identified. Out of respect for Joseph, I have complied with his request and that is why I have not fully identified him. He is happy just to be called by his first name. Joseph worked at 7-Eleven and he was being paid correctly on the books, but, at the end of every pay week, he was being asked by his employer to repay an amount of money in cash. This so-called cashback equated to around a quarter of Joseph's wage. I took Joseph's case to the employment minister, Senator Michaelia Cash, and also to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Senator Michaelia Cash met with Joseph. Allan Fels also met with Joseph. As a result of the minister's intervention, along with the work of the Fair Work Ombudsman, that money was repaid to Joseph and justice was delivered. We are very pleased to see that action taken, but, of course, we also recognise that the law was simply not strong enough. This conduct was happening throughout many workplaces. I have to say, shame on 7-Eleven, which, despite the fact that a whole range of unlawful behaviours and conduct was unveiled a number of years ago, frankly did not take appropriate action to stamp down on this behaviour. We found more instances happening in Geelong just last year. The introduction of this bill is one of the Turnbull government's key election commitments to ensure workers are protected from exploitation by unscrupulous employers.
While I do recognise members opposite are going to support this bill as they say, I have to reflect on the fact that members opposite announced at the end of the 2016 election campaign a policy concerning worker exploitation which really failed to deal with the problem. It exempted small businesses from higher penalties, meaning that most 7-Eleven franchises would not have been caught by the changes that we are proposing and, of course, could continue to get away with this conduct. We do not think that is good enough.
I reflect also on the previous member's contribution when he spoke about the minimum wage. He may not quite appreciate it, but the minimum wage is, of course, set by the Fair Work Commission as part of an independent process. Our government is absolutely adamant that every single employee must be paid in compliance with the law. We are absolutely determined to see an end to exploitation, to workers being ripped off and to shonky deals. That is why we have also introduced into the parliament the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017.
This is a bill which deals with a real scam that has been happening in many large workplaces around Australia. Unions—particularly the Shoppies union—backed by Labor have been working hand in hand with large employers, entering into EBAs which in some cases have either reduced penalty payments to workers on weekends or stopped them altogether. There is a better-off test that is meant to apply if there are changes made to an award under an EBA, and what has been going on is some pretty shonky payments being made by some employers to some unions that have not been transparent. They have not been disclosed. The corrupting benefits bill is all about looking at these deals, shining a light on this sort of inappropriate behaviour and letting the unions' own members know what is going on so that they know the sorts of deals that are being done and whether they are being ripped off.
Perhaps the most infamous case that is discussed frequently in this parliament is the case where Clean Event workers were sold down the river when the Leader of the Opposition was the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union. But we will not cop the way in which workers in this country have lost their penalty rates under these shonky deals backed by Labor and backed by unions like the Shoppies union. We are determined to stamp out this behaviour.
We are also determined to stamp out the sorts of exploitation we have seen under the 457 regime, and that is why we are absolutely determined to put Australians first when it comes to jobs in this country. Very proudly we have announced a policy again very much concerned with worker exploitation, very much concerned with putting Australians first. We will not be distributing an advertisement promoting our policy which has only white faces in the advertisement. I think that was a pretty regrettable decision made by the Labor Party. We are very focused on fairness and Australians being put first, and that is why we are abolishing the 457 visa scheme and replacing it with a new temporary skill shortage visa. Where genuine skill shortages exist, businesses of course will still be able to employ skilled foreign workers on a temporary basis, but we will not see the sort of escalation of 457 visas we saw when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment under Labor and there was a massive increase of about 40,000 457 visas. That simply cannot be tolerated. All sorts of deals were being done where young men and women working at the likes of McDonald's were coming into this country on 457s under Labor agreements. Not only were workers being ripped off under this scheme; but Australian jobs were not being put first. We will not tolerate that.
It was with great pride that I went in to back Joseph, an employee of 7-Eleven, and I am incredibly proud of the way in which we are tackling exploitation of vulnerable workers and caring for vulnerable workers in the workplace. Any exploitation of workers in any workplace is simply unacceptable. There are very strong laws in place in this country, and we are determined to see them enacted. And where the laws are not tough enough, where employers are doing these sorts of deals, like demanding cashbacks, then we will take strong action.
I am also pleased that under this bill we have clarified the accessorial liability provisions to ensure franchisors who are complicit in underpayments will be responsible for rectifying them. This will apply where a franchisee or a subsidiary contravenes a payment related provision of the Fair Work Act and the franchisor or holding company should reasonably have been aware of the breach and could reasonably have taken action to prevent it. The bill provides an express prohibition of hindering, obstructing or providing false or misleading information to Fair Work inspectors who carry out investigations into compliance with the Fair Work Act. There will also be a strengthening of evidence-gathering powers for the Fair Work Ombudsman, similar to the powers held by ASIC and the ACCC, to ensure the regulator can gather evidence where proper records do not exist, and can also overcome the culture of fear that often prevents vulnerable workers coming forward. I commend the Minister for Employment, I commend the government for this very important reform, and I commend this bill to the House.
On indulgence, I would just say to the member for Hotham, who has brought her beautiful baby into the chamber, that this is lovely to see in this family friendly chamber. Your baby is absolutely beautiful, and congratulations again, Clare.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:02): There are 7-Elevens everywhere, and many people around this country would have gone into them probably more than once or twice. You would expect, with such a large corporation that is owned by billionaires and making an enormous amount of money—and everyone who walks into a 7-Eleven knows what the mark-up is on basic goods that you could get for a much cheaper rate everywhere else—when you are walking in there to buy whatever you need buy that the person working behind the counter is getting paid at least the legal minimum wage in Australia. That is what people thought for a long period of time.
It was certainly the case that the regulators had not lifted the lid and seen what was going on behind the scenes at 7-Eleven. Indeed, many other people who should have known better, who should have had an interest in representing the workers who work in 7-Eleven, had done nothing for them either. What we found out, because of the bravery of a few people who spoke up—and also the tenacity of a number of other people, who I will mention in a moment, who went in there and did the work that really the government and others should have done in the first place—was that in these corner stores, where they were making enormous amounts of money at the top of the chain, people were getting exploited in a way that no-one in this country really thought was possible. We found that some people who were getting paid were then being forced to give part of their wages back in so-called cashbacks scams. We found that rostering was being done such that the hours the people were being rostered for did not actually represent the hours they were working so that proper payment and proper taxes did not have to be paid.
What is worse is that many of these people were too afraid to speak up not only because they would lose their job, which is a reason many people in this country are afraid to speak up—and a reason why we have unions and a reason why we should have government agencies that go in and investigate and regulate—but many of the people working in 7-Elevens were here on visas with work rights. They were incredibly vulnerable because they were being told, 'If you speak up, we will kick you out of the country,' and that is a terrifying position. When someone is lawfully here with the lawful right to work, they should not then be put under the threat of being kicked out if they ask for the right rate of pay. That is bad not only for those people because it exploits them but it is bad for everyone else here in Australia as well because it drives down wages. If someone is an underpaid worker on a visa being threatened with deportation if they get paid the legal minimum, an employer can say, 'I will get someone like that to do the work for half the pay; why should I pay local wages?' It just pushes wages down for everyone. It exploits people from overseas and it exploits people here.
Because of the incredible tenacity of people like Michael Fraser, who went from 7-Eleven store to 7-Eleven store finding out what was going on behind the scenes and helping people document it, because of very good journalists like Adele Ferguson, Sarah Danckert and all their colleagues at Fairfax who spent a lot of time investigating what was happening and reminding the country why we need well funded and well resourced journalism here, they collectively, with a number of brave souls who were prepared to step forward, blew the whistle. When they blew the whistle and it became apparent publicly and in the media what was happening, what happened? Did the government act? No.
The Greens referred it to a Senate inquiry because we knew a law needed to change to address this exploitation. During the course of that Senate inquiry, as the lid was pulled back even further, some horrific things became apparent. Most of the payroll services for these small corner 7-Eleven stores were being done through head office. What became apparent from some people who were brave enough to step up was that people in 7-Eleven head office would boast about these arrangements that they had struck with franchisees. They knew there would be no consequence other than people being underpaid so they then turned a blind eye to it, saying, 'We are not responsible; it is the franchisees who own the 7-Eleven stores who are the ones who are underpaying, not us in head office; our hands are clean.' That was what they said.
The more we dug into this, the more that people like Allan Fels came and looked at it. Allan Fels, former head of the ACCC, made a very strong statement when he said the only way that the 7-Eleven franchisees could make a profit was by ripping off the workers. That is how the contract between that head office and the small business franchisee was structured. It was not just the workers who were getting done over; the people who bought into these franchise operations were also in many instances getting done over because head office was saying to them, 'You have got to funnel money back to us every week. You have got to this and you have got do that and you have got do it in such a way that it leaves you with no option other than to underpay people.' The lid was well and truly lifted, the whistle was blown, and it become crystal clear that this was something that was orchestrated and known about at the highest levels within 7-Eleven. It was no surprise that there was a big change over. Before the election, they came out and said, 'Sorry, we have done the wrong thing. Let's employ a panel to look at it.' And then because as the election was out-of-the-way, because they knew this was an issue the Australian public cared about, that has all been chucked in the bin and a number of people are now left with no option other than to pursue legal action.
What is more worrying is that investigative journalists like Adele Ferguson, Sarah Danckert and others from Fairfax made it clear that 7-Eleven is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg. It is happening at Caltex they are telling us. It is happening at Domino's. What we are seeing time and time again in these household names that we all walk past every time we go to the shops or to work is head offices making the money, and not only the workers but often the franchisees are getting done over.
It is that that we need to fix because what is apparent in every franchise operation is they all look the same. They all look the same for a reason. That is because their head office says: 'We're going to control down to the most minute detail. The sign that you put at the front is going to be a good looking sign consistent with our branding. We're going to control the stock that you have on display. We're going to come in for regular audits to make sure that you are representing our brand well.' They control almost everything that many of these franchisees do, but the one thing they pretend to turn a blind eye to is wages. They say: 'We're not going to exercise any control over you from head office about what you do for wages. If you happen to be underpaying people, we're going to hang you out to dry.' That is what needs to stop. We know now many large franchises are operated with the head office taking all the money and profit, making the small business who runs it carry the legal risk if there is underpayment and, at the end of the chain, doing over the worker who sits at the bottom.
We have to make sure that we change the law to stop head office where the money ultimately goes up to. We have to stop head office from being able to wash their hands of responsibility when they have franchises that are trading under their name and for all intents and purposes appearing as if they are part of the same entity. Domino's, Caltex and 7-Eleven all appear as if they are part of the same entity. They all profit from having been part of the same brand. So there should be some shared responsibility.
Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. This bill has picked up on the public outrage and the knowledge that there is something wrong in this country when a worker working at 7-Eleven over the weekend gets paid less than the legal minimum wage but the owners are billionaires. People know that is wrong. But this bill does not shift any responsibility back home to that billionaire. It says that if someone gets underpaid by the franchisee—and we know that in many instances that would be because the head office has leant on them—in some instances, you might be able to hold the head office responsible. But, if the head office has good enough lawyers, they are going to be able to use provisions of this bill to get out of it. Instead of this bill making the head office responsible, it says, 'You are only responsible if you knew or could reasonably have been expected to have known that the franchisee was underpaying the worker.' 7-Eleven could have used bits of this bill to say: 'We didn't know. We couldn't have been expected to reasonably know. We asked the small business operator to say and do the right things and promise us everything was going to be okay.' This gives them a potential way out.
It is an appearance of action. Some bits of this bill are good and will make a difference for exploited workers. But, at the guts of it, it does not shift home responsibility to the head office where it ought to. The government should have had a look at the Greens bill that we put out well before they came to the party and said that they wanted to do something. We have a simple solution that would give effect to what the government says is the intent of this bill, but the government has to put its money where its mouth is. We are going to move to amend this bill to close that loophole and make sure that the head office is responsible. And we will move an amendment so that, if you are an underpaid 7-Eleven, Domino's or Caltex worker, you can go straight to head office and claim your underpayment. If you win a court case, you can claim it against the head office. It will then be up to the head office later on to go and have a battle with their small business franchisee about who is responsible. It should not be the worker who is left in limbo trying to chase a small business who might have no money at all, trying to prove what happened inside the internal boardroom meetings at 7-Eleven, Caltex or Domino's. It should not be left up to them. It should not be the case that large companies can use legal sophistry to get out of underpayment claims. Our amendment will say, 'Worker, go to the head office, get your money back and let them fight internally within 7-Eleven, Caltex or Domino's about who is responsible.' That is the only way to do it that is fair to the worker.
If that amendment is accepted—and I urge the government to consider it and accept it—it will also drive culture change. So long as the person in head office thinks, 'Oh well, I've got a legal loophole to push things back onto the franchisee,' they think: 'I'll just say I took all reasonable steps. It's not my problem; I'll wash my hands.' If we pass this amendment, it will drive a culture change because the head offices of 7-Eleven, Caltex and Domino's will now have an interest in making sure that the people under them are properly paid.
What it will mean is that, when the people from head office go to the store and do the audits that they do all the time to make sure that the chewing gum is standing in the right place and you have the right ads on display and the sign looks right, they will also go and check the wages books, and they will also ask the employees, 'Are you being paid correctly?' They will start to take some responsibility because they will know they might have to, in the first instance, cough up the difference themselves. Yes, they can go and chase it back from the small business at the end, but they will know that they will have some responsibility themselves. So we will stamp out this exploitation.
So it is a very, very sensible amendment that we will move. It is one that the government has to support because, if it does not support it, it is sending a green light to the 7-Elevens and the Caltexes and the Domino's: 'It's okay for you to continue what you're doing, because we'll pretend in parliament to take some action, but we'll give you a couple of tricky legal ways out if you're sensible enough to find them.'
There are some other problems with the bill as well that will allow clever lawyers to work their way around it. Those have been identified in the various Senate committee reports, and those amendments should be supported by the government as well if they are actually serious about this rather than simply giving the appearance of being serious.
There are a couple of other areas that we need to fix up as well with amendments. We are finding many times that records have not been properly kept. When your wages and hours records have not been properly kept by the employer, it can be pretty difficult to prove how much you have been underpaid. In those instances, the evidentiary onus should be reversed. If the employer has not complied with the law and kept proper records, then it should be presumed, when the employee makes the claim, that their version of events is right unless the employer proves otherwise, because that will put the incentive on the employer to keep proper records.
We also should take this opportunity to step outside the franchise system and say: well, we know that these long contracting chains operate everywhere else; perhaps it is time to make head offices more broadly responsible for what happens in their names.
But we have to fix this so that the problem is addressed. I salute everyone who has campaigned so long to make this change happen, and I ask the government now to make it a real change, not the appearance of a change. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Before I move to the next speaker, I just acknowledge also the member for Hotham with your son in the chamber. It is fabulous to have your darling son here. I just would remind you that, if there is a division, his vote will not be counted!
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:18): I commend the government for putting the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 before the House. Employers who systematically exploit their employees and who systematically seek to avoid their legal obligations for their employees should be held to account.
The Nick Xenophon Team has a strong history of standing up for those who do not have a voice. In its negotiations with government last year, the Nick Xenophon Team obtained a commitment for the introduction of expanded whistleblower protections. When legislated, whistleblower protections for employees will strengthen the operation of this bill, giving exploited workers the confidence to speak out against injustice. I also hope that this bill will be the first of many steps towards stamping out illegal treatment of employees. For instance, unpaid superannuation is a big issue in my electorate of Mayo. The current system of enforcement is ineffectual and a drain on the public purse because it forces employees to rely more heavily on the age pension when they retire, because they do not receive all of the money that is owed to them.
However, when talking about this current proposed bill before us, I think it is important to know that it is pro-business as well as pro-employee. Small businesses are facing the twin challenges of weak consumer demand and rising costs, and they should not have to face unfair competition from within their own business community as well. Whether they are small or large, when businesses do not follow the law they create an uneven playing field for the majority of businesses that are doing the right thing. This bill seeks to level the business playing field by making it untenable to systematically and illegally cut employee entitlements.
This bill is also pro business because it helps to restore public confidence in Australian businesses. In an age of rising scepticism about institutions, Australians are increasingly wary of the rise of self-interested corporatism. Sadly, this scepticism is not always misplaced. The systematic and illegal activity of the 7-Eleven franchise chain demonstrates that corporate abuse can be widespread and entrenched in some business cultures. Capitalism needs to be regulated and harnessed for the good of both its stakeholders and society.
Whether through fear, inaction or ignorance, many employees do not come forward to expose exploitative bosses. This is particularly true of younger employees, casual employees and foreign students, who are our most vulnerable people in the workplace. In the 7-Eleven case, a great number of workers were paid substantially below the award rate and payroll records were flagrantly doctored. Many employees on visas were threatened with deportation if they spoke up about the illegal practices of their employer.
Even after 7-Eleven's culture of illegality was uncovered and some of the stolen wages were repaid there were reports that some of the franchisees had terrorised their employees yet again by garnishing their returned wages, with unconfirmed reports of some employers even escorting staff to the ATM on payday. This 7-Eleven case demonstrates that it is entirely proper that franchisors share some of the responsibility and blame when their network of franchisees systematically engage in illegal conduct.
With great power over profit-sharing must come great responsibility when those profits have been generated. The government is to be commended for recognising the franchisor issue and for taking steps to address this. Cases such as the 7-Eleven case highlight the importance of extending whistleblower protections to employees and to subcontractors. Senator Xenophon and the Nick Xenophon Team have worked tirelessly to enhance and extend whistleblower protections. In our negotiations with the passage of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill in 2016 our team obtained a commitment from the government to include whistleblower protections for the corporate, not-for-profit and public sectors. I look forward to the recommendations on the implementation of these protections that will be contained within the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which I believe is due by the end of June this year.
These protections will grant exploited employees the opportunity to speak out with less fear of reprisal, and will help to smash these exploitative and abusive organisational cultures in Australia. The whistleblower in the 7-Eleven head office that confirmed the franchisor was wilfully turning a blind eye to systematic exploitation in its network of franchisees is exactly the kind of whistleblower we should be seeking to protect. It takes tremendous courage to stand up for the greater good of others.
Whilst the 7-Eleven case has been prominent in recent years, I want to be clear that the underpayment by employers of workers' salaries and entitlements is an issue that is all too widespread and far beyond the 7-Eleven case. I also want to highlight a workplace law that I continually and systematically encounter as being disregarded. As I mentioned before, that is unpaid superannuation. I am regularly approached by constituents, both young and old, whose superannuation remains unpaid by unscrupulous past and present employers. In some cases, this unpaid superannuation has been in the thousands of dollars.
It is not just an issue of the superannuation contributions, but also of the compounding returns of those contributions that the exploited employees then miss out on. Many companies then end up winding up insolvent and somehow manage to completely evade their superannuation responsibilities. More needs to be done to guarantee that superannuation is paid to employees, and to empower employees to recover that superannuation. In all too many cases, employees quite reasonably assume that when superannuation amounts are listed on their pay slips that they have been paid their entitlements. However, this is just how much superannuation employers owe for a particular period and not necessarily what they have been paid. To avoid this ambiguity the superannuation that has been paid into employees' superannuation funds should be reported on pay slips.
Employees do not have legal standing to recover unpaid superannuation underneath the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act without the assistance of the Australian tax office. They cannot even lodge a claim through the courts. It is the Australian tax office that must lodge that claim and pursue the debt on their behalf. In my dealings, the Australian tax office has been very slow to pursue unpaid superannuation, and their rate of success in enforcing full repayment is nowhere near high enough. I have an example of two constituents who were with the same employer. They both had not been paid their superannuation. When they were paid amounts by the Australian Taxation Office they were getting $1 or $2 a year by the Australian Taxation Office, and yet they were owed many thousands of dollars. A quick calculation of their amounts owed deduces that it would take many centuries for these two individuals to recover superannuation payments that are rightfully theirs. Unfortunately, after several years of ineffective action by the Australian tax office, the company is now insolvent. One gentleman is ready to retire. He has worked his whole life and not been paid super for several years. One is a young man, who has very little in his superannuation account to take him through.
This leads me to my next point, which is that penalties for not paying superannuation must be real and substantial. The current ability of the Australian Taxation Office to enforce repayment is insufficient. So we must strengthen their means of enforcement, and we must ensure that the Australian tax office is adequately resourced to do so. There must be a real inducement for the employer to meet their superannuation obligations to their employees, and not consider this money, to one side, as part of their cash flow. I hope that this bill will at least start to catch and penalise some of those employers who are stealing their employee's security in retirement. Much, much more needs to be done.
I welcome the report of the Senate Economics References Committee, appropriately titled Superbad—wage theft and non-compliance of the superannuation guarantee. I, and my Nick Xenophon Team colleagues, look forward to working constructively with the government to act on many of the report's recommendations.
In conclusion, I support this bill. While this bill penalises systematic patterns of illegal conduct of employers, enforcement needs to be adequately resourced for the bill to be effective. Whistleblower protections, once legislated, will make employees more confident about speaking out against exploitation, yet more needs to be done to ensure that workers also have other paths of recourse to safeguard their workplace rights.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (17:27): I rise to support the amendments to this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, moved by the member for Gorton, the shadow minister. The government has finally stopped running away from this bill. If I remember, this was all part of an election campaign that ran for eight weeks. Finally, the government came to look at the situation, which is rampant. It is certainly rampant in my community. We had case after case come before us in the newspapers to highlight that there were many, many vulnerable workers being exploited and many being ripped off—there is no other way to say it. This is long overdue and it does not go far enough. It would do much better if the government took on board Labor's policies and implemented them around this piece of legislation. It is good to see that, at least here today, we are doing something about what has become a great shame in our country. A shame where workers are going to work and not being paid appropriately. It is wage theft that has been occurring and been highlighted for us by the media.
The bill goes some way towards dealing with the exploitation of workers, so, for that reason, we support its passage through the parliament. At least it is a start. It is something. Having said that, it is inadequate. It is inadequate for a few reasons. It falls significantly short of Labor's suite of policies and legislative reform that we first announced 12 months ago, well before this government even turned its mind to protecting workers and before Labor forced this government to start talking about and protecting vulnerable workers. This bill does nothing in relation to a range of policies which we took to the last election. It does nothing about combating sham contracting, licensing labour hire companies or shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities. It does nothing to reform the Fair Work Act to strengthen protection for workers, it does not criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercion and it does nothing about making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employees and directors of irresponsible companies.
We should not be surprised that this legislation does not go far enough. We only need to look at this government's record. We only need to look at the fact that they are being driven by media coverage to bring this piece of legislation into the parliament and that they will resist amendments. It is a fig leaf in terms of the issues that have been highlighted through the media, and it is a fig leaf in terms of their track record about protecting vulnerable workers. Of course we have on record their support for the penalty rate cut to drive home the point that they really do not understand the fate of vulnerable workers.
The Turnbull government has no consideration for workers who rely on penalty rates, some of whom are the lowest paid workers in the country. In the electorate of Lalor, we are in the top 10 electorates where people are reliant upon those penalty rates. There are over 8,800 retail workers and over 4,600 hospitality workers who will see a reduction in their take-home pay under this government's watch. They sit with those other workers who have been exploited under this government's watch. It is no surprise that Malcolm Turnbull has again decided to do nothing to protect those workers who are going to face a real pay cut through changes to penalty rates. He has made it clear that he will not stand up for the lowest-paid workers in our community. He has unequivocally supported penalty rate cuts, ignoring how many Australian families will be worse off.
And these impacts are very real. In fact, if we look at some of the other things that this government has been doing, it seems to me that there is an absolute lack of understanding about the impact, of course, on women, who make up most of the workers who rely on penalty rates, and on young people. Young people again have been targeted in this budget through higher education changes, cuts to universities, lowering of the threshold for when their HELP repayments will begin and a rise in the cost of and their contributions on those loans. It is not a surprise that this government does not understand that a $77 pay cut will have enormous impacts on families in the electorate of Lalor, an enormous impact on their capacity to pay their bills and an enormous impact on our local economy when that money is no longer being circulated through our economy. Unlike the government, Labor understands the importance of penalty rates and we understand the importance of protections for vulnerable workers. That is why the bill that we have in front of the House would protect the 700,000 workers who will be worse off under the penalty rate cuts.
The bill in front of us does not go far enough to protect vulnerable workers even aside from the penalty rate cuts. It does not go far enough to protect those workers that we have seen on the front pages of our newspapers who have suffered from wage theft. The government cannot hide the fact that they support cuts to low-income earners and that they are presenting for us a fig leaf for vulnerable workers. It is a thin veil that this government is sitting behind today. We know that inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high with wage growth at historic lows and underemployment and unemployment at record highs, but this government decides to continue to pursue the cut to penalty rates while providing a $50 billion cut to big business.
Denying workers a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is one example of employers who make a mockery of workers' rights. Many employers undermine worker welfare through the deliberate and systemic denial of these rights, and we have seen that across our papers. I think it is worth stopping to really think about this for a moment. It is my belief that in this country, in this economy, our industrial relations system relies upon a healthy union environment to make sure that these things work. It is a sad indictment that there are people in our community who believe, quite wrongly, that the establishment of the Fair Work Commission protects workers. As those headlines have shown, the Fair Work Commission can only do the work if workers make a complaint and if those things are brought to light. It is an indictment that we had to rely on investigative journalists to find out and showcase what was happening to workers in this country. I would note that we only knew of this systemic exploitation that has been occurring because journalists uncovered it. In a robust system, with a more unionised workforce, these things would not occur.
Twelve months ago, Labor introduced legislation in the Senate to address the wholesale undermining of workers' rights that has become pervasive under the Abbott-Turnbull government. It is Labor that acted while the Abbott-Turnbull government did nothing to address the serious allegations and shameful treatment of workers by well-known companies. They are here today in this debate with speaker after speaker saying that they are outraged by the treatment of these workers and condemning those companies that have been doing the wrong thing, but they have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to put in place protection for workers. We know—and we have heard speaker after speaker today go through some of the wage theft situations that were occurring—that they were vulnerable workers, many of them on visas, who were being targeted, quite systemically, to provide a low-wage situation for businesses that should have known better and, in fact, did know better.
Many stakeholders have raised concerns that the provisions of the bill that give the Fair Work Ombudsman the power to compel people to answer questions do not contain procedural protections that might have been expected to have been included in such a regime. Many speakers have addressed that today. In particular, the bill fails to meet the procedural protections that apply to the ABCC compulsory questioning power, and that seems to be an anomaly. Giving a government agency the power to compel citizens to answer questions and remove the right to silence is a significant responsibility. It is imperative that we are vigilant to ensure that these powers are proportionate and appropriate safeguards to their exercise are in place. Stakeholders have made strong arguments. We are here because, although there has been consultation and stakeholders have readily been involved in those processes, they think this legislation does not go far enough. The government has chosen to follow Labor's reforms to some extent and to do what has been asked by the stakeholders, but has not gone far enough.
Where a worker makes a claim for unpaid wages from an employer who has failed to keep proper employment records, it should be that employer that is held to account and has to prove that they paid the worker what was owed. This seems such a simple concept. If you sit with constituents who have been part of these processes, it does not take long to realise that there is something wrong with the law when it is up to a worker to prove what they should have been paid and provide pay slips to prove what they have been paid when we know that, in our communities, there are many workers that are not being provided with pay slips. And they are not all foreign workers. They are not all students on visitor visas. They are young people in my community who can come and tell me that they have been working for three years and have not received a pay slip.
Last week, I was in the electorate talking to a person. We were chatting about her new job and how much she was enjoying it and, over the course of the conversation, she then started to talk to me about the superannuation that had not been paid to her in her previous job—three years worth of superannuation. We all understand the way the superannuation system works. We understand that the early money in that process is what is important. We understand the low-income superannuation contribution. Labor introduced that for that very reason—to encourage young people and to have young people understand how important it is to get those superannuation contributions happening early. Yet, despite that, we have employers out there who see that as part of their cash rather than as part of the pay to their workers. This is rampant in communities like mine, and this legislation does not go far enough to stamp it out. The early money is critical to ensure that people have the retirement funds they need. This government saw the light and reintroduced the low income superannuation contribution. They put it back, so they understand the importance of early money. You would think, therefore, in looking at this legislation that they would take the advice and go further than they have done, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As I have said, the bill does not go far enough in that area, nor does it go far enough to address the casualisation of the workforce that is happening under this government's nose and on this government's watch. In fact, one could argue that all of these things together are driving down wages and conditions of Australian workers and that that is why this government does not want to act. I and many of the residents in the community I live in and represent actually believe that it is part of the overall plan. The government did not address the issues of sham contracting and did not address the issues raised around labour hire companies when there was clearly an opportunity to do so and public goodwill to do something about this exploitation. This government should have taken further action but they have chosen not to. They have chosen not to listen to stakeholders. They have chosen not to look into registering labour hire companies or addressing workers' rights under those contracts. For that they should stand condemned.
Labor agrees with what this legislation is doing, but we would argue strongly that it needs to go much further than that. Workers—not just vulnerable workers—need protection. The number of workers we can now put into that vulnerable category is growing every day. I have real concerns about the levels of anxiety people are living with in the community I represent. A number of people are working through third-party labour hire companies are sitting up until midnight to get a text to know whether they have work tomorrow. They are having dinner with their families and not sure how many days of work they are going to get this week. This number of workers we would call vulnerable is growing every day, and the legislation which this government brought into the parliament is not going far enough to protect them. I would encourage the government to look again at the amendments Labor is proposing to go further with this legislation and to get serious about protecting vulnerable workers by reducing the number of vulnerable workers by taking real action about industrial relations in this country.
I will make a final comment: I believe that the market cannot do this work on its own and institutions cannot do this work on their own. What we need in this country is a healthy union sector that can do this work for us. Workers do not get exploited when they have representation. It really is that simple.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (17:42): Since the 2013 we have heard plenty of talk from those opposite about lawlessness in the workplace and about trade union boogeymen. We have had a $60 million royal commission into allegedly dodgy trade unionist that has produced one conviction. We even had a double dissolution election called on the supposed trigger of those infamous construction industry trade unions. There have been no bounds, no limits and no constraints on those opposite's pursuit of trade unionists in the workforce, yet all of this time those opposite have remained blind, lazy and inactive in response to the biggest scandal happening in this country today: the endemic exploitation of workers in workplaces across Australia. Through all this time the real criminality, the real lawlessness and the real flagrant disregard for the law of our workplaces has come in the form of exploitation of workers by dodgy bosses.
There is endemic wage theft. A study last year found that 80 per cent of international students at the University of Sydney working in restaurants in the Sydney area were being paid below the minimum wage—80 per cent. It is endemic, it is the norm and it is criminal. There is systemic denial of workplace rights. There is targeting of the most vulnerable members of our workplaces, like people in vulnerable visa arrangements and new Australians. New Australians have an introduction to our country not as the workers' paradise people in the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party worked to create throughout the 20th century but as a dark world of exploitation. The majority of these people on temporary visas ultimately become Australians, and they become Australians after years of exploitation in the workplace.
I have met plenty of these people as a representative in this place of Melbourne's west. A community legal centre in my electorate, WEstjustice, building on the work of journalists like Adele Ferguson, documented the experiences of exploited workers late last year in my electorate in their report Not just work: Ending the exploitation of refugee and migrant workers. WEstjustice met with individuals and groups from settlement agencies, community legal centres, Victoria Legal Aid, law firms, unions, universities, government agencies and other organisations to prepare this report. They prepared over 100 surveys from community workers and newly arrived people from refugee communities. This report documents the widespread, endemic exploitation of migrant workers in Melbourne's west. The WEstjustice report found widespread abuse across numerous industries, including hospitality, retail, construction and care work. Further, their report, and many others like it, has found that the exploitation of workers, particularly migrant workers, has not just been by shady, fly-by-night operators or by small businesses that might not be aware of their legal obligations. It has been by household names of corporate Australia. It has been by pillars of corporate Australia—names like 7-Eleven and Caltex. They have been caught over and over again, yet, for some reason, there still does not appear to be any social stigma attached to the board members and executives who have participated in this exploitation. Where is the sense of shame from these individuals? What has happened in Australia to the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces is a scandal. Everybody involved in it should be absolutely ostracised from polite company in this country.
We have seen reports of franchisees from these organisations paying as little as $5 an hour to their employees. We are seeing reports of employees paid half the award rate or less and, for those who complain to their bosses about this exploitation, threats of deportation. We have seen rosters and time sheets often doctored or mislaid. I can tell you that doctoring time sheets is a deliberate fraud. It ought to be prosecuted as a deliberate fraud. Why we accept these nonsense justifications about mistakes or errors and why the Fair Work Ombudsman does not take action on this I do not know. This is criminal. Scandal after scandal has thrown up evidence of these practices. One whistleblower at the 7-Eleven inquiry, pointing out that there are business models being designed on the basis of this systemic exploitation, said:
Head office is not just turning a blind eye, it's a fundamental part of their business. They can't run 7-Eleven as profitably as successfully as they have without letting this happen … but the reality is it's built on something not much different from slavery.
Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of arrangements. The former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission head Professor Allan Fels, now the chair of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, says that migrant workers are 'highly exploitable'. He says:
They are willing to work for low pay, because that's better than no work at all, their bargaining power is weak, and they generally have a lack of knowledge about Australian conditions and award rates.
It's also the case that they are generally not unionised, and there might be other ties, family ties, cultural ties, or an obligation around their visa, that means they are vulnerable to exploitation.
Examples of this abound. They include subcontractors at Myer on sham contracts being paid well below the award rates, being denied superannuation and working without the benefit of OH&S protections. It has been well documented that 7-Eleven has been involved in the systemic exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers, including the gross underpayment of wages, doctoring of pay records and subjecting workers to threats of physical intimidation and deportation. Pizza Hut has paid drivers as little as $6. The Baiada group's supply chain arrangements relied on overseas workers being exploited by forced long hours in its poultry processing plants, paid under the minimum wage and housed in substandard accommodation. When we see this kind of exploitation in international supply chains, we take action. We label this as modern slavery when it is happening in other countries, but when it happens in Australia it is ignored. There have also been allegations that Caltex pays its staff $13 an hour on night shifts, half the legal rate, and is not sending out tax documentation to employees. There have been reports of Domino's selling visas to prospective overseas workers.
Employers who deliberately underpay employees not only exploit those workers unfairly; they undermine one of Australia's core values: giving everyone a fair go. They undermine the fundamental principle of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay—a connection between output and reward. They also make it impossible for employers who do the right thing to be competitive. This has knock-on consequences throughout the entire market. Exploitation in the workforce affects wage growth for everyone. I am positive this is part of the reason that we have the lowest wages growth on record in Australia at the moment and no signs of it changing despite the optimistic forecast in the government's budget. It distorts the market.
Labor has been pushing for legislation to protect vulnerable workers for some time. We welcome this government's bill; however, it falls short of Labor's 2016 policy proposals. This bill does increase penalties for serious contraventions of prescribed workplace laws. It increases penalties for employer record-keeping failures. It makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries when they know or ought reasonably to know of the contraventions and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent them. The new responsibilities will only apply where franchisors and holding companies have a significant degree of influence or control over their business networks. And the franchisor or the holding company may raise the defence of taking reasonable steps to prevent a contravention.
It is a good start but it does not cover many of the exploitation practices that have been uncovered in the media and in countless reports—practices like sham contracting, which makes it easy for employers to avoid the workplace obligations they owe to their employees. It does not include phoenixing or strengthening the powers of the court to ensure that directors of phoenix companies pay unpaid wages and pay other employee entitlements. It does not criminalise conduct by employers who have used coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers.
Twelve months ago, Labor introduced a bill to the Senate to comprehensively address rights infringements. We have acted time and again to protect the rights of all working Australians. The bill we introduced in the Senate provided a comprehensive approach to addressing systemic rights violations. Further to our bill, Labor's 2016 election policy platform included: commitments for increasing penalties for underpayment of wages, requiring franchisors to take reasonable steps in order to assist franchisees comply with labour standards under the FWA, and reversing the onus of proof so the franchisor must prove it was not involved in the franchisee's breaches. We are glad to see the government has finally acted by introducing this bill months after the election and years after these practices became widely known.
Whilst the government appears to be interested in protecting some vulnerable workers covered under this bill, we should not let this debate pass without recognising there is one group that they do not seem to care about protecting at all. These are the hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who face having their penalty rates cut. Labor has a long and proud history of standing up for workers' rights. We have always stood by the working men and women of Australia. Labor will protect our penalty rates and reverse the onus of proof in the accessorial liability provision of the FWA so that a franchisor must prove it was not involved in its franchisee's breaches. We will increase the penalties for instances of underpayment, which are serious contraventions, having regard to the amount owed, the number of workers affected and the period the employer has been underpaying workers. We will impose an obligation on the franchisor to take reasonable steps to assist franchisees in compliance with labour standards under the FWA. We are standing up for workers' rights as penalty rates are threatened across the country. Labor understands that fairness at work helps drive a more productive, competitive and prosperous economy and drives inclusive prosperity for all members of our society and not just benefits for the top end of town.
The government's choice not to overturn the decision of the Fair Work Commission—which is within its powers to do—to limit weekend penalty rates is a stark illustration of how out of touch this government is with everyday Australians' lives. Senator Abetz in the other place—showing just how out of touch he is with vulnerable working Australians—even claimed:
Today's decision will be of benefit to the tens of thousands of young Australians who want to work on weekends who have increasingly found that businesses haven't been able to afford opening their doors on Sundays.
I can say that I have not been contacted by floods of young Australians asking to be paid less for working on the weekend. He failed to take note of the testimony of some employers from the hospitality industry at the Fair Work Commission hearings that it was unlikely they would put on more staff if penalty rates were reduced. Late last year Citigroup conducted a financial analysis that concluded that big retailers such as Myer and JB Hi-Fi were likely to deliver savings from penalty rate cuts to shareholders and not, in fact, bring on more staff. In other words, big business benefits from the decision, yet again, at the expense of vulnerable workers.
The Fair Work Commission decision was handed down just one day after record low wages growth was announced in Australia. A week before that, it was announced that in one quarter alone wages were falling at the same rate that profits were rising. This quarterly result was the first in 40 years. Penalty rates are so important for hundreds of thousands of working Australians. A record 6,000 individual submissions were received by the Fair Work Commission. There were submissions from a huge range of people, including those who were not able to survive on a 25 per cent pay cut. Wage inequality in this country is at a 75-year high. The latest OECD report shows that inequality has continued to grow in Australia, including during the mining boom. The report stated that 'in Australia income inclusiveness has been eroded'. It further stated that 'households from upper-income brackets have benefited disproportionately from Australia's long period of economic growth'. Wages are fundamental to this. We should not be accelerating these underlying trends through policy inaction.
Since 2004, the wages of those working in accommodation and food services have risen by the least of any industry—just 38 per cent, compared with the average of 48 per cent for all workers. Those in retail faired little better, with wages up by 41 per cent in that period. There are 2.1 million workers in those industries. These are the industries where exploitation of temporary migrant workers is most endemic. This is not a coincidence. With wage growth at an all-time low, the decision by the Turnbull government to sit on the fence could not have come at a worse time. Most of the jobs in the hospitality and retail sectors are highly insecure. Many hospitality workers earn half the average work. Income security is important to everyone, but particularly to these workers. This decision cuts the pay of Australia's lowest workers. Penalty rates are not just important compensation for those losing their weekends and social hours; they are also a fundamental necessity for those who receive them. Cuts to penalty rate particular affect women, who make up 54 per cent of the hospitality industry. Many workers will lose 30 per cent of their yearly pay packets.
So in the Labor Party we urge the government to act. we urge the government to protect all workers: act to protect to exploited migrant workers; act to protect exploited temporary employees with sham contracts; act to protect hospitality workers who have had their Sunday penalty rates slashed; act to stand against growing inequality in this country. The country that I was raised in, the Australia that I was raised in, cared about the fair go. We were the workers' paradise. We were an egalitarian nation, where Jack was as good as his master—if not better. We are not the kind of country that stands by while this scandal of exploitation happens all across workplaces in Australia. Labor, when we come into government, will act. We call on the Turnbull government to do so in the interim.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (17:57): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak with my Labor colleagues on the bill before the House now, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, the government's proposed solution to what is a massive problem of systemic worker exploitation in this country. Firstly, I think it is timely for us to make some reflections on the status quo, the context in which this bill emerges. We really need to shine a light on the government's track record to get to this point where we are today. Let's be clear: this is not a government that is the friend of Australian workers. In fact, from day one they have waged a savage and relentless war on workers' pay and conditions. They have ruthlessly pursued unions and tried to shackle the ability of men and women to unite in any way to represent their interests in the workplace. They have savagely cut staff from key front-line government agencies, reducing services and leaving thousands of remaining workers still waiting for a pay rise more than three years on. They have delayed superannuation increases for seven years, costing workers thousands of dollars in retirement savings and putting a massive strain on future governments that will have to spend more on pensions.
The government has also cut the Tools for the Trade program, and support for apprenticeships is now at record low numbers. The government has re-opened a 457 visa loophole that will allow employers to hire an unlimited number of foreign workers under temporary work visas without scrutiny. It has signed a free trade agreement with China which would have allowed employers to hire workers from overseas without having to advertise jobs for local workers first. This would now be enshrined if it were not for Labor, which was able to negotiate important amendments to safeguard Australian jobs. Similarly, Labor held off attempts to pass legislation that would see 93 per cent of Australian seafarers replaced with foreign workers earning as little as $2 an hour. Sadly, the government cut support for Australia's car industry and goaded Holden to pull out of Australia, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. I see the member for Wakefield has joined us in the chamber, and I know that that is an issue that he has pursued relentlessly. He has articulated the pain and suffering of workers in South Australia on those job losses in shipbuilding and in car manufacturing.
Not content with destroying existing industries, the government has also turned to slashing funding and support for the very sectors that we need to create jobs of the future, industries like renewable energy and science and innovation. Those Australians who believed that the member for Wentworth would lead to a more progressive, worker friendly government were quickly disabused of that notion. If there is one thing we have learnt about the member for Wentworth in the past year and a half, it is that there is no personal conviction, no moral standing and no firmly held belief that he will not sacrifice in order to keep the top job. Mr Turnbull's precarious grasp on the leadership has seen him do anything to appease the right wing of his party and the business lobby. As a result, under the member for Wentworth things have got much worse for many workers then we could have imagined. In fact, the very justification the Prime Minister used to take the country to a double dissolution election and an eight-week campaign was to get support for two thoroughly antiworker bills, those dealing with registered organisations and the re-establishment of the failed and draconian Australian Building and Construction Commission.
Soon after gaining the top job, the Prime Minister morphed from the man who championed a strong safety net and high wages to the man who is backing cuts to Sunday penalty rates for some Australia's lowest paid workers. These low wages will become the new low benchmark for the bargaining agreements yet to be negotiated and the award decisions to be determined in the future. Today it is fast food, hospitality and pharmacy; tomorrow it could well be hairdressers, nurses and cleaners taking the hit. As if that was not bad enough, the Turnbull government followed up with a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing against increases to the minimum wage, despite record low wage growth in this nation and a 75-year high inequality. Even Mr Turnbull's announcement that he was abolishing—I use the word loosely—the 457 visa, was quickly revealed to be a hollow stunt. It will affect only 8½ per cent of overseas workers who are currently in the country on 457 visas. The trade minister had already refused to rule out waving requirements are companies to look for Australian workers first before hiring overseas in future trade agreements.
While the government has spent the last four years attacking workers' rights, big business has been showered with favours. The Turnbull government remains determined to rob schools, hospitals and universities to pay for its $50 billion big-business tax cut, even though its own modelling shows that that will deliver only a one per cent boost to growth, and even that minuscule amount we are going to have to wait 20 years for. That is the government's own modelling. That is not what Labor is saying. That is the government's own modelling.
They have also failed to do anything meaningful on multinational tax avoidance, which is estimated to cost the federal budget $6 billion a year. This is $6 billion that we would be investing right now in health, education, critical infrastructure—things that are really going to drive jobs in this economy.
With this track record, it will not surprise you that those opposite have taken literally years to act on widespread reports of despicable worker exploitation. In fact, the story first hit the mainstream almost two years ago, when Fairfax Media joined forces with Four Corners for a groundbreaking investigation into the scandalous behaviour of the 7-Eleven franchises. Journalists acted on whistleblower information and found that not only was worker exploitation happening but it was a fundamental element of the franchise business model.
In September 2014, Fair Work raided 20 stores across the country and found that 60 per cent of those stores were underpaying staff. Stores regularly required workers to undertake many hours of unpaid training. Time sheets were doctored. Workers were owed tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, with one worker lodging four separate Fair Work claims amounting to $140,000. One worker worked at four different stores on the Gold Coast, and he was underpaid at every single one of them. Some workers were officially paid the correct amount but then told by their bosses that they had to return a very substantial part of their pay packet to their bosses in cash or lose their jobs. Franchisees said their businesses could not possibly make a profit if they paid the legal wage entitlements. What an indictment.
Meanwhile, the head office of the multinational chain, with more than 16,000 stores in 16 countries, recorded annual profits of $1.44 million in Australia and took a 57 per cent share of gross profits from the franchisees. This despicable business model preys on vulnerable Australians, especially students from overseas, who are often terrified to speak out for fear of losing their visas. Many who did complain were threatened with deportation.
But the 7-Eleven scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Since these revelations, we have heard reports of systemic exploitation, wage theft and fraud occurring in a number of companies. This year alone we heard about the widespread underpayment at Caltex, where staff were doing night shifts for half the legal rate and were not receiving any tax returns. Then there was the Domino's scandal, which revealed that not only were workers not getting paid what they were entitled to but franchisees were selling sponsorship to prospective workers from overseas for as much as $150,000.
Mr Champion: Outrageous!
Ms CLAYDON: It is outrageous. This is happening right here in Australia under the watch of this government. These shocking revelations of gross exploitation keep coming, but the government remains largely deaf to the problem. This egregious behaviour is not just a problem for workers; it is also a problem for the vast number of employers who do the right thing, because it gives unethical organisations and employers a commercial edge.
This slippery slope must end. We never want to see the day when worker exploitation is a prerequisite in Australia for business survival. This bill before us today goes some way to addressing the problems. It is not the bill that Labor would have introduced. In fact, it falls well short of the standard we believe is required to protect vulnerable workers. We will support it today, but action is desperately needed to address this crisis.
The bill amends the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for deliberate contraventions of workplace laws which are part of a systemic pattern of conduct. It expressly prohibits unreasonably requiring workers to make unreasonable payments. It also increases penalties for employer record-keeping failures and makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. It gives SES employees and the Fair Work Ombudsman the power to compel people to answer questions in investigations into breaches of the act.
This bill is, as I said, a reasonable start, but it goes nowhere near the commitments Labor made just 12 months ago to address a wide range of issues facing workers. Firstly, it does nothing to combat the sham contracting, nor will it address problems with labour hire company licensing. Similarly, the legislation will not help those people who have been caught up in phoenix businesses. These are the companies that build up extensive liabilities and then fold, only to be reborn as a new entity that cannot be held responsible for the former company's debts. Nor does the bill criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act for temporary overseas workers, and it will not make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of the responsible companies.
I would now like to turn to some of the most serious deficiencies in the bill. Firstly, it makes franchises and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees and subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and did not take reasonable steps to prevent them. I can see that it is really an opportune time for members opposite to lend support to Labor's own bill on the table, which has been before us in this parliament before. That is to strengthen workplace rights and entitlements. It is a great opportunity for the government to bring on Bill Shorten's private member's bill, which, as I said, would protect workers' pay from current and future decisions that would seek to perhaps reduce minimum wage in this country.
There is much more work to be done in this space in trying to truly eradicate worker exploitation in this country. I think a first step might be a generous sign of bipartisanship from members opposite, standing up for those workers who are about to get the chop on their Sunday penalty rates and are facing a loss of $77 per week out of their pay packets. That is a straight pay cut. People are going to have to work longer for less money, and regional communities, we know, are set to lose millions in the interim. If these cuts to Sunday penalty rates proceed, they will absolutely belong to the Prime Minister and to each and every Liberal and National Party member who stood by and did nothing.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (18:13): Whilst I welcome the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, I find it difficult to contain my dismay in speaking to this bill, as I find it outrageous that the Turnbull government have put this bill forward claiming that they are actually doing something for workers, especially after listening to the budget last night, where the Prime Minister and the Treasurer chose millionaires and multinationals over vulnerable workers. The Abbott-Turnbull governments have been dragged kicking and screaming to bring forward any measures to address exploitation of vulnerable workers. Whilst I support the bill, I want this government to note that our fight does not stop here, as this bill falls incredibly short of adequately protecting workers' rights and Australian jobs. Access to a job where workers' rights are protected is a human right. Try as this government may to pretend to be down to earth or one of us, the reality is that this government will never stand up and protect workers, and it will only ever be the Labor Party that will take up the fight for the underdog. It is really too hard for workers to believe that this government has even one iota of understanding of the issues facing average Australians today, especially our most vulnerable workers. It is a bit rich when you have members in the Turnbull government wearing expensive cashmere jumpers and stashing millions in the Caymans.
This bill falls short of Labor's suite of policies and legislative reforms. The measures in this bill simply do not address the extent of worker exploitation, which is of rampant proportions, under this LNP government. This bill does nothing to address combating sham contracting; licensing labour hire companies; shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities; reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers; criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the FWA in relation to temporary overseas workers; or making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. But what we have seen is the focus very clearly on unions as the enemy. And it is very clear that unions are the only safety net that a vulnerable worker has.
What about the elephant in the room: the huge, gaping hole that affects 700,000 workers, more than 13,000 workers in the Herbert electorate and more than 42,000 across North Queensland? Nowhere in this bill are penalty rates protected. It is clear that the Prime Minister is trying to draw a line in the sand and clearly ignore the rights of hundreds of thousands of Australians who will receive one of the largest national pay cuts since the Great Depression.
The Turnbull government seem to want to Americanise Australia. They want to privatise Medicare. They want to ruin our public and Catholic education systems. And they want a clear class divide where it appears that the rich can get richer and the poor can simply get poorer. If that is not bad enough for the poor, they also want to cut the wages of over 700,000 vulnerable Australians, and 13,000 of those are in the electorate of Herbert.
I stand here today to say to the Prime Minister that the Herbert community does not want an Americanised Australia. We want access to quality health care when we are sick. We want all children to have access to quality education that meets the needs of every individual student. We want a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and we do not want your wage cut.
The member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, said penalty rates were a huge impediment in the Far North Queensland area, wiping out small business and adding to the region's unemployment. Just how out of touch can he be? Every week I visit at least one small business owner. Out of all of my visits since I have been elected, there are two major problems that regularly get mentioned to me, and they are the rising cost of electricity and the cost of commercial leasing. Penalty rates to date have not rated a mention.
Whilst businesses are closing across North Queensland, the Turnbull government and the member for Leichhardt are turning a blind eye to the real issues facing North Queenslanders. If the Turnbull government really wanted to do anything for small businesses in North Queensland, we would have seen the government match Labor's commitment of $200 million for a hydropower station at the Burdekin Falls Dam, a dam that is five times the size of Sydney Harbour. What is good for the south is surely good for the north as well, yet there is no mention in the budget. Instead, this government will continue to peddle its myths and blame the underdog for businesses closing instead of addressing the real issues.
The Turnbull government had better heed this warning. If you do not, and you do not act to protect penalty rates, you can say goodbye to your member for Capricornia, adios to the member for Flynn, bon voyage to the member for Forde and selamat tinggal—that is Malaysian for goodbye—to the member for Dawson.
I implore this government to support Labor's private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017, which would stop the cuts to penalty rates because we believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. But today's bill is at least a start. Labor have had to leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the Turnbull government to follow, and we will continue to lead the way until vulnerable workers are protected.
Under the noses of this LNP government, there have been shocking allegations and proven cases of worker exploitation and undermined rights. We have all seen the headlines about the disgusting treatment of workers—for example, about Pizza Hut. On news.com, we saw 'Pizza Hut drivers "paid as little as $5.70" per delivery'. On 7-Eleven, in The Sydney Morning Herald we saw 'How 7 Eleven is ripping off its workers'. On the Baiada Group, on SBS we saw 'Foreign workers exploited at chicken production plants'. Multinationals have been making enormous profits by exploiting vulnerable workers who are too afraid, in the main, to speak out.
Every affected worker had to prove that these companies were significantly underpaying them, as if it was not already blatantly obvious. At the moment, it is too hard for vulnerable workers to prove that they have been underpaid where the employer fails or refuses to provide pay slips. This is a significant imbalance of power, which should be addressed by placing the onus on the employer who has breached the act by failing to keep proper records to prove that the worker was paid correctly. The onus of proof should be reversed so that the accessories to a contravention of workplace laws, such as the franchisors, are required to establish that they did not know or could not reasonably have known about the contravention. This is stronger than the test in this bill, which places an evidential but not a legal burden on franchisors. As elected representatives, surely it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that everyone is given a fair go. We must enact legislation and be the measure of balance to ensure that no-one is being exploited. The Turnbull government must do more. They need to do more.
Although, I overall support this bill, I attach to my support an addendum that more needs to be done to protect vulnerable workers, and it starts with protecting penalty rates. In my electorate of Herbert, where unemployment is now at 11 per cent and youth unemployment is nearly at 20 per cent, we have many vulnerable workers who are not even getting an opportunity to engage in the employment marketplace, let alone have their working rights protected. This is simply not good enough. We have young people who have no access to an apprenticeship, because there are no jobs where apprenticeships are offered to them. We have an aged care industry where we know that people are being paid appallingly low wages. For most people working in the aged care industry, if they do not get to work on a weekend where they can get their penalty rates, they are forced to work two or three jobs. The same thing applies in the childcare industry. It is simply not good enough. I urge this government to take every step that it possibly can to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable citizens in our community.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (18:22): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. I was stunned last night. The Treasurer got up and we were all waiting to hear what he was going to say. I thought I had seen it all since I have been in this House—it is coming up to 10 years; Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I think you have been here a bit longer than me—but I have never seen a government that has had such a level of incoherence in its internal thinking. They have spent four years now just hammering into workers conditions through the ABCC, through the registered organisations bill and through the latest round of penalty rate cuts. The member for Newcastle was talking before about that in relation to the last election. This harks back to the history of the Liberal Party, which has always been about—except for the occasional ceasefire—hacking into working Australians and benefiting the top end of town. I do not mind if that is the philosophy, but what we had last night from the Treasurer was a speech of cant and incoherent babble, really. What really stuck in my craw was this bit—and I will quote him here:
And it’s been a fair while since most hardworking Australians have had a decent pay rise.
He says this to the House in the budget speech on the one night of the year when people are really paying attention to what goes on in this House. I do not think most Australians are tuned in at the moment.
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: My colleague opposite is being unkind about my speaking skills. Here is the point: the people of Australia actually pay attention to see what happens on budget night. It is not just an economic document. It is a symbol of the values and political priorities of the government. We had this sort of cant about: 'Oh, geez, it's a pity hardworking Australians haven't had a pay rise. Gosh, who could possibly be responsible for that?' Well, I don't know. Maybe it is a government that sits on its hands when report after report comes down about the exploitation of workers. Maybe it is a government that cheers on cuts to penalty rates. It does not put a submission into the Fair Work Commission to say, 'A cut to penalty rates would be a bad thing for workers and it would be a bad thing for the economy, particularly when we have very little wage growth in the economy.' Does the government do that? No, the government does not. Why? Because government members are so obsessed with their own jobs. We have had two prime ministers and, I think, three or four defence ministers. There is a revolving door of ministerial appointments. Sadly, the deputy speaker did not get a geurnsey. The bar has been set so low that even my friend opposite can get a geurnsey these days. He is going right to the top; he will be in cabinet next. Maybe with the next leadership change you can get a geurnsey for cabinet. You are not in cabinet already, are you?
Mr Tudge: No.
Mr CHAMPION: No. Maybe next time. I made that mistake with Mr Ciobo. I was accusing him of being an assistant minister and he was actually in cabinet. Everybody was laughing behind me. I was not up—
Mr Tudge: It's not unusual for you not to be up with these things!
Mr CHAMPION: It is not unusual, but who can blame me if I cannot keep track of the ministerial changes under this government?
It is a very interesting situation we have here, I guess, when the government brings in this bill for protecting vulnerable workers. One can imagine, with its title, people listening to this broadcast think to themselves, 'That's good; it's got a good title.' What they do not know is the terrible, almost negligent—not almost, it is negligent—delay, when we know workers are being exploited and when we know workers are being mistreated, and those in government just kind of sits on its hands.
At the same time, it is cheering on cuts to penalty rates. At the same time we are getting reports about how we have to get stuck into the trade union movement either through the registered organisations bill or through the ABCC. There is this sort of idea that we should turn the screws every day on the only institutions in this country that really have their heart in protecting workers—the trade union movement. The trade union movement is not without its flaws, but overall it has been a patriotic, decent and very Australian institution which has added to the character of this country right from Federation onwards. We have one of the few constitutions in the world which has an arbitration power in it and protection for workers in it. Why is that in there? Because they had to get workers' votes and they had to get the support of trade unions to get Federation up, so the arbitration power was put in there, I think, after two or three referendums. The unions have added a great, important part of our culture: that idea of fairness.
The government received a report of Baiada Group with a date of publication of June 2015. That report said there has been:
Non-compliance with a range of Commonwealth workplace laws,
Very poor, or no governance arrangements, by all parties in the various labour supply chains,
Exploitation of a labour pool comprised predominantly of overseas workers in Australia on the 417 working holiday visa.
Exploitation included significant underpayments, extremely long hours of work, high rents for overcrowded and unsafe worker accommodation, discrimination and misclassification of employees as contractors.
I know that this also affected Australian workers, so this report was no news to me. If you went down and asked the South Australian branch of the National Union of Workers they could have told you all of this. These reports were around well before. There were newspaper reports and other information in the public domain well before the report from the Fair Work Ombudsman. But this government got an official report from a government body, and what did it do? Nothing.
Then we fast forward. There are many newspaper articles, including some good work by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age about worker exploitation. Then the government got a report on 7-Eleven in April of 2016. Again, there are a whole range of issues. The executive summary states:
Investigations of stores included in the 20 store sample and of stores investigated as part of the wider Inquiry have led to a range of enforcement actions, including:
seven matters filed before the Federal Circuit Court
one Enforceable Undertaking made
20 Letters of Caution issued
14 Infringement Notices issued
three Compliance Notices issued
over $293 500 recovered for workers.
So what do the government do in response to that? Well, we know what they did: they did nothing. They just continued on their merry way—the ABCC, registered orgs and cuts to penalty rates—as if this is not going on.
I have some personal experience about these matters, and I will tell the House about them, because the other side of parliament is always telling us about how people in the Labor side went to university and never had a real job and blah, blah, blah. We hear that from those opposite all the time. But I have had some experience in this because I was a trolley collector for a while and I was a cleaner for a while. I worked for a company that did not pay its penalty rates, often did not pay its workers and had a boss who, while he was a nice enough fellow, you would have to chase sometimes for your wages and sometimes for other things. He would always try and slip one by you. You had to keep an eye on him. He was always going around in the trolley collection game and in the cleaning game undercutting his competitors. The way he did it was that he sliced and diced workers' wages. He did not pay penalty rates.
Mr O'Dowd: Why didn't you pay your union fees?
Mr CHAMPION: My friend says, 'Why didn't I pay my union fees?' Well, because I got told by the supervisor, 'If you join a union, you will get the sack.' The member for Flynn acts like this is some sort of surprise, but he knows that this goes on. He is a truck driver—an owner of trucks. He knows how the real world works. He knows that supervisors say that to workers sometimes: 'Join the union, you get the sack.'
Mr O'Dowd: Not up our way.
Mr CHAMPION: Not up his way? That is bulldust and you know it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! There will be no interjections.
Mr CHAMPION: A lot of workers in this country want to join unions but they are not allowed to. They are specifically told by their employers. That is what is happening today. I remember when this company eventually folded. By that time I was not working there but my friend Spike was. He had trouble getting his wages and all the rest of it. I said, 'That is pretty bad luck,' and he said, 'It is not as bad for me as it is for the other guys who went into subcontracting trolley collection contracts.' These guys were owed big money—$12,000, $10,000 and all that sort of stuff. There is a chain of contracts and, of course, when the top company went under everybody else lost their money. And it was real robbing Peter to pay Paul stuff, a real race to the bottom. Of course, the only real winners in all of this were Coles and Woollies. They were the ones who were getting the cheap trolley collection contracts. It is not like the workers were winning and it is not even like the small business were winning, because they went broke. They could not do it. They could not undercut themselves into business. We had this whirlpool of competition. You still see it going on today. The Fair Work Ombudsman still has to really focus on trolley collection and cleaning in particular, because they are areas where contracts go to the lowest common denominator. It was not uncommon when I was a union official to meet trolley collectors who were paid $5 an hour, and if you tried to get them to take action they often would not because they were afraid of losing their jobs. We absolutely know that that goes on today.
What is worse than that going on—it went on in my day—is that now it is becoming the norm. It is the norm. There is a vast army of exploited workers out there who operate in an area of a grey labour market where nobody enforces their rights and where they cannot enforce their rights and where they are terribly exploited, in terms of both their wages and conditions and safety and standards. That is against the Australian way. Even the National Party know it. I know that one of the members from Queensland has done quite a bit of work on this because he knows it is not fair to have this army of guest workers in this country exploited and abused and have them being competition for Australian workers.
All the while, this government, while it is hacking into penalty rates, ignores the abuses. It is now blackguarding the unemployed, saying there is this vast army of people out there who will not get a job—absolute nonsense. The reason they cannot get a job is because there is a vast army of exploited workers on 417 visas and other visas taking many of these positions where people might get their start.
The government rolled this bill in here this week very quickly. It is another patch-over on a prime ministership that is failing, on a government that is incoherent, on a government that has had multiple personnel changes and is completely lacking any philosophical underpinning other than being in office. This is why the member for Warringah is so outraged. Whatever you say about the member for Warringah, he stood for something.
If the government wants to convert on the road to Damascus, what it should do is pass Bill's bill. The Leader of the Opposition has introduced a bill into this House which closes down sham contracting, which licenses labour hire firms, and which shuts down phoenixing of firms to avoid the payment of wages, superannuation, conditions, annual leave, redundancy pay and the like. The taxpayer picks up the bill for all of that. Bill's bill criminalises coercion or threats that are used in the commission of breaching of FWA in regards to overseas workers—we know this is happening—and it improves unpaid wage recovery, which is absolutely critical. That is what the government should do. If it is going to do a backflip, if it is going to pretend that it is protecting vulnerable workers, why not go the whole way and just pass the Leader of the Opposition's bill? Pass the Labor bill because we are the only ones who can be relied on to support workers, to protect workers in this country. It has been ever thus; that is our mission.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:37): I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. I do so though with a sense that picks up a fair amount of the sentiment that we have just heard from the member for Wakefield. This is a bill put forward by the government when their hearts are hardly in it. Whilst, on the face of it, the issues it addresses are worthy and deserve support hence the fact that we are supporting it, what really shines out from this proposed piece of legislation is the opportunity that is lost.
Sure, it is a welcome development to increase penalties for serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act. It is of course important to increase penalties for failures in record keeping. We do welcome greater responsibility on franchisors in the franchisor-franchisee relationship; although what is proposed here is pretty limited. It is a good thing to prohibit employers from putting in place unfair demands on employees, which, in essence, ask people to pay for a job, particularly in a context where you are talking about noncitizens who are working in the Australian labour market under some form of temporary work visa. Those are good things to do. But there is so much more to be done than to pretend that those measures alone will address the kinds of abuses and exploitation that we have seen in recent years in the Australian workplace. It is plain fantasy. This is not a Band-Aid; it is not even that. What we have is a really significant issue out there and this was an opportunity for the government to come forward and meaningfully address it. Whilst the specific measures in the bill are okay for what they are, they go only a small way down the road of actually dealing with the tremendous issue of worker exploitation and, particularly, of people who are noncitizens who are working in Australia under a temporary working visa and who often do not know our laws and are unable to access services that represent them in the workplace in the same way that citizens do. Measures could be put in place to stop those people, who are very vulnerable, from being exploited.
We do not see those measures in this bill, because, as I said, the government's heart is not in it. They are not serious about putting in place measures in the workplace that could really promote workplace rights and fairness. The governing party today are the party of Work Choices. We saw, in their heart of hearts, what they truly believe should occur in the workplace through that legislation, which is now infamous in Australian political and industrial history. Whilst we have not seen all of that re-emerge, be under no illusion that the fantasies of going down that path are still very much harboured in the hearts of those opposite.
As the member for Wakefield rightly said, if you were serious about actually trying to deal with issues of workplace rights and fairness in the workplace, you would do something towards empowering collective action, collective bargaining and trade unions. Trade unions have been the most important phenomenon in this country's history for providing balance and equality in the workplace. They are the most important phenomenon in this country for providing what has been, over the journey, a relative equality of wage outcomes in Australia compared to the rest of the world, although that equality is fast eroding. Unions matter deeply in terms of promoting fairness and rights in the workplace.
The government is run by a party that is plainly opposed to all of what I have just said. They do not believe in collective rights. They would like workplaces that are based on individual workers having to negotiate one on one with large multinational companies, as if there is something remotely fair or equal about that. Of course, it is worth spending a moment of this, because it goes to how deeply illogical and unfair that proposition is. In a commercial context, the Trade Practices Act prohibits moments of unequal bargaining power and situations that give rise to that. The Trade Practices Act seeks to regulate agreements that are struck in those situations. There is a notion of equality of bargaining power contained in the Trade Practices Act. When you are talking about company to company, that notion is there. It ought to apply in an industrial context as well. There is no way that anyone would think it is remotely fair that a single individual on a wage of $50,000 or $60,000 a year can negotiate on any kind of equal footing with a company with revenues of tens of millions of dollars. There is nothing fair or equal about that, which is why collective bargaining is so important in the workplace and the role of unions is so important. If this government was serious about addressing the kinds of issues that they say need to be addressed in the context of this bill, they would go there. But we will see pigs fly across this chamber before that day ever comes, because it is not in their DNA. Fundamentally, they do not believe it and, as a result, what we have on the table now as a proposed bill is really a shallow, skin-deep attempt to deal with what is a really significant problem.
Make no mistake, there is a real problem out there. You only need to look at the events that we have seen over the past few years, including the incident of Myer, who were using cleaners that were employed by sham contractors, and the really appalling situation that we saw at 7-Eleven with a systematic exploitation of vulnerable workers who were here under temporary work arrangements, which effectively saw their exploitation at the heart of a business model. That is the kind of thing which needs to be dealt with. We saw in respect of Pizza Hut—
Mr Tudge: Clean Event!
Mr MARLES: Clean Event is not remotely the same kind of proposition as what we are talking about here. There we were talking about people who were being paid in accordance with the law, but this is not what we are talking about in any of what I have just described. That just shows how little is understood about the industrial situation and how, when there is an opportunity to go to the politics of a matter, that is where the coalition will go. In terms of actually dealing with real people's rights, they understand nothing.
We saw in the Pizza Hut situation people being paid as little as $6 an hour under sham contracting arrangements. We saw supply chain arrangements which were put in place by Baiada Group which involved gross exploitation of those who were working under temporary visa working right arrangements in Australia. At Caltex people were being paid $13 an hour—half the legal rate—and not receiving tax returns. At Domino's there were allegations of franchisees actually selling visas to prospective overseas workers, again in a manner which involved pretty well a systematic underpayment of wages. That is what is going on out there. There is a genuine issue of exploitation of working people. It is particularly acute for those who are here working under temporary visa arrangements. As I said earlier, I think that is a function of those people not necessarily knowing their rights.
When I was working in the previous portfolio as the Labor spokesperson for immigration, I had—without naming the country—representatives of foreign countries coming to talk to me about the concern they had about the way their citizens were being treated in workplaces in our country. That says something about the significance of what is going on here. It goes to our standing in the world when you have got those kinds of representation being made, which is why we need to deal with this issue in a substantive and deep way rather than what we have got going on with this particular bill at the moment.
The lost opportunity that was provided here could have been taken up by looking at the kinds of proposals that Labor has been championing for many years now. At the beginning of 2016 Labor put out its Rights at Work policy. A number of the elements of that were contained in a private member's bill: the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016. That was introduced in March 2016 but was reintroduced on the Notice Paper in August of last year after the election.
It contains a whole lot of measures which would go significantly to dealing with the kinds of issues that this bill purports to deal with and deals with the kinds of problems that I have outlined such as ensuring that the Fair Work Act applies to all people in the Australian labour market irrespective of their immigration status. It required the Fair Work Ombudsman to publish information and provide material about workplace rights and, particularly, the relationship between rights that people have under our industrial laws, rights that exist under our immigration laws and how those relate to each other. It sought to put in place added protections for those in the workplace who speak out or, indeed, even ask questions about what their industrial rights may be. It sought to put in place a reasonable person test when applying a standard to determining whether a sham contract existed or did not. It sought to ensure that directors of phoenix companies could be pursued personally for the payment of unpaid wages to those workers who had not received the proper payment of their wages. Indeed, it would have provided a threefold increase of penalties for a failure to pay the correct wages. It would have provided for a power to disqualify directors of companies which had been involved in breaches of the Fair Work Act. It would have placed new criminal offences in relation to coercive conduct which led to slave-like conditions.
At the election last year, Labor announced a second tranche of policies going to this particular area in the workplace, such as reversing the onus of proof in respect of the accessorial liability provisions of the Fair Work Act—in other words, making it the case that a franchisor would need to prove that they were not involved in a breach of workplace laws that was undertaken by a franchisee—and also, and this goes to a point I mentioned earlier, broadening the way that operated so that it was not simply applied to the franchisee-franchisor model, which is one of the deficiencies of the bill that we have in front of us right now. Additional responsibilities for franchisors is a good thing, but it is limited to that particular kind of legal arrangement or a legal arrangement involving holding companies. But in fact there is a much broader range of legal arrangements where similar phenomena can occur. What we sought to do was to deal with all of those.
We wanted to put in place a legal burden on the accessory, the principal, if you like, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the direct employer—in the context of the franchisee-franchisor model this is the franchisee—to act consistently with Fair Work Australia. We were also seeking to put in place greater rights to pursue underpayment claims against franchisors and greater standing for workers for their representatives and indeed for the Fair Work Ombudsman.
In the time I have left, can I perhaps briefly mention that one of the greatest opportunities missed in this is of course dealing with the question of the Fair Work Australia penalty rates decision and the potential that has to undermine the take-home pay of so many thousands of Australians. We have a private member's bill put into this parliament by the Leader of the Opposition, as the member for Wakefield said. This was a perfect opportunity to support that bill, which would have protected the take-home pay of all Australians so that the decision of Fair Work Australia in relation to penalty rates would not apply and reduce take-home pay for those people.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:52): I rise today to support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017.
This is a bill that has been a long time in coming. Too long, but better late than never. While it does go some of the way in dealing with workplace exploitation, it is a shame that it does not go all the way. It is a start, but it certainly does not finish the job. For that, we will need to see a Shorten Labor government elected in order to introduce the measures that will go much further in stamping out the despicable exploitation of vulnerable workers in this country.
But as Crosby, Stills and Nash once said, 'If you can't be with the one you love then love the one you're with.' The purpose of this bill is to amend the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for serious contraventions of payment-related workplace laws; to prohibit employers asking for cash back from employees; to impose liability on franchisors for certain breaches by franchisees and subsidiaries over which they have significant control; to strengthen the ombudsman's power to gather evidence; and to prohibit anyone giving false or misleading information to the ombudsman or from hindering or obstructing an ombudsman investigator.
For too long we have seen too many examples of workers being let down or ripped off by employers, including by some of Australia's best-known companies. The exploitation of vulnerable workers has been examined in a number of reports, including by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee, which published A national disgrace: the exploitation of temporary work visa holders. Shortly after this report was published, the ombudsman published A report of the Fair Work Ombudsman's inquiry into 7-Eleven and A report on the Fair Work Ombudsman's inquiry into the labour procurement arrangements of the Baiada group in New South Wales. So none of this comes as a surprise; we have known of these issues for some time and it is long past time that we acted. The reports have documented numerous cases of systematic underpayment of worker entitlements, deliberately falsified records and coercion of workers to repay employers part of the employee's wages in cash.
The exploitation of workers is reprehensible. It undermines fairness and it tears the fabric of our society. It is bad enough when it is committed by backyard shonks and fly-by-nighters, but it is especially disturbing when it is part and parcel of the business model of some of our best-known and most trusted companies and brands.
One of those companies has been Myer. Instead of employing its own cleaners, Myer puts its cleaning contracts out to market. I can only speculate that it does this in order to drive down the cost of the work. In a bid to win the Myer contract, subcontractors submit bids, often with razor-thin margins. If they are successful, they seek to make their profit by slashing their costs. Unfortunately, this is where the workers are the meat in the sandwich. Their legally protected wages and conditions end up being seen not as a right but as a burden, to be avoided however possible. It ends up being the cleaners—the people who actually do the work to keep Myer looking glossy and glamorous—who pay the highest price. Myer's subcontractors have circumvented laws about minimum pay and conditions by engaging cleaners as contractors, not employees. For too long, Myer has been allowed to turn a blind eye to the people who clean its stores being exploited on sham contracts, as subcontractors to Myer's own subcontractors, resulting in below award wages, denial of penalty rates and superannuation, and the stripping away of occupational health and safety protections. Cleaners are people who work long, hard hours in the early morning, late at night and on weekends, in what is low-paid work even at award wages and conditions. For too long, they have been allowed to fall through the gaps of our national workplace protection laws.
This is what Minister Dutton said of the changes before this House:
Where the franchisor or holding company should have known of the breach, or a similar breach, but did not take reasonable steps to try to prevent it then they may be liable for the underpayments.
Unfortunately for vulnerable workers in Australia, even where this government is following Labor's lead it is falling short. This bill makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments only where they know or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions. This is very short of what Labor proposed. We reverse the onus of proof. What we would prefer to see is that franchisors be required to establish that they did not know or could not reasonably have known about the contravention. It reverses the burden of proof, the onus, on the employer such that they should have known something was going on and cannot just say, 'I didn't know. Leave me alone.' This is a stronger test which places evidential but not legal burden on franchisors, and it is a shame this government did not take that up in this bill. It should be the case also that, where a worker makes a claim for unpaid wages from an employer who has failed to keep proper employment records, the employer should have to prove that they have paid the worker what was owed. It should not be the other way around. The worker has no power in this relationship. The worker should not have to prove that they have not been paid; the employer should have to prove that they have.
Unfortunately, this bill also does nothing in relation to a range of policies which Labor took to the last election directed towards the combating of sham contracting, the licensing of labour hire companies and the shutting down of the practice of companies phoenixing, where they close down, liquidate and then start up again to avoid wage liabilities. It fails to take on reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers. It fails to criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers. It fails to make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies.
As well as Myer, we have seen in recent years chronic exploitation in 7-Eleven stores involving underpayment of wages, the doctoring of pay records and intimidation of workers. The footage of workers being made to hand back some of their earnings to their employers beggars belief, and it strikes at the heart of our culture of a fair go. I cannot speak for others on my side, but I would prefer to see those employers stripped of their assets and sent to jail, because there is no room for that filthy conduct in this country. We have seen Pizza Hut delivery drivers paid as little as $6 an hour in more sham contracting arrangements: 'Here's a hat, a shirt and a sign for your car. Congratulations. You're now a sole trader, contracted to deliver pizza.' It is an appalling misuse. We have seen supply chain arrangements adopted by the giant Baiada Group in its poultry-processing plant, which relied on gross exploitation of temporary overseas workers, who were forced to work dangerously long hours for far less than the minimum wage and, to add insult to injury, were housed in overcrowded, substandard accommodation.
These high-profile examples are just the tip of the exploitation iceberg that has been allowed to float and grow for too long. In 2014-15, the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered $22.3 million in back pay for more than 11,000 workers. I am sad to say my home state of Tasmania is not immune to the exploitation of vulnerable employees. Muffin Break, Pizza Hut and Caltex are just three who have underpaid their workers in the past couple of years, and there are live investigations into others.
It must be said that these investigations are often led or started by unions, organisations that this government enjoys demonising but that have proved absolutely vital to stemming this scourge of exploitation. Without unions visiting workers and workplaces, much of this exploitation would go uncovered. The harder this government makes it for unions to enter workplaces, the more it is helping facilitate the abuse of working men and women.
Labor has a long history of protecting workers and their rights in the workplace. We have always campaigned for workers getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and we always will. Labor acted more than 12 months ago to introduce legislation in the Senate to address the wholesale trampling of workers' rights that, sadly, has become rampant under this Abbott-Turnbull government. During last year's election, we promised the following: to crack down on the underpayment of workers with increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees properly; to ramp up protections for workers from sham contracting; to give the Fair Work Ombudsman the powers and resources to pursue employers who liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe their workers; and to introduce reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers are not being exploited and underpaid and that there is a level playing field for all workers in Australia. The bill we discuss today would be so much stronger if it had included these Labor initiatives.
While broadly supportive of the measures contained in this bill, we are wary of the government's ability to draft legislation which actually does what the government says it does and which does not have unintended consequences. The Senate Education and Employment Committee confirmed we are right to be on our guard. This bill will prohibit the practice of employers demanding unreasonable payments from their workers, such as that awful case of the 7-Eleven workers handing their money back. Labor is concerned that provisions containing this prohibition will not capture situations where employers in Australia essentially sell sponsorship of working visas to people before they enter Australia, as is alleged to have occurred at a Domino's franchise. The prohibition on demanding unreasonable payments from employees should extend to prospective employees as well.
Also absent from this bill is Labor's commitment to lock down dodgy labour hire firms, which employers sometimes use to try to evade their employee obligations. In both Queensland and Victoria, Labor state governments are combating unscrupulous behaviour within labour hire firms by introducing reforms and increasing regulation to protect workers. So this bill in its current form falls far short of what Labor proposed in the lead-up to the last election, which was to stamp out exploitation of workers. Nevertheless, it is a starting point.
Franchisees are now in a position where they will be personally held to account for workplace violations, which is appropriate and fair. Employers who deliberately and systematically deny workers their rights not only deny working people the right to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work; they undercut employers who do the right thing. And there are many employees who do the right thing. We all know of the shonks who get the work because they put in the cheapest bid, able to do so only because they cut corners on wages, conditions and safety. Every dodgy crim who gets away with this behaviour makes it harder for decent employers to win contracts. Increasing penalties for breaches is a strategy to encourage compliance, but the penalties have to be tough enough to act as a real deterrent, not just a slap on the wrist.
Natalie Jones from the Fair Work Ombudsman in her evidence to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry said:
These operators set up their business model on the basis that a successful investigation or a court imposed penalty is simply a calculated risk or the cost of doing business. They consider the likelihood of being caught … to be so low, that it is worth exploiting their workforce.
We need to stamp out this approach and make sure the penalties are tough enough.
Just in the last few seconds before we go, I will say this: let's be real. If the Turnbull government really cared about vulnerable workers it would stand up for penalty rates. Cuts to penalty rates coming in under this government will hurt some of the most vulnerable workers in this country. Up to 700,000 Australians are set to lose $77 a week. People will be working longer for less pay. Women are disproportionately affected, and regional communities like mine will have less money spent in their communities.
We have made it easy for the government. It does not have to do anything but come into this place and vote to support the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017. It will stop the cut, and that will help vulnerable workers. Thank you.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (19:07): I concur with the member for Lyons, who raised some very valid and accurate factual points to support the amendments to this bill. As secretary of Labor's Australian jobs task force, I have the honour and the privilege to hear some very heartfelt stories of workers who have been victims of exploitation and noncompliance in the workforce. These are the stories that really make you think: what is going wrong in this country? What can a government do to ensure that we do have compliance in our labour market? These are stories that pull at your heartstrings when you hear about the impact it has on these individuals' lives, on their mental wellbeing. It is absolutely astounding that we can sit here in this place—and particularly those on the other side, who are not even prepared to go out and speak to these people face to face and hear those stories. We are putting in place a bill that clearly does not go far enough. So I welcome this opportunity to speak about this legislation because protecting vulnerable workers should be an important role for this parliament.
Labor is supporting the legislation. While it does contain some measures to protect vulnerable workers, like increased penalties and strengthening the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman, as I said before, it just does not go far enough. When you hear these stories, you have to ask: why does this not go far enough? And I question the legitimacy of this government when it puts in place a bill when they are not prepared to go out and speak to these workers and listen to the stories that they tell. I know that imitation is the best form of flattery, but in some cases—in the parts of the bill that we do agree with, when you are pretending to be Labor when you are not—it just does not cut it. The coalition pretends to care about workers but I can say they do not, particularly not vulnerable workers. The coalition is not out there listening to these stories.
At the 2016 election, Labor developed a comprehensive suite of policies to protect vulnerable workers: combating sham contracting; licensing labour hire companies; shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities; reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protection for workers; criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers; and making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies. These are the things we need to be addressing.
You have to ask the question: if the coalition are truly serious about protecting vulnerable workers, why are these measures not included in this legislation? Companies' phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities is just one issue that needs addressing. A phoenix company is one that rises from the ashes of a failed company. It then begins trading as an identical business from the same location with a similar trading name to the other company's. The assets of the former company are transferred to the new company, and no consideration is paid for those assets. The old company then enters liquidation and leaves a number of creditors unpaid.
This practice is wrong, and it is wrong for two reasons. There is the financial loss suffered by the creditors of the former company when they go unpaid, and in nearly all cases the workers also miss out on their entitlements. It is also unfair for the competitors of the phoenix company. If a company is not paying its tax debts or trade creditors then its cost base is lowered, usually to the extent that a competitor cannot match its pricing.
In my electorate, one such company went into voluntary administration. As a result, it avoided creditor payments including employees' entitlements. One creditor was a competitor. I do not know how the so-called party of business would support these types of practices when other local businesses are being disadvantaged. This company transferred the employees to the new company—but with a catch. Under the old company, all employees, permanent, casual and seasonal, were covered under a single agreement. Under the new arrangement, the so-called new company negotiated a new agreement but split the workers off into two different tiers, permanent and casual. Despite their doing the same job at the same place, there are now two different employment arrangements, and of course the most vulnerable workers, the seasonal and casual ones, are worse off than they were under the former arrangements.
The exploitation of vulnerable workers is a nationwide issue. It reminds me of the example recently of seasonal workers in Queensland who made the headlines when a director of that company was treating those workers so poorly that the system actually worked in that instance. But there are many examples where the system does not work. In the Queensland example, seasonal workers were found to be living in inappropriate accommodation. These were workers from the South Seas. They were here—and some of them had borrowed money to come to Australia—to work. It was found that a majority of those workers had not been paid a single cent for the six months prior—not one cent. Some of the other workers, a small minority, were paid between $50 and $300 in cash for that six months work. That is appalling. That is happening under this government's watch, and unfortunately it is not the only case where that is happening. They were living in pretty ordinary accommodation where they were all cramped in together. They were paying fees. Those who were getting paid a small amount were charged a small amount to pay for some of that. Those who did end up going home went home in debt.
Unfortunately, in my electorate I hear stories of the Ni-Vans doing some of the seasonal work where in some cases they are getting charged exorbitant charges for transportation. When you have a bus of 20 Ni-Vans where they are getting charged around $100 a week to travel 10 kilometres to the farm, you have to wonder what is going on there. Why are these people, at the end of the week, left with nothing—absolutely nothing? They are paying exorbitant fees for their accommodation, for their transportation, for food and for other things while they are doing that work, which is really important work, and they are treated this way, where they are left with nothing in their pockets at the end of the week.
As part of the jobs taskforce, I was in Queensland recently and heard the story of a cleaner. She stuck her neck out through the union, who supported her to do this, when she realised that she was not getting paid the right rate, particularly for those after-hours shifts. She was being terribly underpaid. She stuck her neck out and said, 'This is not right.' So what happened? Her shifts were reduced. But the union investigated further and found that it did not just apply to her; it applied to thousands of other workers at this multinational company. They were not paid the correct rate of pay. So one person who thought, 'This is not right for me,' has actually made the situation for thousands of other workers better, and that was due to the support of the union.
I think we really need to start thinking about why the government, in particular, is bashing unions when unions seem to be the only body in this country with the resources and the interest to fight for workers and actually do the compliance. This is the problem. Other than unions, no-one is really resourced well enough to ensure that employers are complying with their obligations. We have workers who feel insecure in their work because they are, in most cases, casual workers. They are completely exploited and paid under the award rate, yet they do not know it. If they stick their necks out, they get treated like this lady and get reduced shifts and a financial loss. In this case, one person was brave enough to stand up and say, 'That is not okay,' and the unions were there to support her. I say to the other side: stop bashing unions and actually understand what they do and the role that they play in the Australian labour market. They are out there ensuring that employers are being compliant—because I tell you what: no-one else is doing it sufficiently. I have raised many examples, but you have to ask the question: how many other shocking examples of exploitation of vulnerable workers are out there?
There is another huge, gaping hole in this legislation that does not protect a group of vulnerable workers who are under attack by this government: workers that rely on penalty rates. These workers are some of the lowest paid in our community, yet this government is happy to support the cutting of their take-home pay. In Tasmania, around 40,000 Tasmanians stand to lose up to $77 a week. Those on the other side may not think that that is a lot of money, but the workers that I speak to know the value of that $77 and it is huge. It can make the difference in being able to fund school lunches for the week or put petrol in the car. It makes a massive difference to their lives.
The old census data revealed that there are over 7,500 workers in the retail, food and accommodation industries in my electorate. I have no doubt that this figure will increase when the latest census data is released showing the increasing trend of using casual and part-time workers. Tasmania already has some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. The McKell Institute has found that a partial abolition of penalty rates will result in the loss of disposable income in the Tasmanian economy of between $15 million and almost $30 million per annum. The impact of that on the economy in my regional electorate is huge. The small businesses out there really need to understand what this means for them. It means less money going through their tills at the end of the day and they need to really understand that this is an economy where you need to support your workers. You need to get that money flowing through because these workers will spend every cent that they have in the local economy supporting small businesses. How will the loss of this income from cities and regional communities be good for local businesses and economies?
It just gets worse, however. This government's support for cutting penalty rates will disproportionately affect women. Women dominate the sectors that will have wages cut: hospitality, retail, fast food and pharmacy. I ask the question: if the Prime Minister is so keen on supporting women and talks about women in a way that suggests he actually values women as participants in the workforce, why is he not saying that we should not support this wage cut? On average, women already earn 17 per cent less than men. How does it make sense to further cut the wages of low-paid women? But this government seems very happy to make low-paid women struggle even more just to get by.
Another story in my role as secretary of Australia's jobs task force was from speaking to a nurse. You might think they are not being affected by the penalty rates cuts but when they are going there and working long shifts 24 hours a day, every day of the week, they are thinking in the back of their minds, 'Are we next?' I spoke to a nurse as part of our hearings around penalty rates. She recalled a situation recently over Easter where she spent the evening on the oncology ward in a local hospital in Melbourne. She got home on the Sunday morning feeling pretty tired, mentally drained and then thought, 'How can I enjoy the festivities with my family after working a really long shift in that environment, looking after those people?' She started to think about the value of her work and the payment of penalty rates really, for her, was the only recognition of the value of the work she did—being away from her family over Easter, coming home in an emotional and drained state and not being able to enjoy those celebrations. She thought, 'Penalty rates are the only recognition that I have.'
We love nurses and value the work they do but when this nurse is feeling that penalty rates are being attacked by those on the other side, she starts to question the value of what is doing. Her daughter wants to become a nurse. She is advising her not to do it because she is concerned that in the future her work will not be valued. She broke down in tears. We were all in tears at the table when we heard this story. You have to start to question: what is the value of penalty rates? It is far more than money. She never once mentioned the dollars that she got through those penalty rates. She talked about the recognition of the value of the work she does—being there overnight with patients who were receiving palliative care.
I say to those on the other side: really start going out in your electorate and talk to these workers. Talk to workers that are being exploited. Start listening to those workers who are receiving penalty rates. Do yourself a favour. You might actually increase your votes at the next election. You might even save your seats at the next election. I am saying to you: if you are going to make this country great again, go out and start listening to these people. It is the least you can do.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (19:22): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. I commend the contribution made by my bench companion on this piece of legislation. Labor supports this bill; I say that up-front. It is past time that the Abbott-Turnbull government acted to protect vulnerable workers. This piece of legislation is not the panacea for protecting vulnerable workers but it is something—slightly more than nothing—I guess. But it does not go anywhere near the protections that the Labor Party announced 12 months ago.
Sadly, this piece of legislation will not combat sham contracting. It will not shut down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities, something that is particularly rife in the construction industry—and I say that with three brothers who work in that industry. It will not criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercian or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers—and I note that the member for Braddon touched on that in her contribution. It will not make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies and it will not protect the take-home pay of the most vulnerable workers, people who rely on penalty rates as so clearly detailed by the member for Braddon, those weekend workers who miss their families for others like my mum did. She was a nurse who gave up so much of her life, and penalty rates made the difference. I can remember her missing out on so many of our Christmases. My wife, when she was a child protection worker, missed out on Christmas Days to help other people but missed out on family. Penalty rates have been part of the recognition of that sacrifice. Sadly, the Prime Minister has shown where his priorities lie, once again, by not standing up for the lowest-paid workers.
He has failed to protect low-paid workers who rely on penalty rates to pay for their essential living expenses. Up to 700,000 Australians will lose up to $77 per week. It does not sound like a lot for some people, perhaps in the suburbs around Point Piper, but I can tell you that there are people who are terrified at the idea of losing $77 per week—people who will have to work longer for less pay. Women will be disproportionately affected and also regional communities. I say as a Queenslander that my state is more regional than any other state. Regional communities will have less money to spend in their communities. Labor believes that it is fundamental that workers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That is a not new concept in Australia. In fact, it is not a new concept in the world. Labor will not sit back and do nothing when it comes to protecting vulnerable workers.
Labor has a private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill, which, if passed, would stop the cuts to penalty rates. The power is in the Prime Minister's hands right now. He keeps hiding behind a decision of the independent umpire but forgets that he has the power to step up in a democratic system like this parliament and save these people from misery. We will always stand up for workers by continuing to press for the passage of this bill through the House. Sadly, this husk of a Prime Minister continues to do nothing.
We know that Prime Minister Turnbull and other members of the government actually support cuts to penalty rates. We know that because we have continually heard it from those opposite. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said in 2005 that he believes there should be a free market so that the cost of labour will be as low as possible. In 2014, on ABC radio, the Prime Minister said that it was 'nuts' that cafes and restaurants closed on weekends, because penalty rates were so high. The Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, said on Sky News in 2015 that 'in many industries in Australia, literally the seven days a week now are basically the same day'. I am sure she says that to every church that she goes to in the state of Western Australia. Senator Cash also said in 2015 that we need to cut penalty rates to be globally competitive. And they are not the only ones we have heard. The member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, said that he was particularly critical of 'unrealistic penalty rates'. Senator James Paterson, that great left-winger from Victoria, said that penalty rates will have to be 'tackled'. The member for Mallee, Andrew Broad, and the Minister for Aged Care and member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, have both considered that scrapping penalty rates may be a benefit—and I could go on. There are dozens and dozens over there who fundamentally do not get penalty rates.
The Turnbull government is basically supporting scrapping penalty rates. It does not support vulnerable low-paid workers keeping their take-home pay, despite the reality of the 2017 economic landscape. Let's have a look at that landscape Inequality is at a 75-year high. Not since the Great Depression have we seen inequality this high. Wages growth is at historic lows. In fact, in some quarters it has even gone backwards. Underemployment is at record lows, particularly amongst young Australians. This is not the time to give our most vulnerable workers another kick in the guts. We need to protect these workers who rely on penalty rates to feed their families, to pay their rent and to send their children to school.
The Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill will protect the take-home pay of vulnerable workers. It will protect the take-home pay of all workers under awards. Our modern award system is designed to be a safety net. It is described on the Fair Work Commission website as the 'minimum safety net for national system employees'. Labor's private member's bill will make sure that the minimum safety net for all employees is protected. I cannot stress enough how important it is for all Australians that we protect the take-home pay of workers under our award system. It would be unAustralian not defend it. In fact, last weekend I had some volunteers turn out in my electorate to speak to people about penalty rates on a Sunday. We had stalls in Acacia Ridge, Annerley, Fairfield, Moorooka, Rocklea, Runcorn, Salisbury, Sherwood and Sunnybank. Volunteers came out in force, generously giving up their weekend to support the take-home pay of our lowest paid workers. So a big thank you to Helen, Libby, Frank, Amber, Ben, Leah, Mark, Rod, Sasha, Donna, Laurence, Scott, Matthew, Ken, Annamaria, Scarlett and David—to name but a few. So many people came up to them to sign the petition to protect penalty rates that we ran out of paper.
So we know that Australians care about penalty rates even if they do not benefit from those penalty rates or even, in fact, if they will have to pay a bit more for their coffee, their nurse, their chef or whatever. We know that Australians care about penalty rates. Labor cares about penalty rates. But this government fundamentally does not care about penalty rates and does not care about workers' rights.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (19:30): Order! It being 7:30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Budget
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (19:30): I rise today to speak about this government's unfair budget, which was handed down just 24 hours ago and is already drawing much criticism by the everyday working people that I proudly come here to represent. It is a budget that hands millionaires a tax cut worth $16,400 but hits ordinary working men and women earning just $65,000 a year with a tax increase. It is a budget that the government claims is fair but fundamentally falls short of the things that matter, including by failing the basic fairness test. It is a budget that completely ignores the things that we desperately need in Western Sydney like education funding and investment in our Nepean Hospital. Instead it gives us a $5 billion white elephant of an airport at Badgerys Creek.
As the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, said in this chamber during the MPI this afternoon, a budget tells you a lot about the values and priorities of a government. It was very familiar to me because I said similar things when I made my very first speech in this place. It gives you a pretty clear idea of a government's competence, how they connect and engage with the broader population and what they want a country's future to look like. A budget is about choices, and last night this government led by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, made it crystal clear that they chose big business over middle- and working-class families, many of whom I have the absolute privilege to represent in this place.
We cannot just look at this budget in isolation. There is a broader context that feeds this government's incompetence when it comes to fairness and their absolute competence in disappointment, and it has been inflicted on our nation for the past four years. This morning we had government members sneak in here quietly and try to get away with reversing some of the most unfair measures ever inflicted on Australian people. They did this without even a word of remorse or contrition, not a breath of apology and certainly no explanation as to why this government spent four long years telling Australian people their unfair policies were the only way.
Every single member opposite has voted for these unfair policies because fundamentally they believe in them. Every single member opposite has spent time in their electorate and here in the parliament defending the policies they now seek to quietly see disappear. Australians will not forget what this government tried to do when they thought they could get away with it. No amount of pretending can undo the narrative of this government spending four years attacking those who could least afford it yet looking after their big business mates through unaffordable corporate tax cuts.
There has been a lot of commentary since last night saying this budget is in some way a white flag, with the government finally agreeing that their terrible policies do not have the support of the Australian people, because the Australian people are not mugs and can work out when someone or a government is a dud. But I do not agree. This budget is no surrender; it is a desperate ploy to postpone their devastating policies for the time being only.
But they cannot even get that right. When you dig into these budget papers, it is pretty clear that they have not really listened at all beyond the focus group. For our community Turnbull and co have committed over $5 billion—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lindsay will refer to members by their title or she will sit down.
Ms HUSAR: Thank you; I apologise. For our community, the Prime Minister has committed over $5 billion in taxpayer funds to build a second airport after the Sydney Airport Corporation has labelled the project not feasible. If Sydney Airport says it is not feasible, how will this government, with its proven incompetence with big projects like the NBN or even the comparatively simple task of a census, not to mention the robodebt scandal, manage a $5 billion project? I have to say this airport and funding commitment will do nothing to reduce our hospital waiting periods, which are the longest in New South Wales, and nothing to contribute to the education of the young people in my community who most need it. It will not provide skilled jobs for the community it will impact most negatively on.
An airport will do nothing to reduce the congestion on our roads in Lindsay and will do nothing to ease the pain of the public transport disaster. It will do nothing to make houses more affordable for my local families. Yet again the things we actually need in Western Sydney are being neglected and ignored. Instead of delivering on services and supporting the working families, we have a government tone-deaf to the things that actually matter.
On top of this, the budget confirms the $22 billion being ripped out of Australian schools—this from a government that promised to match Labor's school funding plan dollar for dollar at the last election. It is an absolute disgrace for this Prime Minister and his unfair government to try and pass off their new plan as better for Australian kids. It is a $22 billion cut, and that is according to their own briefing documents. Far from matching our plan, now they are cutting funding and reducing standards. That is their plan. It is shameful and harmful to our kids, and we will fight it every single step of the way.
Budget
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (19:35): It is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of the 2017 budget and report on the positive impact it will have on my electorate of Berowra. This budget includes vital measures to ease the pressure on housing affordability. It will provide investment in infrastructure and education; the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and help to small business owners.
I hear every day about homebuyers struggling to afford a house in my electorate. I have been contacted by many residents on this issue, especially young families looking to enter the housing market. I welcome the plans the Treasurer announced last night to help first home buyers save for a home deposit sooner by allowing them to make voluntary contributions into their superannuation accounts at lower tax rates. I am particularly pleased to see the release of Commonwealth land for the construction of new houses as part of this package, as it is something I previously advocated for to the responsible minister.
I am often contacted by residents with concerns about traffic congestion and the quality of roads in our communities. Our government has pledged significant investments in several key infrastructure projects in Berowra. This year will see the continued funding of NorthConnex, linking the M1 and M2 motorways and taking 5,000 cars and trucks off Pennant Hills Road every day. Pennant Hills Road is the worst road in Australia. This year, $50 million of Commonwealth funds will be spent on NorthConnex. This budget pledges a further $1.1 million to road infrastructure investment in Berowra, including over $167,000 in construction on Citrus Avenue in Asquith, $750,000 on four sections of Annangrove Road in Kenthurst and Annangrove, $200,000 in resurfacing of Cattai Ridge Road and Old Northern Road, and almost $70,000 on road pavement patching on Kenthurst Road. Each of these upgrades will improve safety and will reduce the cost of maintenance of our local roads.
One of the biggest assets in Berowra is the quality of our schools and the education they provide our children. Total federal government funding for all schools in my electorate amounts to almost $1.12 billion over the next decade, supporting the 51 government, Catholic and independent primary and secondary schools and the over 26,000 students that attend Berowra schools. But 2027, the 35 government schools in my electorate will receive more than $514 million in funding. The 12 independent schools will receive more than $467 million in Commonwealth funding. And over $137 million will be contributed to the Catholic education system on behalf of the four systemic schools in my electorate.
I acknowledge there are two schools in my electorate that will receive less funding than they have under previous arrangements: Mount St Benedict at Pennant Hills, and Oakhill College. Following the Minister for Education's announcement last week, I reached out to both of these schools to discuss the changes and to see if there was anything I could do to assist them. I thank the principal, the acting principal and the council chairs of both schools for the constructive approach they adopted. I am a strong supporter of the schools and school communities in my electorate and I have been advocating to the Minister for Education on behalf of all Berowra schools to ensure that he understands the needs of our schools. I look forward to continuing to work with schools as the funding program is implemented.
The idea of the fair go is an important part of being an Australian. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is currently being rolled out across Australia, and there is a huge amount of support for it in my community. The program will help nearly 2,000 people living with a disability in Berowra. I have spoken to several organisations who do great work in this space, including Northcott, Studio Artes, Inala, Clark Road School and Warrah School, which I will visit next week. I have also met with constituents who are seeking assistance from the NDIA. It is clear how important the NDIS will be to participants, their families and carers. On 20 March 2013, the Leader of the Opposition posted on his Facebook wall:
NDIS passed the Senate today – a reality that is long overdue and a testament that good government can change lives for the better.
Yet by the end of their disastrous term in government the Labor Party had left us with an unfunded promise and a $4.1 billion funding gap in the NDIS in 2019-20, the first full year of the operation of the scheme.
It is all very well to devise a program like the NDIS, but it is another thing to actually come up with a way to fund it. If that is what the Leader of the Opposition does when he is responsible for one program, imagine what he would do if he had control of the whole of the Commonwealth's purse strings. The modest increase to the Medicare levy announced last night will ensure the full funding of the NDIS into the future and is an appropriate contribution to pay for a program that will support some of the most vulnerable members of our Australian community.
In addition to the recently legislated tax cuts, this budget will deliver additional support for the nearly 17,000 small businesses in my electorate. By extending the instant asset write-off, Berowra small businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million will continue to be able to immediately write-off expenditure up to $20,000 for a further year. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (19:40): Judging by this year's budget, there is likely to be one particular group of people that is more disappointed than anyone else. That is the Liberal MPs, both state and federal, representing South Australia. That is because they need to go back to their electorates and explain why this Liberal coalition government completely ignored South Australia in the budget last night. If there was ever any doubt, the 2017 budget has confirmed this government's utter contempt for South Australians. There is absolutely no contribution for South Australian infrastructure projects. There is $70 billion for roads, rail, ports and airports across the country, but not one single dollar for South Australia. This means there is nothing for our roads and certainly nothing for the roads in my electorate—like Marion Road, which prior to the 2016 election the Prime Minister and the then member spruiked as one of their big developments. There is no money for South Road and certainly not for Oaklands Crossing.
The Civil Contractors Federation of South Australia's CEO, Mr Phil Sutherland, said today:
Make no mistake—despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, SA has been severely short changed on funding for major infrastructure projects needed in this state.
Other states have received billions of dollars in the budget, while SA—again, the poor relative—receives a pittance.
The state's peak transport industry lobby group, the South Australian Freight Council, today released a statement expressing their disappointment as well. Their statement says:
There is no new South Australian road infrastructure funding, no funding for SA freight rail projects, and no guaranteed funding for new passenger rail in SA—including the proposed AdeLINK tram network.
The AdeLINK network is a perfect example. It is proposed to go through the centre of my electorate, extending the tram to the beachside suburb of Henley Beach and, of course, to the Adelaide airport. This would create hundreds of jobs and boost the local economy, the local area and transport in the western suburbs. It is estimated that it would create 2,000 jobs over the life of the project. Clearly, we are now not important enough for the Turnbull government, because South Australia will have to jump through multiple hoops to have any chance of funding, while other states just get their projects funded. That does not seem fair at all.
There is also nothing in the budget for the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project within my electorate of Hindmarsh. This is despite the fact that doing nothing to address flooding puts residents and businesses in great danger. It is despite the fact that doing nothing could jeopardise important federal infrastructure, such as the Adelaide Airport and the Keswick rail interchange. It is despite the fact that addressing the flooding problems would yield over $240 million in community and economic benefits and jobs for the state of South Australia. It would create hundreds of jobs and secure, most importantly, 2,000 households and businesses in my electorate from flooding.
There is also absolutely nothing in the budget to help local industry and manufacturing. There is nothing in it for Whyalla and the steelworks. There is certainly nothing for Holden workers or associated automotive workers, and we all know how they were chased out by the then Treasurer, Mr Hockey, in 2013. And there is nothing for smaller manufacturers who are providing much-needed training and employment opportunities, like Rossi boots in my electorate of Hindmarsh. The federal government failed to give them a contract last year to locally produce boots for the defence forces, choosing instead a company that manufactures overseas—so much for jobs and growth, so much for the rhetoric we heard before the election. All we heard was 'jobs and growth' but here are some classic examples that could create jobs and growth for the economy. This budget adds insult to that injury and it hits Australians with higher taxes and cuts to schools. (Time expired)
Budget
Ms LEY (Farrer) (19:45): I want to talk about the very positive elements from last night's budget which are set to benefit my electorate of Farrer. There was quite a number of measures of which I am rightly proud. Improvement to counselling for Defence Force personnel has the capacity to greatly improve the lives of up to 1,180 veterans and their families living in Farrer. Fully funding the NDIS will directly help an estimated 3,484 people in my electorate. Our tax relief for small business will provide a tax cut for 20,713 local businesses, and a similar number will also be able to take advantage of the extension to the instant asset write-off for expenses of up to $20,000. And the lifting of an indexation freeze for financial assistance grants to local government will literally pump millions of dollars back into the hands of 14 local councils.
As good as these initiatives are—and they are good—by far the most important long-term proposal we announced last night is the confirmation and go-ahead for the Australian Rail Track Corporation to construct the inland Brisbane to Melbourne rail route. Last night was indeed a rail budget. There was: $100 million for the north-east line, which makes its way to Albury and is a vital public transport link between us and Melbourne; $20 million for the Murray Basin rail project; and $10 million to assess new passenger rail links. By also making inland rail a reality, we are committing $8.4 billion in new equity, which will benefit one of my most important constituencies—by that, I mean farmers. Not that the urban communities of Albury, Griffith, Corowa and Deniliquin are all farmers but in some way or form, each of us relies on agriculture for our existence and prosperity.
The inland rail route will encourage open access, providing the chance for primary producers as well as my local manufacturers and industries to put more freight on rail. The selected route, at least in my part of the world, will follow the existing line from Parkes down to Wagga through to Albury Wodonga and on to Melbourne. I acknowledge there was an alternate proposal by the National Trunk Rail, which would have followed the so-called food bowl route in southern New South Wales. This would have taken a more westerly alignment through Narrandera, crossing the Victorian border at Tocumwal on the way to Melbourne via Shepparton in the Goulburn Valley.
Last night's budget committed additional resources to help communities that will not be directly located on the main north-south corridor so they can also reap the benefits of inland rail. Additional use of existing connecting rail links to the proposed inland rail route will be encouraged, and there is an additional $10 million in works to boost rail connectivity to the Goulburn Valley. Currently, rail freight from Deniliquin and Tocumwal travels through this area to the Port of Melbourne and these routes will be included in a new study. Of course I welcome this commitment but I do suggest that we can go further. Food producers and council representatives from the southern food bowl route argue strongly this western option in our government's thinking must remain alive. We still have time to further investigate the option of fully linking the eastern and western options through southern New South Wales and northern Victoria.
To be blunt, the Australian Rail Track Corporation does not have high reputation in my part of the world. Remedial works done by the ARTC on the north-east track which services V/Line passenger rail between Seymour and Albury was, to quote my neighbour, the member for Indi, 'a shambles'. As a result, there is a crisis of confidence of the ARTC in my region and that needs to be addressed. Has full market testing and cost benefit ratio has been done to ensure we are collecting every piece of available freight to export? Does the route collect the right products and does it take it directly from port to port?
In the distance of the planned feeder rail lines to the main north-south route, is the distance short enough to actually encourage taking freight off-road? I am not sure that we have fully answered all of these questions. The ultimate aim is for inland rail to connect regional Australia to domestic and global markets, bringing Australian rail into the 21st century and building a stronger and more competitive nation. This is $8 billion in taxpayer funds and, as the government of the day, we owe it to everyone to make this project all that it can be. I will continue to work closely with those who support both inland route options to ensure that is exactly the outcome we achieve.
Budget
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:50): Like most here last night, I went from the budget speech to the budget papers looking specifically for things that I thought I might find in this government's latest budget. The first thing I looked for was a commitment to the irrigators in my electorate, the Werribee South growers, to match the state contributions and the stakeholder contributions on an upgrade to the Bacchus Marsh and Werribee irrigation districts. I was sorely disappointed. A mere $11 million is required to ensure the completion of a complete upgrade, and the federal government should be prepared to make that contribution. But, no, it was not there.
To talk about our food bowl in Werribee South, we are 30 kilometres from Melbourne city centre. Our vegetable growers produce 85 per cent of the state's cauliflowers, 53 per cent of the broccoli and 34 per cent of the lettuce for major supermarket chains. This is a project that needs support from this federal government and yesterday they failed to deliver that support to the growers in my electorate—growers, I must say, that have done an enormous job for many years now, for decades now.
The growers do four crops a year in my electorate. It is fantastically resilient soil but it can only take high salinity levels for so long. The answer is in an upgrade to the irrigation channels; a replacement of concrete irrigation channels that are cracked and are losing 40 per cent of water through evaporation. They have put up with that, they have taken recycled water in a shandy mix and they have changed practices because of the high salinity levels. They need support now to get that upgraded. This government has it within its power to deliver for those growers and it needs to think about that. I did expect some commitments last night, given the national significance of our growing district. I am sorely disappointed, as I know our growers will be, that this government did not see fit to match its contribution and the state government's contribution to ensure that we continue to grow the vegetables, and that we continue to have the employment rates and the successful businesses in the area. There is a lot of talk today in this chamber about small businesses. Well the small business growers in my electorate would like some love from this government.
Obviously, I knew already of the $22 billion cut to education, to schools across the country, and I knew what that was going to mean to the 56 schools in my electorate. We were also already aware of the $3 billion cuts to universities. We were already aware that this government likes to kick kids while they are down and in the process was going to reduce the threshold for when loans would be repaid. It is just more sad news for people in my electorate.
What I was really expecting to see in last night's budget and what I am most bitterly disappointed about today is that they failed to deliver that centrepiece on housing affordability that they had teased the populace with over the last few months. They did not deliver on the federal levers that could impact positively on housing affordability. I represent a community that lives in a growth corridor, and we know a lot about housing affordability. We are one of the affordable areas of Melbourne's outer regions where people can still manage to put together some kind of a deposit and get themselves into some housing. But I laughed today at question time to hear that the Treasurer thinks that $30,000 will get you a deposit into the housing market in Melbourne, even in the outer western fringe. You cannot buy much for 300 grand in the outer west of Melbourne. I can only imagine what a $30,000 deposit would get you in Sydney.
So they have failed to do what they could have done, which is to use those federal levers to really have a positive impact. They have failed to put the plans that Labor put forward at the last election into this budget, and in so doing they have let down millions of young Australians who can no longer look forward to being part of the Australian dream and who now have to make a choice between their superannuation, a university degree and the increased cost there, and a deposit for a house. They have dreadfully failed the young people in this country in this budget—as they have failed women.
The last thing I looked for last night about which I thought we might see a glimmer of hope was a report somewhere in the budget about the impacts on women. Again this government failed in an area that had been highlighted for them to address. (Time expired)
Budget
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (19:55): Tonight I rise to speak about last night's budget and the benefits that it has given to the electorate of Maranoa, which I proudly represent. I think we as a government should be very proud of the fact that we have put in place a budget that gives real focus to rural and regional Australia, real focus around infrastructure and environment for those people in regional and rural Australia to prosper. That is what our job is as a federal government. It is not to get involved in the daily lives of people but to put in place the infrastructure and environment to allow them to innovate, to grow, to build their businesses and to build their communities. That is what this budget has done.
I think one of the proudest things for which we as a government should stand tall is the $8.4 billion that we committed to inland rail. This is no longer a pipe dream. This is not something that has been sitting out there for 20 years and will never happen again. This is now real and happening, and it is because our government has made a serious commitment, understanding that it will be a corridor of commerce that will open up inland Australia. It adds to the $894 million that we have already spent on this, and, no matter the outcome of the next federal election, no government of any persuasion will be able to turn back this great decision that our government has acted on in this budget. This is a forward step for the people of rural and regional Australia and a forward step for the nation because, if you have healthy regions, you have a healthy nation.
But it also complements the infrastructure that we have already put in place, particularly around my electorate and my good friend John McVeigh's electorate, which I border. There is $1.6 billion that we have put in place for the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing and $550 million for the Warrego Highway. The investments that our government has made have attracted private enterprise to go and invest. The Wagner family out of Toowoomba have created an export hub at an airport that they have created there in Toowoomba that is opening up my community to those trade agreements that each one of us in this government have put in place over the last three or four years. We can proudly look our people in the eye and say they are getting real value for the hard work that they do for the commodities that they produce in Maranoa. The story of Maranoa is 'just add rain'. If we get the rain, the people of Maranoa will be some of the wealthiest people in this nation because we have what the world wants and we have been allowed to open that up through the work that our government has done through the trade agreements.
But we have also understood that we need to invest in our communities, and the extension of the $200 million in the Building Better Regions Fund is just an example of that. We spent over $1 billion in this program that has invested in communities. It is not just about growing wealth for the individual; it is also about us putting back into local communities, building their resilience. I was in Winton only two weeks ago to turn the first sod on the rebuild of the Waltzing Matilda Centre. We have put $8 million into that project to rebuild what is a national icon that we as a nation should be proud and fiercely protective of to ensure that that is preserved as our nation's history.
But I also have to congratulate Senator Nash for reintroducing the Stronger Communities Program, which also allows those smaller organisations right across regional and rural Australia and metropolitan Australia to take advantage of a funding program that will help them do the things that they probably would not have the capacity to do. In Warra, a little community of 200 people, in this last round of this Stronger Communities Program we were able to get them money to invest into their local hall—a hall that brings people together two or three times a year. It is their social event. It holds the fabric of their community together.
We have also done a great job of setting the environment for our youth. I am proud to say that we are now investing in every school across Maranoa—all 167 schools across Maranoa and all 25,000 students across Maranoa—with an additional $391 million in funding over the next 10 years. Couple that with our investment in the NBN and dedicated data plans for distance education children. We should be proud of the fact that we are investing in the young people of regional and rural Australia, because, if we have good education facilities in electorates like Maranoa and in regional and rural Australia, we will keep the human capital that we need to remain in electorates like Maranoa to invest in and to build this nation, to build regional and rural Australia and to drive the nation's economy.
We should be proud of the fact that we have done this to ensure that those communities get the infrastructure and investment coupled with the tax cuts that we have done. We have set the right environment for the people of Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Frydenberg: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Comcare scheme and the Seacare scheme, and for other purposes.
Mrs K. L. Andrews: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Education Act 2013, and for related purposes.
Mrs K. L. Andrews: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the laws relating to higher education and vocational education and training, and for related purposes.
Ms McGowan: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that
(a) the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) system - in conjunction with voluntary superannuation contributions and a means-tested, government funded age pension - forms an integral part of Australia’s retirement income policy;
(b) recent analysis by Industry Super Australia indicates employers failed to pay an aggregate amount of $5.6 billion in SG contributions in 2013-14;
(c) this amount represents 2.76 million affected employees, with an average amount of more than $2000 lost per person in a single year;
(d) within Indi there were 16,068 affected employees, with an average amount of $2001 lost per person in a single year;
(e) evidence received by the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the Superannuation Guarantee indicates a failure to adequately detect and address SG non-compliance causes long-term financial detriment to millions of Australian employees, significant competitive disadvantage to compliant employers, and an unnecessary impost to government finances through additional reliance on the age pension; and
(f) the committee:
(i) concluded the current approach of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in identifying and addressing SG non-compliance is inadequate and recommends the ATO take a more proactive stance;
(ii) believes there is a compelling need for the determination of a reliable SG gap figure annually in order to track rates of SG non-payment, analyse which policies are effective, and ultimately minimise the problem;
(iii) recommends the current SG Charge framework, with its reliance on employer self-reporting, should be reviewed in order to ensure that penalties are strong enough deterrents; and
(iv) considers it is crucial to move SG compliance from the “paper age” to the “digital age”, enabling a greater focus on proactive methods, and in tum increasing the effectiveness of efforts to detect and remedy SG non-compliance; and
(2) Calls on the Government to accept and act upon all 32 recommendations made in the report by the Senate Economics References Committee into the Superannuation Guarantee system to address the significant problem of SG non-compliance.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Cyclone Debbie
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:00): The recent flooding on the New South Wales North Coast has been devastating for our region. Homes and businesses have been severely affected, and many were completely destroyed due to the immense flooding caused by Cyclone Debbie. I would like to express my condolences to the families that have lost loved ones in the floods.
I particularly want to mention the tragic loss of mother Stephanie King and her children—Jacob, aged seven, and Ella-Jane, aged eleven—who perished in their vehicle in the Tweed River. Tweed police have said that Stephanie King was a hero who died trying to save her children. Stephanie King's eight-year-old daughter, Chloe-May, miraculously escaped the car to raise the alarm with local residents.
The massive weather event caused by Cyclone Debbie spread south from Queensland and caused the largest flood we have ever seen. The swiftness with which the rain came was overwhelming. Then we had more rainfall. Up to 400 millimetres fell across the region within a 24-hour period. This, along with the 400 millimetres that had previously inundated the area, left us shocked by the incredible speed, velocity and damage with which this force of nature struck. The record rainfall resulted in thousands of residents being evacuated from flood-affected areas.
So much of this destruction has been heartbreaking. So much has been lost by local families and businesses. I would like to strongly commend our police and emergency service workers, our SES volunteers and our council staff for their outstanding work throughout this event. I would also like to commend our community for coming together and assisting one another.
Whilst locals welcomed the early decision to appoint a disaster recovery coordinator, we have been rightly critical of both the state and federal governments for their lack of funding and commitment to repair and rebuild the North Coast. Our community had to protest and campaign to force the government to commit to category C funding for business assistance. Many smaller villages are still waiting for the activation of category C funding, and some areas, such as the Byron Shire, are still waiting for the activation of disaster relief payments. I call on the government to make sure they are all activated.
I also want to thank both the federal opposition leader and the New South Wales opposition leader for each visiting Murwillumbah and meeting firsthand with and listening to residents, businesses, council representatives, SES volunteers and community groups. I note that the New South Wales opposition leader has subsequently released an 11-point plan to address many of these urgent issues, and he continues to call on the New South Wales Premier to address these very urgent matters.
We have a very strong community, but we need governments that support us. I acknowledge that both the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier very briefly visited Murwillumbah soon after the event, but I call on them now to come back for a substantial period of time. Sit down with our community and business leaders and hear their stories. Hear about the action that is needed and help us recover and rebuild our region. What we need is a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the mass destruction caused by the floods. We need much greater funds flowing to affected families, businesses, communities and local governments. We desperately need more funding to address chronic homelessness issues. We need our governments to help us. I was disappointed that last night's budget had no specific, targeted funding, but I call on the state and federal governments today to commit that funding.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for that contribution. Having my own electorate affected by floods, I wish you well into the future in dealing with your community as it recovers.
Queensland: Arts
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (10:03): I am very pleased to report on some recent arts funding announcements for Brisbane. Firstly, the Turnbull government will assist Opera Queensland by providing an adjustment package totalling $2.3 million over three years. It follows the recommendations of the National Opera Review and it is contingent on matched support from the Queensland government. Secondly, the Turnbull government is providing Queensland Ballet with an additional $240,000 per annum from 1 July. This boost essentially maintains the Commonwealth government's funding share for the company at 20 per cent.
I want to make a couple of observations, if I can, about arts funding in Queensland. I have made a very conscious effort in my first 10 months as the member for Brisbane to visit many of our local artists, companies, venues and other arts sector participants. I have visited the big and the small, the collaborative and the independent—from traditional arts through to emerging fields like circus and cutting-edge digital offerings. I have more to go and I must say it is an enjoyable task. I want to record my appreciation of the rich tapestry of our arts sector in Brisbane. There is much more to our local arts scene, of course, than the four major performing arts companies. These funding announcements that I am talking about here today for opera and ballet will certainly not be the start or the end of my work representing our arts sector.
On that note, I want to foreshadow a couple of concerns I have about Queensland's share of national arts funding. Putting to one side how arts funding levels nationally are set or justified, I am troubled by the significant evidence I am finding that Queensland has historically been receiving less arts funding per capita than pretty much any other state or territory. That inequity does not appear to be a new phenomenon. It appears to be an entrenched trend—possibly the result of institutional inertia that I suspect becomes self-reinforcing over time if it has the effect of sending Queensland's artistic talent and its arts management capabilities to other places.
Queensland receiving a lower per capita share of national arts funding is doubly curious when you consider how, out of all of the states, Queensland's population has the largest proportion of people outside the capital city. You would, therefore, expect that the costs of delivering arts to the entire community would be, on average, higher for such a regional population.
I will say that both Opera Queensland and the Queensland Ballet do actually have a very, very good, enviable regional offering for Queensland. They certainly do much more in the regions than their interstate peers. This, of course, is a Queensland-wide topic, not just a Brisbane-centric issue. I am very happy to report that, together with our other Queensland LNP colleagues, we will be seeking to ensure that Queensland gets its fair share. These funding announcements for opera and ballet are a start, but there is much more work to do.
Schools
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:06): The spin from this government is just extraordinary. To say that their education plan is about needs based funding it is just wrong and flat out untrue. Let's just compare a couple of schools in my electorate to demonstrate how wrong and misleading this government is. Under the Labor model, Kennington Primary School—one of the largest primary schools in the Bendigo electorate, with over 600 students—would have got half a million dollars under the original Gonski funding next year. What did they get from this mob last night in the budget? It was only $73,900. That is a bit of a difference. That is just a bit of a difference. That is an entire music program, that is quite a few teachers and that is teacher aides.
Another example is Bendigo Senior Secondary College. Under Labor's original Gonski model, they would have got $1.6 million in extra funding, needs based funding, for the largest VCE-VCAL program in the state of Victoria, which is delivered at Bendigo Senior Secondary College. What did they get last night in the budget and under this government's version of what it call needs based funding? It was only $265,800. There is a really big difference between $1.6 million and $265,800.
The government say it is needs based funding. Last night, I looked on their website at their own calculator. Lightning Reef Primary School—the school of hard knocks—are trying so hard to catch up on numeracy and literacy. They are in a very disadvantaged, low SES area in Bendigo. They forgo watering their oval to keep on a part-time teacher aide. They do not have enough money in their budget to water an oval. What is the boost they get from this government—the top-up? It is less than $40,000 in the government's version of needs based funding, yet another independent school just up the road, which is doing quite well, gets half a million dollars. It is not needs based funding that this government has put forward. Just because you call it needs based funding does not mean that it is.
The schools who most need the money continue to miss out under this government. Kennington Primary School, Bendigo Senior Secondary College and our Catholic schools in Bendigo are upset. The ones on the west side of town are doing worse than the ones on the east side of town. This government is now targeting the Catholics, who, quite frankly, are a little bit better at managing money when it comes to schools. This government is not serious about needs based funding. It is not serious about Bendigo schools. The announcements last night prove again that our schools are worse off under a Liberal-National government, and I call on them to implement the full and original Gonski based funding.
Bradfield Electorate: Anzac Day Services
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (10:09): Anzac Day is a day of enormous significance all around Australia, and certainly in Bradfield we marked Anzac Day in a way that pays due regard to the rich history of military service and sacrifice in our area. This year, in commemorating the Centenary of Anzac, we acknowledged in particular three notable individuals from Bradfield: Sir Tannatt William Edgeworth David, who was instrumental in the detonation of Messines-Wytchaete Ridge and was an active member of the Hornsby community in the years following the war; Cecil Arthur Callaghan, a local of Gordon, who fought bravely in the defence of Singapore and was made a Companion of the Order of the Bath and was active in founding the Ku-ring-gai sub-branch of the RSL; and Dr Lucy Gullett, a pioneering and fearless doctor and Wahroonga local who, at great personal expense, travelled to Egypt to serve with the medical forces and the French Red Cross in London.
I had the privilege of attending three services on Anzac Day to mark the legacy of all those brave Australians and their service and sacrifice over so many years. At Roseville I attended the dawn service organised by the Roseville sub-branch of the RSL at the park just outside the Roseville Memorial Club. I attended the 7 am service at Wahroonga organised by the Sydney Northern Branch of the National Servicemen's Association and then the 9 am service at Turramurra organised by the same organisation. As is the case each year, the number of people in attendance was greater than ever and there was a very large representation of young people. I also acknowledge the organisers over many years of the dusk service held at the Kokoda memorial in Wahroonga, which, regrettably, was unable to be held this year because of ill health on the part of the organisers, Mr Owen Thomas and Mr Greg Hodgson, but I do want to acknowledge their work over so many years.
On Sunday I had the opportunity to attend the memorial service and ceremonial parade at Knox Grammar School, always an impressive and moving occasion. His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, was the Reviewing Officer. I also attended, the previous week, the Anzac commemoration service at the Anglican Church of St John in Gordon, which honours the 18 Battalion, or the Ku-ring-gai Regiment, as it is known, which is so tied up with the service in our part of Sydney. And, of course, that church holds two battlefield crosses, one from World War I and one from World War II. They are indeed very moving relics of conflict and the suffering that was endured by so many Australians.
In Bradfield, as around Australia, we marked Anzac Day and recognised the service and sacrifice of so many Australians over so many years.
Budget
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:12): The only thing that young people in Melbourne and indeed right around the country have got from this Liberal budget is the middle finger. If you are under 35 in this country, this government has helped to sell you out yet again and continues prosecuting its war on the young. The biggest single area of cuts in this budget is from students and universities. Students are being asked to pay more, to go into further debt and to pay it back earlier, and the universities that are giving them their education will have less money because their budgets have been cut as well. Unemployment is forecast to go up. For all the talk of jobs and growth, the government did not tell you that hidden in the budget papers are forecasts that unemployment is going to keep going up, more than expected, and it is going to hit young people the hardest.
And if you are trying to put a roof over your head, the government has squibbed it on housing affordability, pretending that it is not a problem, and has refused to tackle the billions of dollars in taxpayers' money every year that is going not to help people buy their first home but to help people who already have a home to get their second, third or fourth homes through subsidies for negative gearing and capital gains tax. So students and universities are paying billions so that property investors who have three, four, five or six homes can keep getting a subsidy from this government.
And what do the government do? They turn around and blame young people for not getting jobs that are not even there. On one hand the government say, 'Unemployment's going to go up and jobs aren't going to be there for you and we've got nothing there to give you a job if you're a young person.' But, on the other hand, they say, 'We're going to blame you for it by kicking you off your welfare.' The government say that the very, very meagre amount that you get if you are unemployed in this country—thanks, in part, to some of the government's decisions—is now at risk because the government say they are going to start randomly drug testing people. If you, the government, actually believe it, then start with your own. When the government front up and say they are prepared to breathalyse every MP or minister before they come in for a speech or a vote then the Australian public might take them seriously. To turn around and say to poor people, 'We are now going to infringe your rights by subjecting you to a random drug test, just because you happen to have the misfortune of not having a job,' when unemployment, on the government's own terms, is forecast to rise, is reprehensible. People will understand that you—the Turnbull government—are not addressing the real problems of youth unemployment and instead are trying to blame the people who cannot find jobs. Those jobs simply are not there. The government have been mugged by reality and have pinched the Greens proposal for putting a levy on the big banks, but they should put that money into education and making housing more affordable, instead of lining the pockets of property investors and donors to the Liberal Party.
Canning Electorate: Community Meetings
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (10:16): Earlier this year, I made a commitment to the people of Canning that I would hold a community meeting in every major town and suburb in my electorate before Christmas. In the past four weeks I have visited the communities of Waroona, Preston Beach, Pinjarra, Coolup and North Dandalup to hear their feedback about the things that matter to them. The people of Canning have engaged, and I have heard them loud and clear. Despite the variety of people I have met with, their message has been consistent: the people of Canning want cultural, national and economic security.
Like me, the people of Canning are proud of their country, proud of their flag and proud of their way of life. This was evident at the Anzac Day ceremonies I attended alongside thousands of locals in Coolup, Mandurah, Byford, Pinjarra and San Remo. Canning wants a government that preserves Australia's freedoms. The government's recent changes to citizenship requirements are a timely reminder that anyone wishing to become an Australian citizen must play by our rules. This idea extends to foreign investment. We recognise that Australia needs foreign capital, but the people of Canning want our critical infrastructure—ports, poles and wires, and gas pipelines—to be owned by Australians so we can be sure of their security.
There is widespread anxiety about the uncertain state of our world. Canning's rural communities have international concerns. They watch the unfolding situation in North Korea very closely. Many people have also raised the ongoing fight against ISIS and the threat of fighters returning to our shores. We must do everything in our power to stop that happening. The government's announcement to bolster the AFP's security and intelligence operations with an additional $321 million will be very well received in Canning.
Everywhere I go, people want to see local jobs for local people. Again, the government have taken a step in the right direction with the 457 visa changes, which will make it easier for Australians to get Australian jobs. Government are responsible for setting the right conditions so that businesses and individuals can flourish. We are doing this by reducing company tax for small and medium businesses and making it easier for employees to train and employ jobseekers with the rollout of the PaTH program. Last night's announcement of the instant asset write-off extension, and our ongoing commitment to cut red tape are, indeed, sensible measures.
But, ultimately, when it comes to economic security, the No. 1issue I have heard about is the GST. Western Australians want their GST money invested in Western Australia. They are outraged, as I am, when they look around the Peel region—which Canning takes in—and see critical infrastructure shortages in rail and roads and know that their hard-earned money is instead going to places like South Australia and not coming back to us. I am disappointed that WA state Labor secured nothing from the $2.3 billion infrastructure package for the Peel region. This is a wrong that I will seek to right.
Brand Electorate: Schools
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:19): I rise today to speak about some of the schools I had the pleasure of visiting over the parliamentary break and some of the fantastic young people I have engaged with during this time. Earlier this year I began visiting the many high schools in my large electorate of Brand to meet the many students studying politics and law, as well as students in general humanities and social sciences classes. I visited them to talk about my role as a federal representative and, more broadly, the role of a modern parliamentarian in Australia.
On these visits I met with year 9 humanities students from Gilmore College in Orelia as well as year 12 political and legal students from Living Waters Lutheran College in Warnbro. Let me assure you that the future is brighter than ever and rests comfortably in the shared grasp of these great young students. Their intelligence, their attitude, their willingness to learn and engage with wider society, and their curiosity and eagerness to understand the Australian political system fill me with great optimism for our younger generations into the future and their participation in this parliamentary system.
It is clear though that much of the credit for the superb attitudes and inquisitive nature of these students comes from the guiding hands of their respective teachers. So I must pay credit at this time to Ms Leslie Brown from Gilmore College and Ms Lauren Webb from Living Waters Lutheran College—two fantastic examples of educators helping mould our young people into critical thinkers who are driven to succeed and who listen to and are conscious of the opinions of others. I have a strong commitment to all forms of education in this country and I am pleased to contribute in some small measure to inform students about what we as members of parliament do in this place to serve our respective communities, our states and the nation as a whole.
As well as visiting these schools for an engaging discussion, I have had the opportunity to view some of the outstanding achievements of the students in and around Brand. The community of Living Waters Lutheran College that I referred to earlier in particular are to be commended on sending their young 'Digibots' team across the country in order to pit their creation against robots belonging to teams of students from other states in the Digibots national competition held in Sydney in March. As their teacher Ms Yolanda Redpath commented, the national competition is a 'varsity sport for the mind'. The program is a fantastic way to showcase the engineering skills, innovative nature, ingenuity and enormous competitive spirit of WA kids, as well as kids from around the nation. Congratulations to Ms Yolanda Redpath and Mr Reg Murugan and the Digibots team. You should all be very proud of your achievements.
I would like to add, however, that these successful programs and these positive learning environments are under threat from a mammoth $22 billion cut to schools funding that the Turnbull government is proposing. How can anyone expect these schools to maintain these high standards when on average $2.4 million is being cut per school over the next 10 years? That is to be added into a $50 billion tax break to big business. I really wonder what is going to happen to the six Catholic schools in WA in remote areas that are the only schools providing education to young people in those communities.
Molong United Hospital Auxiliary
Mr GEE (Calare) (10:22): Deputy Speaker Buchholz, local hospital auxiliaries play a vital role in our country communities, as you yourself know. The Molong United Hospital Auxiliary is certainly no different. In the last financial year the Molong auxiliary raised $29,000 for the Molong hospital—an incredible effort that deserves much praise and certainly the recognition of this House. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the committee members who worked behind the scenes to achieve this magnificent result, including president Janice Oswald and committee members Julie James, Neryl Murray, Judy Andrew, Kim Thurtell, Maureen Curtis, Pat Roberts, Lesley Bye, Chloe Yarwood, Annabel MacSmith, Margaret Kaczorowski, Kim Ramsey, Cheryn Johnson, Robyn Barnes and Carmel Boucher. I would also like to give special mention to the manager of the Molong Health Service, Deborah Kenna, who works closely with the auxiliary.
The auxiliary held raffles, catered for an annual theatre production by way of the Molong Players and gratefully received donations from the Molong community and its surrounding districts. They rallied behind the Molong hospital and delivered a range of new equipment, including oxygen concentrators, a dermascope, five dining room chairs that are on wheels, a palliative care bed, and mattresses for high-low beds. Each item purchased through their fundraising efforts has no doubt made a difference to everyone using the facility. The extraordinary efforts of the Molong United Hospital Auxiliary have also been rightfully recognised at the 83rd state UHA conference, held in Bankstown. The Molong auxiliary received the Yvonne Lynch OAM trophy. That trophy was for the most money raised per member by an auxiliary with 10 or fewer members in 2016.
I extend my congratulations to the Molong United Hospital Auxiliary, who continue to make Molong proud—not only Molong but also the whole Calare electorate. Their work has made a real difference to the lives of local residents and to patients and staff at the Western NSW Local Health District. Well done, and thank you very much for all of your efforts. The community is very grateful.
I recently had the good fortune to be in Molong to present the Molong hospital with some new flags. I met members of the auxiliary when we formally handed over those flags and I was able to hear firsthand of the wonderful work that they do. The auxiliary members are true community heroes. They worked tirelessly, raising money and going about their business quietly yet extraordinarily effectively. I think the whole community of Molong and the surrounding districts owes them a great debt of gratitude. It is only fitting that we recognise them in this House today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member and acknowledge the importance of hospital auxiliaries in all regional communities.
Wand, Mr Terrence John, OAM
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (10:25): Today is a special day. Joining us is Terrence John Wand OAM. On behalf of my community, and especially my home town of Wyong, it is an honour to welcome Terry and to share some of his remarkable story. Today would not have been possible without the member for Tangney, my friend Ben Morton. Ben and I were a tag team, as two Wyong kids, on this speech.
Terrence John Wand was born in 1941, a descendant of two of Wyong's pioneering families. He married his beautiful wife, Wendy Margaret Whitfield of Lake Macquarie, in 1962, and they had their two children, Trudy and Gavin. Terry often reminisces of his childhood in Wyong and reckons it is still a great place to grow up—and I agree with him. During the 1940s and 1950s, Terry and his mates raided orchards, helping themselves to watermelons, and cooled off in the hot summers in beaut swimming spots. Terry fondly recalls being at Wyong Public School in the post-war years and receiving the first flavoured milk in New South Wales, as the Wyong dairy, in Alison Road, experimented with chocolate and strawberry flavours.
Terry has always been a hard worker and when growing up he had no shortage of casual jobs, his first paper run paying one pound a week—good money in those days. Terry loves sport and often says that sport must not be left out of Wyong's story. Terry, it cannot be left out of the story, and it will not be now that you have been awarded an OAM for your contribution. Terry knows how lucky the whole town is to have had a group of men establish sporting clubs in the early 1900s. Those clubs are now over 100 years old. Terry loves sport—including rugby league. The Wyong Rugby League Club, the Roos, holds a special place in his heart. Terry's playing career lead to a fine coaching career, highlights being winning the New South Wales Rugby League Harold Matthews Cup, in 1980, and coaching many premiership-winning teams. I like his coaching strategy of not wearing you out in the off-season, so keeping you fresh for the main game.
It is arguable, however, that his greatest contribution is as a sports administrator, working with Joe Bishop, Morrie Breen and Mr Vaughan to salvage the club, which was formed in 1910, and make it one of the most successful sports clubs in Australia. Terry's heroic efforts as honorary secretary in endeavouring to gain a certificate of registration and liquor licence and build a clubhouse for, I think, the sum of $68,000, is the stuff of Wyong folklore.
Terry is a life member of both Wyong Rugby League Club Group and the Central Coast Division of Country Rugby League and holds Wyong's No. 1 badge. On behalf of my Uncle John 'Burkie' and your countless friends on the Central Coast, we salute you!
Wand, Mr Terrence John, OAM
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (10:28): I am very pleased to join the member for Dobell in congratulating Mr Wand on his OAM. I have known Mr Wand all of my life, and he is very dear to me. Mr Wand's contribution is not just to rugby league. Mr Wand is very much involved in the Masonic Lodge on the New South Wales Central Coast, an organisation that he joined on 21 March 1991.
On Masonry trips Terry is known to provide travellers with a history lesson on local information and landmarks. People refer to him as a walking encyclopaedia. On trips to places like Muswellbrook, Dunedoo, Tamworth, Scone, Katoomba, Coonabarabran and Vaucluse, Terry and the Masons would raise money for charities and local organisations, like the Wyong hospital, surf lifesaving, prostate cancer and the men's shed at Bateau Bay. Terry progressed through committee positions and became a junior warden in 1997 and a senior warden in 1998, the second-most senior of the lodge. He also became heavily involved in the lodge's Anzac commemoration service. Terry became Master of the Wyong Tuggerah Lakes Masonic lodge in 1999 and, at the request of the grand master, held this position for two years, a position that is normally held for only a 12-month term.
In 2008, Terry became involved in the Grand Officer Committee and was elected to the board of management as operations chairman. Terry excelled himself in this difficult role and is responsible for a number of very important changes to the Masonic reporting system.
In 2009, Terry became Secretary of Lodge. He still holds that position today and he remains actively involved in the local masonic widows association.
In 2010, the district honoured him by electing him to the position of district grand inspector of workings. He also became a member of the grand lodge administration team.
Terry has made a very strong contribution to his community. One of his proudest achievements is that of being the under-16 Central Coast breaststroke champion. His selfless commitment to his community, to the Masons and to the Wyong Rugby League Club Group, and his charitable work, his friendship and his compassion for so many people in the local Wyong community are recognised and applauded today by the parliament of Australia.
It does not just happen, and I would like to mention Mrs Wendy Wand for supporting Terry in his work for the Wyong Rugby League Club Group and his work as a Mason.
I am very pleased to be a close friend of Terry and his family. I am pleased that he is here today to share this occasion with us. Terry, congratulations on being awarded the honour of the Medal of the Order of Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank both the honourable members for their contribution. I think it is very prudent that we acknowledge, in the way of affirmation, their subject here today. May I join in the affirmation and congratulate you on the contribution you have made to our nation. We are pleased that you are present with us here in the chamber. Thank you.
If no member objects, three-minute constituency statements will continue today for 60 minutes. That being the case, I call the honourable member for Makin.
Petition: Genocide of Christians and Other Minorities
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:32): I take this opportunity to present a petition passed on to me by Colin Johnston, Managing Director of Barnabas Fund Australia Ltd. The petition has been signed by 6,738 people and draws the attention of the House to the genocide of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East. The petition specifically asks the House to, firstly, recognise and classify Islamic State as a group controlling large parts of Syria and Iraq that is intentionally engaged in genocidal actions and other serious crimes against Christians, Yazidis and other minorities; and, secondly, to take all possible measures to assist victims of genocide in Syria and Iraq and to affirm the government's duty under article 1 of the United Nations' 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to prevent and punish the crime under international law.
The persecution of Christians dates back to the life of Jesus Christ, and it has continued ever since. Roman Emperor Nero saw it as public entertainment to throw Christians to the lions. In more recent times, in equally barbaric acts, IS have similarly made the killing of Christians a public spectacle, using gruesome videos of the beheadings to advance their ideology. The shooting and beheading of 21 shackled Coptic Christians in Libya in 2015 is a case in point.
Today, around 215 million Christians around the world are facing some level of persecution, and 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination are against Christians. The Centre for Studies on New Religions estimates that 90,000 Christians were killed in 2016 because of their faith. Last year, I understand, the US Congress declared that the Islamic state persecution of Christians and other minorities constituted genocide. Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks—in fact, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks—told the House of Lords recently that the suffering of the Middle East and Christians is 'one of the crimes against humanity of our time'.
What is just as shameful is the silence about Christian persecution from the Western world. The conflicts in Syria and Iraq have been particularly brutal towards Christians, Yazidis and other minorities. In Syria, the Christian population has been reduced from around 1.2 million in 2011 to less than 500,000 by October 2016. The figure is much lower today, as since October thousands more Christians have fled Syria or have been killed. Since 2003, the Christian population in Iraq has fallen from 1.5 million to an estimated 300,000. Those who have managed to flee have then been further persecuted by being turned away from refugee camps or other shelters and even food relief centres. Barnabas Aid have endeavoured to provide food, shelter and other assistance wherever it can, but world governments continue to turn a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and other minorities wherever it occurs, and that needs to stop. I present the petition and ask that it be referred to the petitions committee for consideration.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for that very heartfelt contribution. The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
Sea Swift
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:35): This Friday night I am really looking forward to attending the celebrations of Sea Swift's 30th anniversary. Sea Swift transports the bulk of the freight goods from Cairns to Cape York and the furthest reaches of the Torres Strait Islands, and recently expanded into the Northern Territory. It offers mothershipping, project and charter services and a few years ago diversified into luxury cabins for adventure cruising—a real success. The business was established in Cairns in 1987 by Sid Faithfull, who prior to this had worked out of Karumba in the 1970s and early 80s, offering a mothership service to fishing trawlers. Since then, Sea Swift has provided a vital and reliable service through thick and thin, and is now the largest privately-owned shipping company in Australia. There is no doubt that operating in this region creates a range of challenges and constraints, from its remoteness to the tropical climate, to high travel and rental costs for labour and crewing, and to restrictions in accessing infrastructure such as ramps and channels. Nevertheless, Sea Swift deals with these challenges very successfully and, over the past three decades, the business has grown in turnover and staffing and has expanded into new communities.
While there are many who have tried to replicate the service, no-one has come close to what Sea Swift has been able to achieve. They have proven to be an outstanding corporate citizen and have chipped in whenever I have asked for help. This includes transporting containers of donated clothing up to the Torres Strait for distribution to the Treaty Villages of Papua New Guinea. They also joined two 20-foot containers to create a purpose-built facility for the Ellis Beach Surf Life Saving Club so that the nippers do not have to cross the busy Captain Cook Highway to get their equipment. Earlier this year, my wife, Yolonde—in partnership with RRRC Connect and Soroptimists International Cairns—collected donations of used linen for the women of the Western Province. Sea Swift willingly delivered seven shipping containers of linen to Saibai Island for distribution by local rangers to the Treaty Villages and sought nothing for it. Whenever there is a community need, Sea Swift has always put their hand up first, and I have an enormous amount of respect for the work they do. Their contribution leaves a very positive legacy. Congratulations again to Fred White and the team at Sea Swift on their 30th anniversary milestone. Here is to many more decades of success. I look forward to kicking my heels up with my wife, Yolonde, at Friday's event.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I am sure you will. Pass on my best to your wife.
Port Adelaide Electorate: Vietnamese Community
Port Adelaide Electorate: Cambodian Community
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (10:38): I rise to congratulate the Charles Sturt council on its recent decision to allow the South Australian Vietnamese community to fly the Heritage and Freedom flag, also known as the yellow flag, at culturally significant occasions—most notably, Tet festivals. The Port Adelaide electorate is blessed with a very large Vietnamese-Australian community. Many thousands of them over the last four decades have built an important and welcome place in our society. They obviously retain a deep spiritual connection to Vietnamese culture and their homeland, a connection that is recognised and signified by the yellow flag and its important cultural and historical significance. Flying that flag demonstrates our respect for that cultural attachment to their homeland. This decision does not, of course, detract from Australia's longstanding recognition of the national flag of Vietnam, but it comes after a number of discussions that I had with the Vietnamese community, particularly officers of the association—the president, Mr Tin Le, and the vice presidents, Mr Toan Ho and Mr Paul Avina.
I want to congratulate the association for the hard work that they have done gathering together a petition to lobby the councils in the Port Adelaide electorate to be able to fly this flag. As a dear friend of the Vietnamese Australian community and the son of a Vietnam veteran, I am delighted we can show our recognition of the importance of this community in South Australian society.
I had the honour of joining members of the South Australian Cambodian community to celebrate Cambodian new year on 15 April at the popular temple on Burton Road in Paralowie. We were privileged to be joined by the Hon. Mr Kem Sokha, the new opposition leader of Cambodia. Mr Sokha is the President of the Cambodia National Rescue Party, the official opposition, and assumed that position after the forced resignation of Mr Sam Rainsy. As a result of a number of changes introduced by the Hun Sen regime to the electoral laws in February this year, sweeping power is given to the regime to dissolve opposition parties on a range of grounds that are recognised around the world in many cases as quite spurious. Mr Sokha, I understand, met with a number of DFAT officials and also organised a number of other events around Australia.
There are 30,000 Australians who were born in Cambodia and many more who are of Cambodian descent. They have a deep interest in the third pillar of the peace accords, in which Australia played such a significant part, being implemented. That is the granting of civil and political freedom to the Cambodian people. On 4 June elections will be held at a local level, and the rest of the world will be watching to ensure that those elections are free and fair. I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek advice as to what the Australian government is offering to support those elections on 4 June.
Dunkley Electorate: Budget
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:41): Last night was my first budget as a federal member of parliament, and it showed just how we, the Turnbull coalition government, are making the right choices for a responsible government. This budget will improve the lives of my constituents in Dunkley, increasing the standard-of-living amenities available and delivering on the commitments that we made to the Dunkley community when I was elected.
Every school in Dunkley, all 51 of them, will have its funding either secured or increased under the fairer needs-based funding model. I am proud to be part of properly implementing Gonski funding, supporting many Dunkley schools, such as Kingsley Park Primary School, neglected by the Victorian budget last week.
Medicare is guaranteed. The NDIS, much anticipated on the peninsula, will be fully funded. I have seen the anguish of so many families when I have met with them about their fears that there will be no-one to look after their children when they pass away. I can now reassure Henry, Marie, Norman, Joy and so many others that the Turnbull government has heard their concerns and acted upon them.
The federal budget will return to balance by 2021 by ensuring that we as a government and as a country live within our means. We have an obligation to the Australian public to govern responsibly, and we will do exactly that. The tax cuts for small business will have a huge impact on Dunkley, where over 16,000 small businesses will benefit, in addition to benefiting from our extension of the small business asset write-off for 12 months. Additional money has also been allotted to give funding certainty to homelessness services—$375 million is the latest contribution to looking after Australia's and Dunkley's most vulnerable people. The Roads to Recovery program carries over funding for many of my election commitments, and I am pleased that this will be continued. Pensioner concession cards will be issued to 92,000 Australians, including many in my electorate.
This budget ensures that we as a nation are in a good place going forward. We are fortunate to be in a comparatively positive financial position, and this budget is about making sure that we make the right choices, live within our means, operate on a basis of fairness, ensure our security and have plenty of opportunities in our days ahead. I look forward to serving, with this coalition government, my constituents in Dunkley as we implement this budget.
National Volunteers Week
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:44): I am delighted the member for Dunkley, the last speaker, experienced his first budget last night. It was my 22nd budget, and it was not the worst budget I have seen. That prize would go to either Peter Costello's 1996 budget or Joe Hockey's 2014 budget. But it is the most political budget I have seen. It is the most desperate attempt by a Prime Minister to shore up support not only in his party room but out in the broader community. I can say that the Hunter community is outraged by the way it was treated in last night's budget, which underscores again what a political budget this is.
But I am not here to talk about the budget today—I understand that I will have an opportunity to do so sometime in the House soon—I want to talk about our volunteers. As members would know, this week is National Volunteers Week. Like so many members of the House, in Canberra yesterday I joined with a number of our volunteers to thank them for the wonderful things they are doing in our communities. Of course, one of the things that makes Australia such a wonderful place is the strength, energy and level of volunteerism in this country. Just last week I was in Singleton, in my electorate, for the Biggest Morning Tea, a big event known well to members and the broader community, a fund raising event that the Cancer Council holds each year. It is well known. Also well known is their Relay For Life program, which I am sure all members here have participated in or given support to at some point.
I want to say something about the Upper Hunter Cancer Council office. They are not only doing the expected things, the normal things, the usual things such as raising awareness and making sure people seek intervention early and have health checks regularly et cetera; they also do other things such as running a transport service to our hospitals. I have a large electorate. Many people are not in a position to get from remote communities to the big hospitals in Newcastle or Maitland. These volunteers make sure people are able to get to those appointments. I want to do a shout out to some of those people, including Margie Mitchell, Catherine Sullivan, Nicole Black and Debbie Rae. They are people who give up their time regularly. I am delighted to say that the Upper Hunter Cancer Council office was recognised recently at the Upper Hunter chamber of commerce awards with an excellence in social enterprise award.
Moore Electorate: Shipbuilding Industry
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (10:47): In December last year I had the opportunity to visit the shipbuilding facilities of Austal Ltd, located at the Australian Marine Complex in Henderson, Western Australia. More recently, I received a briefing from Austal's Vice-President of Defence Davyd Thomas, Vice-President of Sales and Marketing Ben Marland, Market Development Manager Tim Speers and Government Relations Manager Gemma Whiting on the company's offshore patrol vessel and Future Frigate campaign to secure new business contracts in emerging markets. Austal is a global company which is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and operates four major shipbuilding yards across the globe. The company has built every patrol boat commissioned by the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Border Force since 1998, a total of 32 vessels. Austal is currently building between 10 and 15 per cent of the United States naval surface fleet. The company has a proven history of exporting, with 80 per cent of production destined for overseas buyers.
I am particularly interested in Austal because it has 48 suppliers based in my electorate of Moore, supporting local businesses, industry and employment opportunities. Through the supply chain, Austal's success is being shared with suppliers in our local area, creating business growth and local jobs. It is a great success story to have so many local enterprises based in my electorate supplying the world through Austal. One example is a local supplier, Flagship Enterprises Pty Ltd, based in Hillarys. Flagship is the painting and coating services contractor completing painting tasks, including the interior honeycomb panels and compression posts. It is a husband and wife owned and operated business which has successfully grown to include a second-site factory operating as part of the company. Austal continues to use Flagship Enterprises in its current operations and will have opportunities to expand its contracts if successful in partnering with the government for the offshore patrol vessel and frigate shipbuilding programs.
Austal is currently partnered with German design firm Fassmer for offshore patrol vessels. The AustalFassmer joint venture offers proven capability for the Royal Australian Navy. The venture has achieved recent success in a competitive tender, being selected by the German coastguard. The AustalFassmer offshore patrol venture will provide the Royal Australian Navy with the operational capacity required to ensure that critical maritime defence and border security requirements are supported. As Australia's proven export-capable naval shipbuilder Austal is a logical shipbuilder for the Commonwealth to partner with.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I give the call to the very fit looking member for Greenway.
Greenway Electorate: Harmony Day
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:50): Ha-ha—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz! It gives me great pleasure to highlight the wonderful multiculturalism that exists in my local area. Greenway is an area that I am very proud to represent in this place and to call my home. On 31 March, I was excited to host my second Harmony Day morning tea at The Ponds Community Hub. We welcomed over 120 local residents and community members who helped us to celebrate the diversity and harmony of the many cultures that comprise the Greenway electorate. Many guests wore their traditional dress and brought food from their homelands to share. We enjoyed performances from local groups, including representatives from the New South Wales Police Force, SydWest Multicultural Services and Blacktown City Council. We were also treated to musical performances from The Ponds High School ukulele group and Preeti Mistry's Gujarati Garba dance group.
We also welcomed members from many local community groups, including the Lankarama Buddhist Youth Group, Blacktown Women's and Girls' Health Centre, The Ponds and Kellyville Ridge Community Association, and Lalor Park Community Garden, as well as students and teachers from many local schools, including St Joseph's Primary at Schofields, John XXIII at Stanhope Gardens, John Palmer Public School, The Ponds High School, Riverbank Public School, and St John's at Riverstone.
It was also my great pleasure to host our very special guest for the day—Mr Deng Adut, the 2017 New South Wales Australian of the Year, whose extraordinary story has become an inspiration to young people in Western Sydney and beyond: a child soldier from South Sudan who became a successful lawyer in Western Sydney. Deng spoke about his experiences and his role in our community. He truly is an inspirational community leader, as demonstrated by the queues of children and adults alike who clamoured to shake his hand afterwards and have a photo taken. His story is one of hope, determination and sheer tenacity in striving towards making our community a better place for us and for our children. It was humbling to hear him speak and to have him join us on this important occasion.
Like most members in this place, we have the privilege of travelling throughout our electorates and witnessing such great community spirit. On that note, on 2 April, Sikh Heritage Day was held just outside my electorate. I know many friends from the Sikh community and from Greenway attended the day. Indeed, the most common surname in the Blacktown local government area is 'Singh'. I was so pleased it was such a successful and well-attended event, with over 5,000 people visiting on the day and sharing in the food and festivities that our local, vibrant Sikh community had on display. Spectators and visitors were treated to a fun-filled family day, including food stalls, cultural performances and rides. The organisers and participants should be very proud of their efforts. I know how enjoyable this event has been in past years, and I am sure this year's was just as fun.
As Deng said at my Harmony Day event, 'Shouldn't every day be Harmony Day?' It is indeed an opportunity to celebrate and remember what should be our ethos every day of the year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed. Every day should be Harmony Day. Well done, Member for Greenway.
Budget
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:53): Last night, the Treasurer handed down a wonderful budget, one that is underpinned by three LNP, or Liberal Party, core philosophies—fairness, opportunity and security. One of the most important things that my electorate have been telling me since I was elected in July of last year is that they need, and demand, better infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast. I was very pleased to see that, last night, the federal government delivered in spades on that very issue: $530 million for priority upgrades between the Pine River bridge and the Caloundra interchange, and a $120 million upgrade to the Deception Bay interchange. That is $650 million on the Bruce Highway that will go directly to assisting Sunshine Coast locals driving to work in Brisbane and driving home at night. These much-needed infrastructure upgrades are an absolute godsend to many locals who spend hours in what we call the Bruce car park.
But it does not stop just there. There is $182.6 million in targeted safety upgrades up and down the Bruce Highway. That is on top of the almost $1 billion that this federal government is spending on Bruce Highway upgrades between Caloundra Road and Sunshine Motorway. This is an absolutely unprecedented amount that the federal government is spending on the Sunshine Coast. The $530 million and $120 million upgrades to the Bruce Highway are part of a package—a package that cannot be implemented until the Queensland state Labor government gets off its backside and implements and completes a planning study that Mark Bailey has been sitting on for such a very long time. For about the sixth time, I now call upon him—again—to release that planning study. Let's get it out and let's get this highway upgraded.
Another great advantage of an announcement from last night is a $10 billion national rail program to fund transformational rail projects between cities and regions—regions like the coast. That is $10 billion that the state Labor government can access to fund the duplication of the railway line. This is a great project. It is identified by Queensland, built in Queensland. It needs to be funded. (Time expired)
Burt Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (10:56): More than two years of campaigning by me, federal Labor and my state Labor colleagues has paid off, with Labor's WA infrastructure package delivering key projects for my electorate of Burt. Since I was a member of the Community Reference Group for the Armadale Redevelopment Authority in the early 2000s, I have been calling for the level crossing at Denny Avenue in Kelmscott to be replaced. In both the Canning by-election and the 2016 federal election, I reiterated those calls, and federal Labor committed to assisting to fund this project. In the 2017 state election, Armadale MLA Tony Buti continued his campaign for this project as well, and now the $62 million project will commence in 2018 under the new Labor government.
Similarly, my campaign to have the construction work on the duplication of Armadale Road—a project that Labor's early commitment to in the Canning by-election saw the then Abbott government match—has been included in the WA infrastructure project, as has the new Armadale Road bridge at the freeway, something that the Liberals previously said was unnecessary. Other local projects from the WA infrastructure package for my electorate of Burt include $49 million for the new third lane of the northbound Kwinana Freeway from Russell Road to Roe Highway as well as over $400 million for the Thornlie rail line extension through Canning Vale connecting to Cockburn. In a major boost to my local community, over one third of the jobs created —that is, over 2½ thousand jobs—from this package will be on projects that benefit the Burt community.
This package has been put together partly from money that has been reallocated from that for the Perth freight link. Now, what has to be remembered here, of course, is that during the last state election the Turnbull government threatened to remove that money from the people of Western Australia. But it is quite clear that even the Turnbull government has realised just how out of touch it is, and Western Australians will no longer be taken for granted, because the government has finally agreed to reallocate those moneys to the projects that Western Australians actually want as part of this WA infrastructure project. That has demonstrated even further how out of touch this Turnbull government is, how they cannot be trusted with the things they say one month compared with what they say the next but also, critically, how Labor will deliver for people. I and Labor will continue to put people first and to build a better Burt.
Budget
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (10:59): I take this opportunity to commend the Treasurer on yesterday's budget—finally putting an end to the fiasco that was our education funding models, with 27 different funding models around the nation, and finally bringing them together in a fair and transparent model. Everybody now will have full knowledge of what both federal and state governments are contributing, not only to government schools but also to independent and Catholic schools. We now have a fair, transparent system that is going to be fair for everybody.
Also, pensioners were the big winners in last night's budget, with a reversal of the downgrading of their assets that they are allowed to have outside the family home. Those pensioners that were hit by some changes that were recently made are now going to be able to have their part pension reinstated. This is going to have a huge impact in my electorate of Murray, and I know it will be very well received.
It is great to see $340 million also allocated to the veterans who have returned from military service and may be struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety or a whole range of other issues brought on by their time in the service. Again, this will assist all of those members. We should also keep in our minds the fact that those servicemen who return from active duty—even though they may not have significant mental issues—still go through a very traumatic stage of readjusting back to civilian life. We need to keep their efforts, their sacrifice and their service to us firmly in our heads.
It is also very welcoming that we have finally got a government now who has fully funded the NDIS. I do not think there are any Australians who would be in any way against the NDIS, but we have been struggling, from the very first time that it was put forward, to work out just how we are going to pay for this. Now we have a government who, in the out-years, when the real pressure of the NDIS and the costs are going to be borne by the Australian taxpayer, have a plan to fully pay for it.
In relation to infrastructure, the $8 billion on top of the $1 billion that has already been committed for the inland rail shows that this government is all about building nation-building infrastructure. It is certainly going to be amazing having double-stack containers doing 110 kilometres an hour from Melbourne right through to Brisbane, with a branch off to Sydney port as well. It augurs well for this country. To go with this is a $100 million manufacturing fund, with emphasis placed on both South Australian and Victorian manufacturing industries. Certainly, the manufacturing hub of the Murray will be the huge winners out of that $100 million manufacturing fund.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): 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 DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (11:02): Since I last spoke on my first part of the address-in-reply, we have had another budget, so many of the measures I was addressing in my initial remarks have changed but not the basic unfairness of the current government. As both the shadow Treasurer and the member for Maribyrnong said, we do not need to have fairness as a focus group theme for our ideas; it is the very reason why we all are members of Labor Party.
Let me just make some very brief remarks about China, which I was talking about before I was interrupted some weeks ago. I just want to say something about the damning failure of the government on the proposed extradition treaty with China. We were undertaking a treaty with a country where, of several million people charged, only 1,000 people get off charges. This is a failure of ethics. China is not a country that Australia should be having an extradition treaty with in the current circumstances. We want good relations with China, but it is an ethical failure for this government to suggest that we ought to have one under the current circumstances.
It was also a failure of politics. As Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian said, both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister not only had to retreat on this issue and drop the legislation, because they could not get it through the Senate, but also shame themselves—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11 : 20
Mr DANBY: Returning to Australia, after having looked at the government's failures of both ethics and politics over the China extradition treaty, I would add one further thing. It is a shame to proffer a treaty to an important foreign power like China, including to visiting Premier Li Keqiang, and then withdraw it because you have incompetently handled the politics of it. The opposition clearly signalled to the government, in response to the JSCOT report on the extradition treaty, that in the current circumstances, where the Senate had not looked at the extradition treaties for all countries, not just China, we would be going forward with it, and the government completely ignored our warning. Without Labor's support in the Senate, foreign policy in this country cannot be conducted. It is a salutary lesson for the government that, if you want to have bipartisan important foreign policy in this country, you have to do it in conjunction with the Labor Party, particularly in light of our fractured Senate, which is a perfect segue to what I want to refer to next.
The great Prime Minister Keating talked of the Senate as 'unrepresentative swill', but with the presence of three or four senators from One Nation in the Senate, depending on who has been vaccinated and who has been convicted, we have a very logjammed upper house which grinds not just this coalition government but any particular government of this country to a halt. It is a problem of political systems, and it is the unintended consequence of the government of a previous stripe trying to handle the issue of informal voting by allowing 'just vote 1'. This led to gaming of the system. Now we have had a change of that system, which spectacularly misfired in this double dissolution when the government, in an ugly rort with the Greens, voted to change the Senate voting system and ended up with this logjam, still, in the Senate. How can Australia, a great country, have its prosperity dependent upon the ravings of One Nation and, now, split elements of the Liberal Party, who dispute climate change, who bay at the moon about NASA and who indicate, like Senator Hanson has, their admiration for strong leaders like Mr Putin?
Let me say something, however, about the issue of transport infrastructure, which has come up in this budget. Victoria, as we know, is now getting 39 per cent of the immigration coming to Australia. It is quite understandable. Melbourne is the most livable city in the world, according to all international indices. We are surrounded by wonderful regional cities like Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat et cetera, which are fairly close to the metropolitan centre. It is important, therefore, that a state which has 25 per cent of the population of Australia be allowed to receive transport infrastructure funding from the federal government that is appropriate to its size and to the fact that it has a capital city that is the fastest-growing city in the country—and will be the largest city quite soon if the trends keep up.
We in Victoria are only getting less than nine per cent of transport infrastructure spending from the federal government. The ethic that underlay Federation was that all states would be treated equally in the receipt of Commonwealth taxes—25 per cent of taxes come from Victorians; about 25 per cent of transport infrastructure should be coming back. Of course, we are pleased that regional rail will be funded to about $1 billion, as announced in the budget, so that the great cities of Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat et cetera can have their rail services improved, to feed into Melbourne and make it possible for commuters to travel to and from work, as they do elsewhere. But to see Western Sydney Airport being funded for more than $5 billion—about $10 billion of federal transport infrastructure going to New South Wales and barely $1 billion going to Victoria is iniquitous. It will not stand in the long term, and it only happens because this government is Sydney-centric. I think all the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney is foolish; Sydney is a great city, a wonderful city, a beautiful city. But the agreement that underlay Federation is a key point that should be understood by all states: it is that states should get approximately that same share of revenue.
It is not possible for Melbourne—a city of four million people—and Victoria—a state that has 25 per cent of the population—to be getting $1 billion and for New South Wales to be getting about $10 billion. That is unfair. I think it reflects the fact that many of the conservative members in Victoria are weak, compared to the Sydney-centric government that controls this country. They should have worked harder to see that transport infrastructure was equitably developed in Victoria; that we got at least 25 per cent of those revenues. If you stand on a train or a tram in Melbourne, you will know what I am talking about. And you will never win national government again if, in all those marginal seats, commuters are embittered, standing in those crowded trams and trains, because Malcolm Turnbull likes to have his picture taken, with selfies between the Melbourne CBD and Deepdene—but he will not fund a proper underground, proper train services, or proper tram services.
The Andrews state government is doing a wonderful job in recycling the Port of Melbourne asset by getting rid of all of the level crossings throughout Melbourne, making the trains run faster, and making road transport run faster. People in my area of south-east Melbourne—in Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond; all of these places—think it is fantastic that the promise which was made at the last state election has been fully financed and fully met already. But they see the federal government sitting on the shoulders of Victorians, expecting us to take—as we are happy to—39 per cent of all federal immigration, but not getting our equitable share of transport infrastructure. I know that our state Treasurer, Mr Pallas—who was, ironically enough, a rival for preselection for my seat, but who is doing a great job as Treasurer for Victoria—has been pointing this out today: the regional rail expenditure is good, but it is not good enough that Victoria gets $1 billion and New South Wales gets $10 billion. And it will tell—I say to all members of the government, whether they are from New South Wales or other states: you will lose more seats in Victoria, as people stand on those crowded trams and trains knowing that the person responsible for it is none other than the member for Wentworth—some people call him Lord Turnbull of Point Piper. People will resent that inequitable funding.
We know that, under this government, federal debt has blown out to a very large extent. I saw last night that the National Australia Bank economist said that he thought it was very optimistic to think they would stay within the projection of three per cent growth till 2021. They would have to have that stream of revenues in order to go back into surplus that year. And 2021 is a very important year, because, if they had not projected at least that they would go back into surplus, the AAA credit rating of our banks might have been threatened—and I still think they might be threatened.
We have the rhetoric from this government about fairness and equity. It is actually in Labor's skin. I cannot believe that we would have allowed the debt to boom, as it has under the current government, from the achievable debt that could have been gotten rid of when Labor went out of power to what it is now. The infrastructure expenditure, when it is happening, is going inequitably around the states, which will inevitably have political consequences. I am telling you that, in Victoria, in the next federal election, this will tell on the federal coalition, and it should.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:31): You sometimes wonder if there are benefits to being further down the speakers list. To be on the list to speak in the address-in-reply debate the day after the budget does give me the opportunity to reflect on another shocker of a budget from this Liberal-National government, but I will leave those remarks for the end of my contribution.
This is an opportunity for me as the federal member for Bendigo to thank the many volunteers that were involved in the election campaign, to reflect on the fantastic electorate that I have the opportunity to represent and to talk about some of the really pressing issues and challenges that we have in our communities and economy, and for us as parliamentarians.
My electorate, Bendigo, is a large electorate. It is a Federation seat, meaning that for as long as there has been a Commonwealth, for as long as there has been a federal parliament, we have had a representative here in this place. When I was first elected in 2013 I said how proud I was to be the first woman to be elected to represent the federal seat of Bendigo. It took us over 100 years, but we got there. This time around, when I stand here to say how proud I am to have been elected the federal member for Bendigo for a second term, I am in the company of some great women leaders across all levels of government. At the state level, the three main seats that fall into my electorate—the seats of Macedon, Bendigo East and Bendigo West—are represented by three fantastic, progressive women: Maree Edwards, Jacinta Allan and Mary-Anne Thomas. The four of us work very closely together to ensure that our communities receive the support that they need. Their sisterhood and friendship is something that is ongoing, and I would like to acknowledge their support right at the beginning of this contribution.
At a local level, we have had equal success, having seen the election of a number of women to local government. For the first time ever, I stand here proudly and say, the three major councils in my electorate combined have a majority of women councillors. We also have three women mayors, and I would like to acknowledge the first six months of their terms and their efforts to represent our community: Councillor Sharon Telford, for Mount Alexander; Councillor Jen Anderson, for the Macedon Ranges; and Councillor—and good friend—Margaret O'Rourke, for the City of Greater Bendigo.
This level of representation by women does not happen by accident. It happens because men and women get together to say, 'We want to have equal representation,' and because people are encouraged and mentored. In my own organisation, the Labor Party, we have a proud tradition of acknowledging the need for a change of culture. The Labor Women's Network worked to change the rules within the party to set quotas, with the support of EMILY's List. When we preselect women in safe and winnable seats, we have women parliamentarians. I acknowledge that I am not the first in this tradition. I am part of a long tradition of Labor women and men working together to address the gender imbalance. I am very proud to say that we are on track on our path to reach affirmative action quotas of fifty-fifty. But I am more proud of the fact that in my part of the world we are achieving that goal at a local, state and federal level.
An election is always tough. That would have been no different for any previous federal member, and they would have told you that. We have great diversity and, with that diversity, comes strength. We have a major metropolitan, cosmopolitan city, Bendigo itself, plus a great network of regional towns and villages that make up the electorate of Bendigo. There are towns such as Malden with a population of about 700. They were the first notable town in our country because of their streetscape. They are going through their own battles with NBN Co to ensure that the construction of fast-speed broadband, fibre to the node, does not breach their heritage landscape. There are great and strong communities such as Macedon, Kyneton and Woodend that are going through a tree change. Only being an hour from Melbourne, they are now facing the housing price bite that Melbourne has as people move there, choosing the country lifestyle. That is creating pressures in those communities.
The Victorian component of the federal election many say was defined by the CFA dispute. I speak about the CFA dispute in many ways with great sadness. This government decided out of political desperation to blow up an issue to divide our community and, to this day, we have still not seen resolution. During the election, we saw the Prime Minister declare that he would fix the issue and resolve the differences. He used the election as an opportunity to beat up on paid professional firefighters, people who spend every single day protecting our community. Here we are, many, many months on, after a sham of a policy development rushed through parliament, and we have not seen a collective agreement reached. We have not seen decisions resolved. The pain continues in our state, yet the conversation in this place is finished. The Prime Minister should be condemned for the way he used politics to divide regional Victoria and, in particular, the CFAs in my electorate.
In the end, whilst they predicted I would lose the seat because of this issue, the politicians and the other people involved in politics forgot one fundamental, basic thing: the CFA reflects the community. In areas such as Malden and Chewton, CFA volunteer firefighters are also members of the Labor Party. They did not buy the rhetoric of this government. People in our community knew that this was a state based issue that someone was trying to politicise for political gain. Chewton I mention quite fondly because that is now the best 2PP group in the electorate of Bendigo—78 per cent 2PP to Labor—where we also have a very strong CFA and CFA community. They to this day still shake their heads at the way that this government tried to divide their town and their community.
The government also focused a lot on running a fear campaign. I would like to reflect on the fear that they created in Bendigo. Almost daily we had them saying there was a drug problem. Almost daily we heard that people were getting bashed, that it was unsafe. But, yet, we have not seen any commitment on how to fix the problem since or delivery of that. What we have had instead is more shops close. Fewer people go there to shop. It is becoming a real crisis point. Yet this government did very little to help and instead have put businesses at risk and reduced people coming into the centre of town by running a fear campaign about a very complex issue. This is the problem sometimes with our federal elections. People get caught up in the hysteria, do not win the seat and walk away and leave it.
I have actually run a review into Medicare. We did a survey of local doctors' surgeries. This government called it a 'Mediscare' campaign. The truth is that people are very scared about Medicare and what they are paying. In the survey that we conducted we found that, since this government was elected, we are down to four services that 100 per cent bulk-bill their patients. There are more and more services that are charging out-of-pocket fees, and, of the people that we surveyed in that review that we did six months after the election, on average they are paying $21 per consultation out-of-pocket. The government's decision last night to lift the freeze for GPs happened because, if they had not made it, more and more patients would have been paying out-of-pocket fees, and some of our rural practices would have closed. This is a snapshot of the damage the government have done to the delivery of healthcare services in regional areas like Bendigo. They still have not made up for the funding cuts to hospitals. As we celebrate the opening of the Bendigo Hospital—a brand-new, $630 million facility—I fear and am angry that this government are not paying their fair share to reduce waiting lists, to employ more nurses and to help meet the healthcare needs of not just Bendigo but the whole of northern and central Victoria.
The election was a good night, and there is a great photo of me in the Bendigo Advertiser—the ABC called the election result early, and I will never live down that photo of my surprise and excitement. I would like to thank all the branches and all the hundreds of volunteers that we have. We have a very strong Labor team across central Victoria—the Woodend branch, the Kyneton branch, the Castlemaine branch, the Bendigo branch and the Bendigo South Branch—rank-and-file, strong Labor people who, for years, have campaigned for Labor governments and Labor MPs. Without their support, we would not have held the seat of Bendigo. I would also like to acknowledge our brothers and sisters in the rank-and-file unions and affiliates: Luke Martin at the Bendigo Trades Hall, our nurses, our ambos, our cleaners, our teacher aides, our teachers, our construction members—the list goes on—RTBU, CFMEU, United Voice, the ANMF, the ASU, the NUW and the AWU. We have a strong family amongst our trade union movement, who are fighting every day to improve the rights of working Australians and to ensure that they receive a fair day's pay for a decent day's work.
Industrial relations is an area that is close to my heart. We have had some real failures and developments within the fair work space that need to be addressed. Companies have become quite bolshie and the rate at which Fair Work is terminating agreements must be stopped. On too many occasions, we are seeing employers and large multinationals file to terminate agreements as a bargaining step—as a way to bully employees to accept inferior wages. One of the first and most public examples of this is what happened at CUB. The company filed to terminate the agreements of maintenance workers who had worked there for a very long time. They wanted to move them onto a labour-hire company. The particular agreement that that labour-hire company had has been referred to as a bit of a dodgy, Work Choices era, zombie agreement. It was struck over in WA, nowhere near the site itself, and it massively reduced the pay of many of the workers there. After a six-months struggle, with the workers out the front, they won all of their conditions back. But it should not take that kind of action to get a company to respect its workforce. And I should say that they were not fighting for a massive pay rise; they were fighting to maintain their current conditions.
Unfortunately, the CUB dispute is not alone. Over in WA in the mining sector we have seen, time and time again, that companies file to terminate agreements as an aggressive tactic in bargaining. Some particular workers—again, maintenance workers—were facing 65 per cent pay cuts. What happens when Fair Work rules to terminate an agreement? In this particular case, they said to the workforce and to the company, 'You have six months to negotiate a new agreement, or you go back to the award.' These are massive pay cuts. This undermines the very principle of enterprise collective bargaining, which is supposed to be at the centre of fairness in the Fair Work Act.
We have seen also two lockouts. For example, there are the Echuca Parmalat workers, just north of where I am. That dispute was about labour hire. The workers there were saying they wanted to keep their clause to restrict the misuse and overuse of labour hire, which is so common these days by employers. Why were they so concerned? The Parmalat factory in Bendigo is a very good example. The Parmalat factory in Bendigo does not have a clause restricting the use of labour hire. The company there had a significant proportion of their workforce working for Manpower. They then changed labour-hire companies, and all the workers there were told to reapply for their jobs through a new labour-hire company. This company then said to those locally based skilled and trained workers, 'Sorry, we have no hours for you'. What we discovered a few weeks later was that that work had gone to Irish backpackers, who were being paid well below the award and were not aware of their rights. To this day, those workers that were skilled and trained working for the labour-hire company—the local workers—are still without work.
And that was why in Echuca they said, 'We will fight this to the very end'. They want to make sure that, if there is a job going at the Parmalat site, it will go to a directly employed local first—local people in our electorate, local people in our region. They want to make sure that if there is overtime they have the opportunity to put their hand up for it. They are fighting the casualisation of the workforce. The good news is that, after many days of being out, Parmalat agreed and they are back at work. But then that brings us to a new dispute: Fletcher Insulation in Dandenong. Again, after meeting with some of their members today I learnt they have been locked out for 85 days. They have been out the front of Parliament House. This dispute again is about job security. Their company—as at other places—has an unlimited labour-hire clause. This means that they can replace the workers at any time with workers who are paid the award, significantly undercutting the agreement. Their fight is not just for their own jobs but for the next generation. Again, we have seen the company apply to terminate the agreement.
At the moment, our enterprise bargaining is being distorted by companies who are manipulating it for their own purposes. Our coalminers in Queensland: up to 60 per cent of them are labour hire in Central Queensland. There are miners working side by side: one on a collective agreement directly employed; the other working on the award or less for labour hire, being paid $40,000 a year less for the same work. And it is completely legal because the Fair Work Act is deficient and this government is not motivated or willing to change it. They are ignoring workers.
The exploitation of temporary workers must be acknowledged. We have a bill before the House now, but it does not go far enough to address the exploitation of temporary workers, guest workers and people who have come here in good faith to work on a 457 visa. The government has only changed the name of this to a 417 visa. They do not know what their rights are in many cases. There are some cases of extreme modern slavery where they have their passports confiscated, are locked in and are living in appalling conditions. These are the issues that this government is failing to address.
It puts pressure on the local jobs market and creates division. If you can pay an exploited temporary worker $5 an hour and get away with it, before they get deported or before a complaint is made, then you are not paying the correct entitlements. I referred earlier to the Work Choices zombie agreements. These are a massive problem in our community. These are a demonstration that Work Choices is not dead, buried and cremated. Too many workers are stuck on these agreements. The processes of Fair Work are slow and the workers are struggling to get them terminated. The legacy of John Howard and Tony Abbott lives on. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that we can help create decent secure jobs, jobs that Australians can count on. For a government that said on election day that they are about jobs and growth, in a very quick period of time—
A government member interjecting—
Ms CHESTERS: We did not hear about jobs last night. We hear that unemployment is going to increase under this government. The jobs embassy is back. It is back on the lawns out the front of Parliament House, because of the government's failure to have a decent policy on creating decent, secure jobs in this country. The government do not have a plan for future industries. They do not have a plan for growing and sustaining our industries. And they definitely do not have a plan for building good, secure jobs and a Fair Work Act that respects and that ensures decent jobs going forward.
Last night's budget was a shocker, and all of us will get a chance to reflect on its cuts to education, its cuts to health and its cuts to university students, including the fact that it could force regional campuses to close because of funding cuts compounding with the drop in student numbers from the forcing up of fees. The budget is demonstration, again, that the government do not understand, that they represent the top end of town, not the regions, not communities, not men and women and their families, and definitely not the electorate of Bendigo. But the government's failure on jobs is what we really need to highlight. They need a decent jobs plan.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:51): People all over the country, young people in particular, are being screwed over by the government, and my constituents in Melbourne are no exception. Whether it is complete inaction on climate change—if you listen to the Treasurer's speech last night, you would be forgiven for thinking that climate change does not exist: it did not rate a mention once—the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else or the fact that young people are being done over day by day by day, the list is endless. The government showed us with their budget last night that they will back, every time, the people who own a home already to get their second, third or fourth, even at the cost of billions of dollars for the budget, while making it harder and harder for young people to buy their first house.
Since I was elected, nearly 3,000 individual constituents have come through my office seeking help about a range of matters, often dealing with problems caused by the failure of this government. That is on top of the many, many more who have contacted me with their views about a variety of issues and, of course, the hundreds of community groups in the electorate, with whom we deal on a regular basis. But today I want to talk about a few of the failures in our system and how they are affecting people in my electorate of Melbourne, in particular.
Housing is out of control. In 1985, a home in Melbourne cost three times the average wage—now it is 9.7 times the average wage. The Domain Group chief economist has predicted that Melbourne's median house price will reach $1 million by the end of next year. When you look at how it has changed for young people over time, you see that it used to be, a couple of decades ago, that an average house cost six times young person's income—that was back in the 1990s—now it is 12 times an average young person's income. But when the government had the chance to do something about it by tackling unfair tax breaks it squibbed it. The government has said in this budget that it will make students pay more, by loading them up with HECS debt and making them pay it back earlier, and it will cut the funding to universities, so the education the students get is going to be delivered by universities with even less money to deliver it, but it is happy to spend billions of dollars every year to subsidise people who have already got a home to buy their second, third or fourth home and have a tax break to put in their pocket. That is manifestly unfair. The budget was a chance to fix that and take some real action to make housing affordable and put it within reach of young people, and the government has completely squibbed it.
Meanwhile, the government is persisting in saying that it has to give tax cuts to big business. Its priorities are completely wrong. If you are a young person under 35, the only thing that you got from last night's budget was the middle finger. The government had a chance to help address the growing generational gap in this country, and it chose to side with those who already have a lot of money and who already have a lot of wealth—and the war on the young is continuing.
Even as costs soar in the private housing market, for decades governments of both stripes have failed to invest in public housing in the way that we need. Over 33,000 people are on the waiting list for public housing in Victoria. When you look at the waiting lists over the last few years, it is common for people who are homeless to have to wait three, four or five years to find a home—this is people who are homeless. This week, my office spoke with Hawa, who is a sole parent with young children and has been homeless for over 15 months. She and her kids have been left waiting on the highest level of priority for public housing for over a year without even stable transitional accommodation. Imagine: how can you do all the things that a parent wants to do, like get the kids to school and back home again, if you do not know where you are going to sleep that night. Hawa is just one of hundreds of people in my electorate who have sought my assistance, because housing has failed them.
With this crisis in affordable housing, the number of people who are homeless is shooting up. More than twice as many people are sleeping rough in Melbourne as in 2012. Faced with this crisis you would think that governments would be doing everything they can to be building more public housing. But, instead, the Victorian Labor government, which we thought might be better than the Liberals, is selling off public housing land to private development. My constituents in Ascot Vale, Flemington and parts of North Melbourne are facing the prospect of Labor moving them out of their homes and breaking up existing communities, and if they choose to come back to their previous estates most of the open space is going to be taken up not with new public housing but with private housing.
The small increase in the amount of social housing is going to go nowhere near what is needed to address the looming crisis. When you have prime land in inner-city Melbourne that has public housing on it, let's take the opportunity to build more public housing there. But, instead, the government is saying that they are going to sell it off to private developers because it makes them a bit of cash. We are going to fight that tooth and nail, because building more public housing is one of the best ways that we can deal with the housing affordability crisis in this country.
Meanwhile, in Melbourne, our lord mayor, Robert Doyle, has come up with the worst possible idea, which is to ban homelessness. Well, passing a law against it is not going to make it go away. In the 19th century, Nobel Prize winner Anatole France said:
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, that was a warning—it was not a 'how to' guide. It was not a suggestion that you actually pass a law banning people who are homeless from sleeping in some of the few places they might be able to.
A quorum having been called for in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:57 to 11:58
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:59): Meanwhile, in Melbourne, our lord mayor, Robert Doyle, has come up with the worst possible idea for dealing with the housing crisis, which is to pass a law to ban homelessness. In the 19th century Nobel Prize winner Anatole France said:
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
That was a warning about justice. It was not a 'how-to' guide for a local council. It was not a 'how-to' guide, Robert Doyle. It was not suggesting that we somehow need to deal with this problem by saying that people who are doing it so tough that the only place they can find to sleep is somewhere where most of us would never want to spend an hour, let alone at night, passing a law saying you cannot do it any more and we are going to fine you and potentially have you committing a criminal offence. So let us get serious in Melbourne about investing in affordable housing, not just blame the people who are homeless for the failure of our housing system.
The Greens are standing up to the homelessness ban by Melbourne City Council. I acknowledge all of those who have campaigned against the ban, including many people who have experienced homelessness and who know what it will mean for people who are sleeping rough. We have a housing crisis and we will fix it by government deciding to build more public housing and by the federal government deciding to stop spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on helping people who already have a home to get their second, third or fourth and instead put it into building more affordable housing.
Melbourne is the place it is today because of the contribution of migrants and refugees. I cannot imagine Melbourne without the Vietnamese community or without the Greek and Italian communities, all of whom settled in Richmond and then moved to other suburbs like Carlton. There are the African communities in my neighbourhood of Flemington and other parts of the electorate and there are the Chinese communities that you see in various parts including in Chinatown, and there are so many others. Melbourne is a place where we show that there is an alternative to the hate and fear of the likes of Senator Pauline Hanson. When the federal government takes its lead from the far Right and attacks the success of Australian multiculturalism, people in my electorate feel the pain.
I have met constituents who have told me they have already faced racist insults in the street. One woman told me that her hijab was ripped off her head. A 12-year-old at Carlton Primary School wrote to me to say that, during the middle of her 800-metre race at school, someone called out an insult to her suggesting that she was a terrorist because she had a hijab on. She was so upset that she could not finish her race. This is what is at stake—the right of kids to be able to go about their daily lives and do something that everyone would expect you would have the right to do, like participate in a sports carnival, without being insulted or assaulted because of who you are. But we have got a cultural and immigration system that is punishing people, not supporting them. Families are being separated because it is getting harder and harder to bring family members to Australia to spend time with loved ones. Melburnians trying to bring their partners to Australia are being told to expect a waiting time of over 23 months before their partner can join them. That is two years before couples can get on with their lives together. Not that long ago it was less than 12 months, which is still very long time. This federal government is failing families. People applying to bring in family members located in East Africa are waiting for a longer time than those applying to bring in family members from, for example, Europe or North America. I have heard of constituents who have followed the rules and done everything correctly but have had to wait over a year longer than the guidelines say because it took over a year for basic police checks to be done by the Australian government. They were told they were not allowed to access any information or even ask about what was happening to their applications. It is not good enough. It is systemic discrimination and it is hitting people who come from countries like those in Africa, particularly the Horn of Africa and East Africa, the hardest.
We have also heard from a constituent who has a son who is in danger, who was bashed by the police. He is living in Sudan and has no direct family there nor anywhere else in the world other than Australia. The family have been waiting since May 2011 for their last remaining relative visa to be finalised. Someone who has no family anywhere else in the world other than in Australia has been waiting since May 2011 just to have a visa finalised. Just yesterday my office spoke with a woman whose brother is a refugee who was forced to leave his country and is now in a camp. The department of immigration told her that they acknowledged he was in danger, he had faced persecution and he had nowhere to go but Australia. Yet, because the coalition government had cut the number of refugee places by a third, his request to join his family and live safely in Australia has been refused.
This government talks all the time about how we have to so-called stop the boats because we have to look after the people who are waiting in the so-called queues. Well, let me tell you—and the parliament needs to understand—there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people around the world who are desperately waiting in camps, and their family members here are trying to get them out. They are waiting and doing the right thing, and they are being shown a closed door by this government.
The government's recent announcement that it plans to change citizenship rules and leave people waiting for more than two years has left many Melbourne residents and their families facing deep uncertainty. My office has spoken with people who have tried to do the right thing and want to contribute to Australia as their new country but at the last minute have had their entire plans ripped out from under them. These changes have real impacts on real people. Often the people in this situation have no access to support or legal advice, and with chronic underfunding from government for community legal centres, which they were dragged kicking and screaming to partly repair, still so many people who just want to come to Australia and make this place their home do not have access to the support that they need to even get their application processed and to deal with the fact that the government is putting otherwise good applications on hold.
Meanwhile, the government's cruelty to refugees continues. This government has sent Vietnamese and Tamil asylum seekers back to danger without even processing their refugee claims. Recently in the House I spoke about Saeed, which is not his real name. He is currently in Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, threatened with deportation. He is a stateless man from a religious minority, who faced persecution in Iraq, to where the Australian government wants to forcibly return him. He fears for his life if he is sent there. Mr Peter Dutton has the power to stop his deportation, and I stand with Saeed and the people protesting around the country, including in my electorate, who are trying to make sure this deportation does not happen. It is worth remembering that, if 40 years ago governments had the same policy of turning people back that the Liberal and Labor parties have today, there would not be a Vietnamese community in Melbourne. Pausing and reflecting on that single fact alone ought to make people realise that our current approach to dealing with refugees who are coming here seeking our help is fundamentally wrong, and those people who did not stand up and demand a better system are going to be judged very harshly.
For years the Greens have pushed for a better deal for people receiving Centrelink payments, including an increase to Newstart and to youth allowance, but Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal-National coalition are instead punishing and making life hard for too many people in Melbourne and in Australia. This comes on the back of cuts from previous Labor governments, including cuts to sole parenting payments. Now the punitive measures are continuing in this year's budget. If you are on social support, the government wants to treat you like someone who is a potential criminal all the time. We need a supportive approach to people that are seeking support from our safety net, rather than a punitive approach. It is replacing one punitive approach with another, when we know that does not work. You cannot blame people for not finding jobs that are not there. One thing that government did not tell you in their speech last night is that buried in the back of the budget are forecasts that unemployment will continue to rise. That is going to hit young people the hardest. We know that since the GFC the youth unemployment rate has not come back to parity with the general unemployment rate, and young people are finding it increasingly hard to find a decent full-time job that allows them to meet the ever rising cost of housing and to deal with the debts that, thanks to this government, they are increasingly accruing. The jobs are just not there.
So what do you do? Do you turn around and say, 'Let's put in place programs, like investing in education and building more renewable energy, that might actually employ some of those people'? Or do you turn around and blame the victim, which is what the government has done in this budget? To say, 'Just because you have no job, through no fault of your own, we are going to subject you to invasions of your personal liberty and demand that you submit to regular drug testing,' is vilifying people. If this government starts breath-testing its own MPs and cabinet ministers before they come in for every speech or every vote then the Australian population might start to take them seriously, but everyone can see what they are doing for what it is: an attack on the poor and the jobless, when the government should be trying to create jobs for those people, rather than blaming them.
Let's not forget the robo-debt debacle. My office has been inundated with calls from people who have been issued automated debt notices by Centrelink, and I am aware of many cases where the debt was totally wrong. One couple was issued with a debt notice for over $25,000, and when it was investigated it turned out there was no debt at all. Imagine receiving a letter from a government department telling you you have to pay $25,000 and the full force of the law applies, and it turns out there is no debt at all! This couple was fortunate enough to know that there was someone they could turn to for help—their local MP, who was not in the government—but so many people will not be in that situation. They will receive these notices and not know what to do. It will be terrifying and it will have a huge impact. Think about what that means. Imagine getting that letter from the government. You might think that at least you would get an apology from the government, but no. This government has refused to apologise at all. It has simply said, 'The system wasn't working as intended.'
Another constituent was issued with a debt notice, then told the debt was no longer current, but then, months later, was sent another letter asking how he was going to repay the debt. It was only after further inquiries from my office that he was finally told that really there was no debt.
What we are finding is that the government is saying to people: 'You have a debt to pay. You've got to pay it. If you think that debt isn't right, effectively the onus is on you to come and prove to us that there is no debt.' It is like getting a phone call from a debt collection agency to say: 'We've got a suggestion here that back in 2005 you borrowed Flying High from the video store and you haven't returned it. The fines have accumulated and we'd like you to pay them back. If you can prove that you didn't borrow that video then we'll waive them, but if you can't prove it then, sorry, you have to pay up.' This is ridiculous. It is reversing the onus of proof and it is government continuing with the approach of treating everyone who is without a job as a criminal.
You do not treat people who have fallen on hard times as criminals. If you want Australia to be a place where everyone is looked after and everyone feels that they have got a place, you provide support for people. You put in place programs that create jobs and you lift the level of Newstart above the poverty line. It is far too low and it is stopping people from getting access to the jobs that they need. They do not have the money to go and get that haircut or buy those extra clothes that might help them at a job interview. There are so many people applying, and the jobs are not even there. The government has to stop punishing the victim.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (12:12): I rise in relation to the matter before the chamber insofar as I seek to acknowledge the excellent work done by the Labor members on this inquiry, honourable members Thistlethwaite, King and Keogh, and the incredibly hard work that they put into very thorough and well considered dissenting reports in relation to both the first report of the review of the four major banks, which was published in November last year, and the recently released second report of the review.
What is very telling about the common themes that run through the dissenting reports of my fellow members is that, whilst there is some window-dressing around reforms that are long overdue in the banking sector, what we all know is that fundamentally there is only one compelling ray of sunlight that is likely to be appropriate disinfectant for ongoing misconduct by the banking sector at the expense of mum and dad consumers, and that, simply, is a royal commission.
When one traverses the recommendations of the government members' report—again, paying heed to the members for Kingsford Smith, Burt and Brand—one constantly comes back to the fundamental point that, whilst many of these recommendations are worthy of review, the matters can only be addressed holistically through a royal commission.
I note that, in November 2016, the dissenting report finished by stating that a royal commission into the financial services industry should examine issues such as:
how widespread instances of illegal and unethical behaviour are within Australia's financial services industry;
how Australia's financial services institutions treat their duty of care to their customers;
how the culture, ethical standards and business structures of Australian financial services institutions affect the behaviour of these institutions;
whether Australia's regulators are really equipped to identify and prevent illegal and unethical behaviour;
comparable international experience with similar financial services industry misconduct and best practice responses to those incidents; and
other events as may come to light …
I would like to touch upon other events shortly but, to conclude on the dissenting report, the honourable Labor members put it thus in a media release—and I could not put it better myself:
This Royal Commission should be initiated without delay to ensure justice for the victims of banking misconduct and restore public confidence in the Australian banking sector which has been badly damaged by the string of scandals in recent years.
I echo those sentiments, and I am very proud to say that that approach was followed through consistently in relation to the second report.
Again, it is worthy to note that one really has to question the extent to which we are truly going to uncover the conduct at the heart of the behaviour with the banks insofar as the inquiry in which these hardworking honourable members devote so much of their blood, sweat and tears to allows them 20 minutes each to undertake a questioning or cross-examination of the CEOs of these big four banks. Make no mistake, there are reasons for why these CEOs command bonuses and salaries in the multimillions of dollars. They are not silly people, and they are not people who have not been around the block a few times. They know how to answer questions. They know how to do duck and weave from the hard questions, and they know how to make their 20 minutes last insofar as it means preventing these hardworking members from getting to the guts of the issues in relation to alleged misconduct. That is why we need a royal commission which allows unfettered access into the executive sector of the banking stream to make sure that evidence is given under oath with documents being put to them in a way that does not allow a tick-and-flick exercise of simply going through the motions for 20 minutes.
I am very pleased to say the tenacity of the honourable members on our side of the parliament shone through again in the second report. Having reviewed the recommendations in the second report, I will outline or articulate the conclusion as follows. The dissenting members said, 'As Labor members recommended after the first hearings we again urge the government to take responsibility, stop defending the banks, and establish the systematic, thorough and transparent investigation that only a royal commission can provide.'
We see absolutely nothing in the budget that was delivered last night which can offer mums and dads of this country any comfort or any assurance whatsoever that there is a sufficient deterrent in the corporate culture of these banks so as to prevent misconduct from occurring. What we saw in relation to the announcements last night in the budget insofar as attempting to curb the unethical behaviour of banks goes is a similar theme that we saw in relation to the Treasurer's half-hearted attempts at reform in the areas of health, education, infrastructure, general finance reform and, certainly, the banking sector. Make no mistake: this so-called, alleged, attempted heavy-handed approach at a levy on the banking sector is simply risking being in one door and out the other because there is no guarantee here, regardless of what the Treasurer says, that the cost of the levy will not otherwise be passed on to mums and dads paying mortgages or hardworking Australians who buy shares in these banks, often for superannuation purposes. It is up to the government to make sure that banks are paying their fair share. We do not see enough reassurance right now.
I want to make this point: the unethical culture in the banking sector is not one which is limited to adverse and harmful impacts upon customers and consumers; it is an environment which has adverse and harmful impacts upon employees. Before coming to this place, I had the great honour of being involved in a case representing a former bank manager of the Commonwealth Bank. In a published decision, called Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve, a full Federal Court decision, the Commonwealth Bank resisted paying Mr Reeve compensation for his mental illness, on the basis that it was caused by what they considered to be 'reasonable administrative action.' The facts of the case, as I said, have been published, so they are public knowledge. Mr Reeve, a bank manager at a suburban branch of the Commonwealth Bank, was placed under pressure to deliver a sufficient level of service, so as to attract a score rating of nine or 10 on customer feedback forms. He was placed under so much pressure for so long—feeling humiliated at having to justify his existence, in relation to delivering customer service, time and time again—that he attempted to end his life three times. This was as a result of the pressure placed upon him by his employer, the Commonwealth Bank. Luckily for us, and luckily for his family, he was not successful in those attempts. He was diagnosed with a major depressive condition and spent years fighting to be compensated—simply to have his wages paid and his medical treatment paid—through the court system, not just at the AAT but to the full Federal Court of this country, to be compensated for the illness that was caused by the conduct of these banks.
In conclusion, I take this opportunity to make clear that it is due to the good work of the Labor members on this inquiry, and their consistent and tenacious approach in calling for a royal commission, that, hopefully, one day we will see a proper examination of the conduct of these banks in a way that allows us to truly shine a light on every area of potential misconduct, to make sure that consumers are not affected, that shareholders are not affected and, importantly, that employees are not affected—not now and not ever.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (12:23): I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak on report 169 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It covers two agreements between Australia and France: an agreement that goes to the Future Submarine program and an agreement that covers classified information exchange, which is also related to the submarine program. These agreements facilitate and guide the further detailed arrangements in contracts that will follow regarding the Future Submarine project.
It is probably not necessary to say just how large in scope and scale, and how important, that project is. It is important strategically. It is important in terms of its potential for industry participation and capacity building, for jobs and skills in this country in sophisticated manufacturing and for marine and maritime industry. It is very complicated. The new submarine following the Collins class submarine will represent the most sophisticated manufacturing undertaking in this nation's history. It is also very costly.
The Future Submarine program will be the largest defence acquisition in our history. It is key to our regional maritime defence strategy as was set out in the 2016 Defence White Paper. It is the centrepiece of the Royal Australian Navy's continuous shipbuilding program. Labor members of the joint standing committee support the strategic value and the potential for industry capacity building that are inherent in this program, but we note that these things will only be delivered by the ongoing, close, stringent, careful and responsive supervision of all aspects of the Future Submarine program, or the FSP.
We recognise that defence strategy, procurement and operations fall within a special and distinctive sphere of policy and administration that occurs in the national interest. But we also recognise the importance of rigorous and discerning analysis and oversight of the FSP and other similar defence procurement projects. That analysis and oversight needs to be free of any tendency to regard such projects or such matters as being above ordinary review or criticism. Defence, in that regard, does occupy a special place in Australian governance and administration, but it cannot be so special that it is not subject to proper scrutiny and rigorous oversight.
Defence strategy, procurement and operations can never be matters that are so arcane and so rarefied as to prevent their full and proper supervision by parliament and government in relation to all relevant aspects of the national interest. Defence acquisitions, like the Future Submarines, should always be necessary, fit for purpose and cost-effective. I make the further point that the consideration of opportunity costs, when we look at defence procurement, should not be limited to foregone opportunities in defence alone. The defence budget is part of the national budget, and every dollar we spend somewhere is a dollar we cannot apply to another aspect of the needs of the Australian people.
In that sense, I want to make a side point. We heard from the Treasurer last night that the defence spending target of reaching two per cent of GDP is going to be achieved three years early, by 2021. That is fair enough. But it is also fair enough to ask what strategic need or imperative is driving that acceleration. That may well be a good thing, but we need to be able to ask in the parliament and in the public domain exactly what drives that acceleration, when of course there will be cuts and delays in other areas of funding.
The Treasurer said last night, 'The first duty of a national government is to keep Australians safe.' That is true, but there are a range of ways in which you can enhance peace, protection and stability. I have made the argument before that there is no better investment in peace and regional security, dollar for dollar, than targeted and well administered foreign assistance, and unfortunately we see a cut in that area. We do need to look at those two things at the same time, if we are serious about security and regional peace and stability.
The JSCOT hearings and the report process focused on a number of key issues in relation to the Future Submarine project. Two of the most important were control over intellectual property and the scope for Australian industry participation. Both of those things together go to ensuring our ability as a nation to maintain sovereign operational and sustainment capability. Australian industry participation should not be regarded as something that is important just in terms of the collateral economic benefits of this project. The benefits and advantages of administering a project like this well, such as jobs and skills and sophisticated manufacturing capacity, are very important, but that participation is actually critical to having the sovereign operational and sustainment capability that we want. We have to remember, when we consider something like a submarine, unlike other manufactured goods, things do not stop after the build. With other manufactured goods you might focus on the design and the build, but with something like a submarine, sustainment across its life is an enormous amount of work. The Collins class has a schedule of once-a-decade maintenance work that, more or less, takes 12 months, and there are other substantial periods when the submarines are out of the water and undergoing really extensive work.
Needless to say, the Future Submarine project is being looked at through the lens of the Collins class project in relation to both intellectual property and Australian industry participation. Many people would remember that, in the course of the Collins class project, there was a protracted dispute with the Swedish company Kockums. At one point, as Kockums asserted its intellectual property rights, Australia was prevented from having cracked propellers fixed. We had cracked propellers that were held in a ship off the coast of the United States and were not able to be seen to because of legal action. There were cases where Kockums employees had to be able to be aboard the Collins class submarines in order to undertake work while they were operational. These are things we would want to avoid through the Future Submarine project.
The point was made in the hearing that, when you talk about maximal Australian industry participation, it has got to be right through the process—in the design, the build and the sustainment. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union appeared before the committee and spoke about the importance of being involved in the design phase. They said:
… the multiplier effect of design work is much higher than for building work or maintenance work, and the opportunities for spin-offs and spill overs are much greater in the design phase that they are in other phases. … As we all acknowledge, we want the 12th submarine off the line to be better than the first submarine off the line. That is going to come out of having that concentrated design knowledge, know-how and 'know why,' combined with the feedback we are getting from the submariners who are on them …
Having that involvement is important from the point of view of operational management and that sovereign capacity.
We also heard evidence from Mike Deeks, who is managing director of Forgacs, a shipbuilder now based in my electorate, and also a former Royal Australian Navy Commodore and submariner. Mr Deeks gave us some insights into aspects that were poorly managed in the course of the Collins class project. He said:
The impact this had was poor operational availability and limited sea time and it had an adverse effect on recruiting, retention, training and morale. An ability to conduct underway repairs is equivalent to having more submarines in the force. If a submarine can remain on station operating independently of any shore based support, despite experiencing significant defects, it is like having additional submarines in the inventory.
The opposition members of the committee were glad, with the committee's support, to make some changes to the draft recommendations. The final recommendations included a request that the Department of Defence come back to the committee with further evidence as to how both intellectual property and maximal Australian industry participation will be guaranteed through the detailed contracts. I think that is a good thing and a mark of the committee's good work in this case.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:33): The most important factor about this treaty in the immediate term is an event that has just happened in France: Mr Macron has just been elected rather than Marine Le Pen—'Marine' being an ominous name for this very important defence procurement—whose constituency is in rural and regional France, including Normandy and Cherbourg, where many of these submarines will be built.
I endorse some of the cautions espoused by the member for Fremantle about report 169. This is Australia's largest strategic gambit and biggest Defence procurement ever. The Future Submarine program is, as I said, Australia's largest defence acquisition and it is key to our regional maritime strategy as outlined in the 2016 Defence white paper. Unfortunately, the boats will only be built after 2026—when the French have finished building the earlier version of them, the Barracuda class, for their own navy—and will only be in the water by 2032!
Labor, however, supports the strategic value and potential for industry capacity building that is inherent in this Future Submarine program. Our position is that it should deliver on these important values and have ongoing close, stringent and responsive supervision, as you would expect with a contract of $50 billion. It is not the first time our country has undertaken to build submarines locally, and it is not the first time Australia has been reliant on the intellectual property of another country.
Australia has many lessons to learn from the Collins class submarine issue, including the disputes over intellectual property that were mentioned by the member for Fremantle, that have the potential to diminish Australia's sovereign capacity to maintain and operate these submarines, which, after all, will not be deployed until 2050. Witnesses before our public inquiry noted that Australia continued to be reliant on Kockums personnel for onboard repairs to the Collins class submarines, which reduces operational availability and sea time. Of course, this would have to be something we try and avoid in future circumstances.
There have been many critics of this program, not least Mr Andrew Bolt. He has some serious criticisms of this agreement between the two countries which I am going to note later in my remarks without necessarily agreeing with all of his points. The French majority ownership of DCNS may not persist through the life of the agreement, which is expected to last several decades. Article 8(3) requires that France shall continue to ensure its obligations under the agreement are met in the event of a change in control of DCNS, but it is not clear how this would occur in some circumstances—for example, if DCNS was to be controlled by a third country entity.
The agreement cannot be considered a matter principally confined between Australia and France. The Future Submarines integrated combat system will be provided by Lockheed Martin. Witnesses before the inquiry made the point that appropriate trilateral arrangements will be necessary if the objectives of the agreement under consideration are to be achieved in areas like intellectual property, security of supply, security of information, sovereign capability and Australian industry participation. Achieving the objective of maximising Australian industry participation—article 3(1)(h)—will not be easy or straightforward.
We support recommendation 1 of the committee's report, which calls for the Department of Defence to report back in the 2018 winter sittings of parliament about the acquisition of necessary intellectual property and its ongoing maintenance. At the suggestion of Labor members, this report will also provide more detail in relation to the contractual and other arrangements that will secure maximal opportunities for Australian industry involvement.
Of course, submarines are built of steel. The French have a great deal of experience in building submarines. Steel is produced in Europe, and steel is produced here in Australia. Arguments for the fighting efficiency of this submarine may take the form of the French and European suppliers of steel arguing that only they produce steel that is hard enough and suitable for the submarine's hull at the great depths that we know submarines have to operate in. But, certainly, there is no reason why the steel for the interior of these submarines cannot be provided by Australia. I see that Adani is offering to build all of its railways with Australian steel. I am sure the contractors for this would have considered the same.
Labor members of the committee strongly supported recommendation 2, and we are grateful that the government members did as well. Recommendation 2 says:
… the Committee recommends the Government seeks to ensure that the further detailed agreements and arrangements have the effect of allowing Australian companies to bid for work in all phases—
of the treaty—
on a preferred basis, all … things being equal.
I think that is a very important thing. It ensures not only that Australians can bid on it but also, all things being equal, that Australian companies will be considered on a preferred basis.
Of course, there are people who think it is a very big gamble to spend so much money over such an extended period of time on such an important strategic asset with a country so far away. We have really good relations with France. I personally know very well the French Ambassador to Australia, Stephane Romatet, who was chief of staff to Prime Minister Manuel Valls. I see him, speak to him and correspond with him regularly. I hope Mr Valls takes a leading role in the Macron government.
But France does have its own foreign policy. Recently, France quite commendably decided to cancel supplying the two aircraft carriers that it had sold to the Russians. This was probably a good thing given that Mr Putin unilaterally invaded Crimea and seized part of Ukraine despite the fact that the international community, including Russia, had agreed to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. Giving up nuclear weapons is something that no other country has ever done. You can imagine that many Ukrainians think the Russians would not have been so bold if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons. It is probably a factor encouraging Kim Jong-un and the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons.
My point is that, whether we agree with the French policy of strategic shift or not, there is a concern about this. Mr Bolt, for instance, says that not building at least the first few submarines in France will mean the company 'delivers submarines to the Royal Australian Navy more slowly and at a higher overall cost'. Moreover, Bolt argues that this project 'will not deliver the last submarine for at least 35 years, and we do not even know whether we will need such technology then; and that, perhaps more dangerously, it gives a historically unreliable ally and supplier the power to model one of our major armaments if we fight in a war it does not like'. Now that appears far-fetched; I would even say it is anti-French. It is a view I do not share. But I am not the Oracle of Delphi—I cannot see 50 years into the future.
And Mr Bolt has a point. This is why we are going to have to supervise this arrangement with France very carefully, continuously. All members of this parliament—even those who are not concerned with Defence procurement and strategic issues—should concern themselves with this because, as the member for Fremantle said, it means we are going to spend $50 billion of Australian taxpayers' money on this and not on other things, including other Defence procurement. I know that the member for Solomon has very strong and very wise views on Defence procurement. We all, as an opposition, support the government on this general attitude towards the important acquisition of strategic defence for Australia—the submarines—but we have to be very, very mindful of how it operates over the next few decades.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting s uspended from 12:43 to 16:01
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 SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:01): When we were in this place in the turmoil of the last 24 hours, with discussions about budgets and the accusations flying across the chamber, with responsibility being ignored, or not, a whole range of things happened. I think we often forget the very important things in our lives that we actually ought to be contemplating more often than we currently do, and we should be thinking about them more in this place.
It is with respect to that that I want to spend some time talking about an old friend of mine who recently passed away. I want to do that because she was so very close friend—someone who worked on my behalf in successive elections since 1987; someone who showed me great loyalty over that very long period of time; and someone who was very forthright in her summation of events and in her views. She had no trouble at all in castigating me or bringing me to account for perhaps saying the wrong thing or not actually understanding all that I might in relation to her or her family and community.
I am referring to Mrs N Lalara, who was a senior Nunggabuyu and Warnindilyakwa woman. She was a senior traditional owner of lands in east Arnhem Land but had lived most of her life among her Anindilyakwa-speaking relatives on Groote Eylandt. She was born in 1946 and raised at the newly opened Church Missionary Society mission at Angurugu, on Groote Eylandt. That is where she was educated and was identified early on by the missionaries for her linguistic proficiency in Anindilyakwa, her natural teaching ability and, most importantly for the church, her fluency in English. It was no surprise that, as a result, when she left school Mrs Lalara became a school teacher. Later on during the course of my contribution I will talk about the importance of that educational role and what she might be thinking about the current issues to do with education in the Northern Territory, and Australia more generally.
Always a very strong and influential woman, Mrs Lalara worked with the missionaries but always had doubts about their methods. In an oral history interview conducted in 2012 she said of the missionary times: 'It was just rule bound, strict things. Missionaries were the bossy ones. They used to tell is what to do and they used to punish us.' Things changed for her with the election of the Whitlam government in 1972. It began a process of self-determination and the end of mission control at Angurugu by 1980. The Whitlam land rights legislation, which was subsequently passed by the Fraser government, was to make Mrs Lalara a lifelong supporter and friend of the Australian Labor Party.
However, unlike many, she was not blinded by the language of self-determination; she saw it largely as a masquerade. She said recently about the early 1970s: 'Self-determination was handled appallingly. It is just words. You see so many white people come and go. People do not give a '@$&!' about you. Corrupt principals. Teachers here to bludge in the bush. The white people were basically deadwood. They were conservative and interested in themselves. They wanted to earn money and get a good mortgage for a house somewhere else. Things could not be worse if all the white people left. Nothing has happened because it is bludge city here.' She was referring to the early 1970s.
Mrs Lalara was a very strong, traditional Aboriginal woman. In the late 1970s, while teaching at Angurugu School she met the love of her life, Grant Burgoyne—another very close friend of mine—a recently arrived schoolteacher from Sydney. They had a child, Kara, and were to spend the rest of Mrs Lalara's life together. This was mainly on Groote Eylandt but also travelling to schools and towns around the Territory and New South Wales, including Darwin, Pigeon Hole, Hay, Casino and Nambucca Heads. Everywhere she went, she made an impact as a strong, independent Aboriginal woman, including calling out racism publicly wherever she saw it. At the first cricket test at The Gabba in 1986, she insisted on barracking for the West Indies against the Australian 11, calling at the top of her voice: 'Where are the black players in the Australian team?'
Upon returning to Groote Eylandt she worked informally as an interpreter, without pay, for many years, ensuring that her family and community understood and accessed services. It was not until 1996, with the first trial of an Aboriginal interpreter service in the Northern Territory, that she was to be paid for this work. She sat for one of the first accreditation tests to qualify as an official interpreter and scored one of the highest levels ever for such tests. It was no surprise to those of us who knew her, and had witnessed her performance as an unofficial interpreter for many years, that she would succeed. The first Aboriginal interpreter service and its employees faced many challenges in the early days, but Mrs Lalara's professionalism always shone through. Colleen Roses, the then redoubtable head of the interpreter service, recalls one particular case in the Northern Territory Supreme Court: 'One of the defendants had the same last name and the prosecution lawyer tried to say that Mrs Lalara was related and therefore would take sides. You should have seen his face when Mrs Lalara stood up and advised him that she was related to every Aboriginal person in Australia and as a professional interpreter she did not take sides. I am sure that he had never been challenged before and probably has not been challenged again in such a strong and proud way.'
Courts and hospitals would always make special request to have Mrs Lalara interpret, so professional was she in her work. Judge Sue Oliver sent a special message of condolence to Mrs Lalara's family at her recent funeral. Mrs Lalara was always an active member of the Anindilyakwa Land Council. She campaigned for the removal of a disgraced former CEO and always endeavoured through the land council to make the Groote Eylandt mining company, GEMCO, keep its promises to her people. At her funeral, GEMCO representatives acknowledged this, saying: 'GEMCO always knew when Mrs Lalara was unhappy with them, so forthright was she in making her views known to the company.' It is a fact that she did not like what mining had done to her beloved country, but she still worked constructively with GEMCO to get the best possible result for her people, especially in regard to local employment and land rehabilitation.
In fact, for the last decade, she and her husband, Grant, ran a very successful cross-cultural training program for new GEMCO employees and their contractors to ensure that new arrivals had a better understanding of the cultural mores of the people. When former Governor-General Quentin Bryce visited Groote, Mrs Lalara hosted her at the cross-cultural training course in another example of her never-ending quest to make non-Indigenous people understand something of her people, their needs and their aspirations.
In 2010 a $2 mining company from Perth won exploration leases over 1,723 square kilometres of the seabed between the mainland and Groote. Mrs Lalara went on the offensive with strident opposition to their plans. She gave many media interviews condemning the plans, explaining that eight major song lines across the affected seabed and her people's very existence would be compromised if the mining was to go ahead. She mobilised her people and convinced governments of both political persuasions to put a moratorium on the planned exploration.
On behalf of myself, really, but also of the Australian Labor Party, I cannot conclude without acknowledging the exemplary service that she provided to us over more than four decades. No election passed without her manning the polling booths at Groote, Bickerton Island and Numbulwar on behalf of local Labor candidates including Bob Collins, Wesley Lanhupuy, John Ah Kit, Malarndirri McCarthy and of course myself. Though unwell, she campaigned hard for the current member for Arnhem, Selena Uibo.
She delighted in Labor victories, celebrated hard and was devastated by the rare defeats she suffered. She was a very, very tenacious campaigner and someone who would not take a backwards step at a polling booth. Future campaigns will not be the same without her, but I know her husband, Grant; daughter, Kara; and other family members will continue her great work.
This is a really personal thing for me because I knew Mrs Lalara very well, and I know her husband, Grant, very well. And I know how difficult the time has been since the funeral. But I know how proud he is about the life he spent with the love of his life for so long. Sadly, when she passed away she was a shadow of herself. I think she weighed something like 29 kilograms. She was very sick but always, always wise. So it is goodbye to Mrs Lalara.
She was an educationist as well. One of the things that we have noted now is, in her communities, Umbakumba, Angurugu and Alyangula, the schools are very remote. They are up in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The circumstances confronting the kids are difficult and the teachers equally as difficult. So it is really sad for me personally and as a member of this parliament to see that the budget that was to be delivered here last night is going to have a negative impact on those schools. It is a direct impact on Northern Territory. Compared to the funding commitment of the Labor government in 2013 to fair schooling, the Northern Territory will loose over $240 million. Over the next 10 years, Northern Territory government schools would move from the current Commonwealth funding rate of approximately 23 per cent of the SRS down to 20 per cent of the SRS. In transitioning to the lower rate the Commonwealth will apply an average indexation rate of 1.3 per cent between 2018 and 2027. Based on what we know of this calculator, the indexation rate will decrease year by year. The average per-student funding for government school students will grow less than $1,000 over the next 10 years. I heard the shadow minister, the member for Sydney, talk in the previous parliament about the impact of this funding on Northern Territory schools, and she mentioned one school in particular. She mentioned Anula Primary School in suburban Darwin, which will receive $554 over 10 years—not a lot. At the very same time, Trinity Grammar School in Sydney, which has fees of up to $24,000 a year, will receive an increase of $2,734 per student over 10 years. How can this be fair? If you think about the students at Angurugu, Umbakumba and Alyangula, you will understand that many of them are the most disadvantaged educationally in the country. If the government thinks that somehow or other slashing funding in the way in which they are proposing will get a better outcome for remote Aboriginal kids living in bush communities around this country, particularly in my own electorate of the Northern Territory, they are sadly mistaken.
It is just criminal, really, that—when we hear the Prime Minister talking about closing the gap in education and employment—we have a very deliberate attempt here, by their own admission, that will have an impact which will be extremely detrimental to the capacity of the Northern Territory to provide an adequate and appropriate educational outcome for all the children of the Northern Territory. As I say, it will impact most adversely on those most disadvantaged and educationally deprived kids who live in remote parts of the Territory. It is worth noting the response from the Council of Government School Organisations in the Northern Territory. They have put out a press release today in which they have slammed the Turnbull government's 2017 budget for failing to invest in the Northern Territory children. I quote Tabby Fudge, the president of the NT Council of Government School Organisations:
Parents need to understand that rhetoric and spin from the federal government does nothing for our children without the funding attached.
She says further:
Despite the Turnbull government putting out a Fact Sheet on our dreadful levels of disadvantage they have failed to fund our level of need for our disadvantaged students.
Calling your funding ‘student needs based funding’ doesn’t mean you are funding student’s needs and they’re not.
Calling your funding Gonski 2.0 doesn’t mean you are funding what the Gonski report recommended to provide a quality education and they’re not.
Telling parents that you are increasing funding to 20% for government schools doesn’t tell Territory parents that we receive 23% and we will be the only state or territory to have to ‘transition down’ in funding.”
Announcing you are increasing education to the Territory without declaring that government schools will have to do the ‘heavy lifting’ is not fair.
Despite the continual funding attacks on Territory government schools they continue to top the Year 12 results every year thanks to our amazing staff and families. Our schools deserve the funding it actually costs to provide every Territory child with a quality education, no matter where they live.
Federal Budget 2017 is a clear fail for our voiceless children living with the highest level of educational disadvantage.
That says it all. But we are expected to jump and clap when the Prime Minister gets up here and says this is a fair budget that is fair to all Australians. It is not fair; it is not fair at all. I know that those teachers who work in those bush communities and in urban committees in the Northern Territory, who work their backsides of trying to improve educational outcomes for the students—particularly for those kids who are most disadvantaged—will be most upset by this.
It is very clear that you cannot, on the one hand, be talking about improving educational outcomes, saying teachers have to have better qualifications, be more highly motivated and deliver better outcomes if, on the other hand, you do not provide them with the resources they need—and, in this case, the resources are required. We are talking about my own electorate, where 42 per cent of the population are Aboriginal people, and there are a very large number of disadvantaged students living across rural locations. If you do not invest the resources that are required to alleviate the disadvantage, you will not get better educational outcomes, and, as a direct result, the life opportunities of those young people will be limited. And we all know that it is about not only education but also health—that if you do have healthy young people being educated well so that when they leave school they are in a position to either apply for a job or go for further training, then we have not succeeded.
Sadly, this is the case for so many young people in the Northern Territory. We want to break this cycle of dependence and poverty, and the only way we can do this is by making sure we get better educational outcomes. We will not get better educational outcomes in the Northern Territory as a result of this budget, because, as I have pointed out, our schools are being disadvantaged as against other schools across the country. Instead of getting the resources they properly require, they are getting far less. It is a shame. It is something which will hang around the necks of this federal government long into the future.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:21): Canberrans are used to bracing themselves whenever a coalition government releases a budget. In 1996, we lost 15,000 public servants here in Canberra and 30,000 nationwide, we saw Canberra go into an economic slump, we saw businesses close down, we saw local shops close down and we saw people leave town. Under the Howard government, Canberra really was hit very, very hard, and we went through an economic slump for five years. It took five years for us to dig ourselves out of that hole dug by the Howard government at the time, which saw, as I said, 15,000 jobs axed and people leave town.
We had three federal electorates in those days, in accordance with the size of the population. But, because of the Howard government's cuts, they were reduced to two. Now, as it stands, the electorate of Canberra is the largest in terms of numbers in the country, with 143,000, and the electorate of Fenner is the second largest, with 128,000. Most of my colleagues have electorates of between 90,000 and 100,000. So my electorate is much larger—40,000 people larger—than those of most of my colleagues. It just underscores the fact that Canberra is one of the most underrepresented places in the country, particularly compared to our Tasmanian colleagues, and it is not helped by coalition governments winning elections and taking the axe to our much-loved national capital.
As I said, we tend to brace ourselves for coalition government budgets. We braced ourselves for the Turnbull coalition government budget last night, and we were correct to engage the brace position, because last night's budget had no good news in it for Canberra—none. Since the Abbott-Turnbull government has been in power, 13,000 Public Service jobs have gone. Thirteen thousand have been axed here in Canberra and across Australia. As a result of last night's budget, we are now set to lose thousands more.
I will run through the list. Do not think about them as numbers but as individuals, as people with families as people with children, as people with mortgages, as people with car loans, as people with aspirations and dreams about their ambitions and as people who love their city and who love being public servants, who are dedicated to being servants of our democracy and who are dedicated to making a difference and to altruism. As I run through this very tragic list, think about each of these numbers as an individual, an individual with a family, an individual with friends, an individual with a home, an individual with a mortgage, an individual with a car loan, an individual with a dog and cat and budgie. We are talking people—they are not just numbers—which is what people tend to overlook when they deride Canberra so easily, when they blatantly feel it is okay to pork barrel on Canberra and move government agencies out of here to their own electorates, when they have no qualms about talking about the city with derision, with scorn. These are people who have made a decision to invest in public service, as you did Deputy Speaker Hastie through the Australian Defence Force. You are a public servant, someone dedicated to the defence of our nation and our national security. These people do it in a civilian sense.
So I will run through this tragic list. It is tragic because it seems that since I have been the member for Canberra I have been reading out a list as tragic as this every year under a coalition government. The Department of Human Services is losing almost 1,200 positions—that is a four per cent decrease in the total numbers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is losing over 400 positions, which is 14 per cent of that agency. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is losing 245 positions, which is a two per cent decrease in staff. The Department of Health is losing over 240 people. The Australian Federal Police, despite what the Minister for Justice says about the investment there, is losing over 150 people. The Attorney-General's Department is losing 100 people. The Department of Finance is losing over 60 people. The Department of Education and Training is losing almost 50 people. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is losing over 40 people. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies is losing over 30 people, which is a 20 per cent decrease in the size of that agency. The Australian Electoral Commission is losing 24 people. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is losing 20 people. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is losing 14 people. ATRA is losing 15 people. The Australian Skills Quality Authority is losing 13 people. IP Australia is losing nine people. The Fair Work Commission is losing six people.
These cuts to Public Service positions have not been confined to Public Service agencies and departments, they affect our national institutions, which, under this coalition government—under the Abbott government and now under the Turnbull government—have been cut to the core. We are not cutting into fat. We are not cutting into bone. We are cutting into the vital organs of the national institutions. These cuts continue the tradition of the coalition government. We are already seeing the impact that the cuts are having. We are seeing the impact on the preservation and conservation of our nation's story, of our nation's identity, of our nation's history. You cannot cut 20 positions out of the National Gallery, which is a pretty lean and mean outfit, and not expect that it will have some sort of impact on the curating of our national collection. You cannot cut jobs out of the National Library without having some impact on how we tell our national story. The coalition government has announced in the budget that we are losing 15 jobs at the National Archives and another three at the War Memorial. You cannot make these cuts to government agencies—not just funding cuts but also job cuts—without them having an impact on our nation's identity, on our national story and how we tell it, how we preserve it, how we conserve it and how we care for it for future generations. We cannot have cuts without an impact on that story.
As I said, I am very disappointed that there was more bad news for Canberra from the budget, as is the tradition with coalition governments. I have outlined the long list of jobs, thousands of jobs, that will be cut out of the Public Service as well as out of our national institutions, and that is on top of the 13,000 Public Service jobs that have already been cut. But we have also seen cuts in schools. This week and last I spent a lot of time in conversation with Catholic schools here in Canberra. We have a very high proportion of Catholic schools in Canberra because Canberra has a high proportion of Catholics, which is partly due to the sectarianism that occurred during the 1950s. Catholic white-collar professionals found it very difficult to get clerical jobs, particularly in the law, in Melbourne and Sydney. My husband, a Catholic who is well known amongst many of my colleagues and across the aisle as well, said that his mother, who was a very devout Catholic, used to tell stories about signs out the front of factories and shops in the 1950s saying, 'No Catholics need apply.' Probably everyone of that vintage in this room would have heard those stories as well. That was in the 1950s in our country. It is not that long ago that sectarianism was rife in this country, and it is a chapter of our history that tends to be forgotten. We in the ALP still smart from what it did to our party in the 1950s—it split our party—so we are acutely aware of the damage it can do. That chapter of sectarianism in our history is often overlooked.
As I said, we have a very large Catholic population here in Canberra. It is a population that is progressive but also fiercely devoted to public service, fiercely devoted to social justice, and fiercely devoted to serving our democracy and making a better Australia. The values of that very strong Catholic, progressive, social justice tradition are embodied in the Public Service and embodied in the Catholic community here in Canberra. As a result, we have these little systemic schools dotted throughout the ACT. I have a very high proportion of them in my electorate. They are going to be hit very, very hard by the coalition government's budget.
Most of you would have seen the rally at St Clare's on Monday night, which I attended together with the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as well as Senator Zed Seselja. I admire Senator Seselja for actually turning up to that. I admire him but I expect he was there as a good St Thomas the Apostle student, Padua High School student and St Mary MacKillop student, and as someone who practises his faith at Holy Family Church in Gowrie and sends his children to, I think, Marist College. It was good that he was there.
The Catholic schools in my electorate are going to be very hard hit. They are going to have average funding cuts of 7.3 per cent. I have had many conversations with the Principal of St Mary MacKillop College, who has told me that over the next decade they are going to be down $770 per student. On Monday I met with the Principal of St Thomas More's, and also Father Julian, who runs the parish church there. You might be familiar with the school, Deputy Speaker Hastie. St Thomas More's is in Campbell, right near the Russell complex, and is a school where 50 per cent of students are from Defence families. They are used to managing students from all over the country who are transitioning to a new life in Canberra. There is a great support system for them at St Thomas More's. The fees at that school are currently around $3,000 a year. As a result of the government's cuts to schools, those fees are probably going to go up to about $5,000 to $8,000 a year, if the school does not close down entirely— because it is quite a small school, with 152 children. It is a very special school and it has a unique understanding of Defence children and the Defence environment. Most of the children I met with the other day had a father in Army and a mother who was a Defence civilian, or both parents in Army. They had just come in from somewhere else over the summer rotation. So these are schools that are going to be very hard hit.
There is St Thomas the Apostle, Senator Zed Seselja's old primary school; St John Vianney's, where my dear, much-loved late mother-in-law taught—and she is still missed and remembered very fondly there; St Mary MacKillop College; and St Bede's, just down the road from here. Every Catholic school in my electorate is going to be very hard hit by this coalition government's budget and its cuts to schools. The concern they have is not just for the fact that they might not exist in two or three years time but for the fact that they provide an important service in terms of supporting children with learning difficulties, supporting children with disabilities, supporting Indigenous students and supporting children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. These are not rich schools and these are not rich communities. One of the schools, St Anthony's in Wanniassa, received under the Building the Education Revolution the most amount of money of any school in Canberra because it was that underdone in terms of infrastructure and facilities. It was a school that was essentially just a collection of demountables—portables, as they are called in Victoria. The BER transformed that school physically and also transformed its educational outcomes. The school was built around a range of pods—the demountables were mostly gone. It transformed that school. The investment that was made in that school highlighted the fact that it was the most under-resourced school in Canberra. It was certainly not a wealthy school. As I said, the parents sending their children to these Catholic schools are not wealthy parents. They are not drawn from wealthy communities, and the schools are very humble indeed. Speaking about humble, you do worry about this coalition government. I go back to the experiences my husband had in Catholic schools in Queensland, particularly in the 1960s when he was writing on slates—is that the future that this government wants for children in Catholic schools across Australia?
I have mentioned the job cuts by this government—thousands of them, with 13,000 Public Service job cuts already. I have mentioned the cuts to schools, particularly Catholic schools. I have mentioned the cuts to the jobs in national institutions and the impact that will have on our national collection, our national story, our nation's identity. I want to touch on infrastructure.
We saw the coalition government's big glossy last night, with the big map of Australia showing $75 billion worth of infrastructure investment—the big screamer at the top of the page. I looked into the fine detail about what that means for the ACT, what that means for my community. Out of that $75 billion—this is still breathtaking—Canberra is receiving the princely sum of $3 million worth of investment in infrastructure. I got my team to work out what that $3 million investment in Canberra was as a percentage of the $75 billion budget. I will just read it back to you, Deputy Speaker Hastie. This is calculating one billion as 1,000 million, because I understand there are two different versions of a billion. The $3 million we got out of the $75 billion is 0.004 per cent of the infrastructure investment in the budget. That is how much the community of Canberra is valued by the coalition government. Not only do we get thousands of jobs cut here, not only do we get our national institutions starved of funds so that their vital organs are not even functioning, but we get $3 million—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:40 to 16:48
Ms BRODTMANN: I have just been outlining the paltry amount that was invested in Canberra in last night's coalition government budget—$3 million out of $75 billion—and what that represents in terms of percentage. I have heard defence of the fact that there has been infrastructure investment. The $3 million was for Pialligo Avenue and also the duplication of Monaro Drive. There has been defence that what I regard as maintenance or services is actually an infrastructure investment. It ain't. Lighting and plumbing at Old Parliament House is not infrastructure. A temperature controlled system at the National Film and Sound Archives ain't infrastructure. Shared corporate services at the National Museum also ain't infrastructure. That is not my understanding of infrastructure. A business case for an exhibition at the War Memorial is not infrastructure. There has been a very interesting interpretation of 'infrastructure' in the last 24 hours, but I do not regard that maintenance and those services as infrastructure. Once again, under a coalition government, it is all bad news for Canberra—cuts to jobs, schools, universities and health and an insulting, paltry $3 million in 'infrastructure' investment.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:50): I am going to take full advantage of the fact that the standing orders allow me not to keep to the topic at all. I am going to deliver, consecutively, a series of different speeches. Lest anyone wonders where the common thread is, that was it!
First, a number of festivals for people of various faiths are going to be celebrated in the coming weeks, and I will go through those in turn. It is, of course, by no means a full list. On behalf of Labor I extend my best wishes to Buddhist communities in Australia and around the world for Vesak. Vesak commemorates three significant stages in Buddha's life—his birth, enlightenment and death—and is usually observed during the first full moon in May, but in some regions during the new moon.
The teachings of Buddha encompass principles that foster peace, compassion and the realisation of true happiness. At the heart of these beliefs are the four noble truths, which outline the stages of suffering, its causes, and the path that leads to the end of suffering, or enlightenment. Around the world, colourful lotus lanterns adorn temples and are released into the air. The symbolism of the lotus flower comes from the belief that lotus flowers emerged from the first seven steps Buddha took after his birth.
Over the weekend and this coming week, Buddhist communities around Australia will celebrate Buddha's birthday by making offerings of fruit, flowers and incense at temples, offering prayers and performing the ritual of bathing Buddha in rosewater, to symbolise a fresh start in life. Nan Tien Temple, in Wollongong, holds a two-day festival each year at Darling Harbour that attracts people of all cultures, faiths and backgrounds and unites Buddhists from all traditions in ceremonious celebration, entertaining crowds with music, food from various regions, and the opportunity to share blessings and hope for a brighter future. The festival offers us the opportunity to be guided by the fundamental principles that make up the essence of modern multicultural Australia: peace for all, unity as a nation and acceptance of all. To all those celebrating: happy Vesak.
On behalf of Labor, I want to extend my best wishes to the Mandaean communities in Australia and around the world on the marking of the birthday of John the Baptist. Mandaeism is a 2,000-year-old faith that has its roots in ancient Mesopotamia. The ritual of baptism is the focal aspect of worship in Mandaeism. Here in Australia Mandaean communities perform ancient rituals of bathing in the Nepean River, in Penrith, every Sunday. Dressed in white ceremonial robes, men women and children immerse their bodies in water as a symbol of purification and connection to the ancient rituals of the baptism of John the Baptist. For those of us of the various forms of Christian faith—there are a number in the chamber, including myself—this is a faith where the belief is that John the Baptist is a prophet calling for somebody who has not yet come. So, all the teachings of John the Baptist are where the Mandaean faith anchors itself. The Mandaean community has endured an extraordinary amount of persecution and hardship, fleeing Iraq and Iran and settling in different parts of the world. Australia is home to about 10,000 followers of the Mandaean faith, who have developed a strong relationship with community and the Australian society.
I will never forget my first meeting with members of the Mandaean community. It was in this building, more than a decade ago. I was shadow immigration minister at the time and the then member for Prospect, now member for McMahon, had brought a group in to meet with me. The thing that was extraordinary about the meeting was that it was the first time I had ever the Aramaic language being spoken. The Aramaic language, the language of what many of us would call the Holy Land at the time of the New Testament, is still spoken by the Mandaean community. While I did not understand a word, the richness of the language made it a moment that has always stayed with me.
We are privileged that the Australian story is deep and wide. It tells a story of a nation of many cultures, faiths and backgrounds, fused together to represent the essence of a successful, modern multicultural society. That is our Australia.
On behalf of Labor I want to extend my best wishes to Muslim communities in Australia and around the world, who will soon be observing the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan is the ninth month in the Islamic lunar calendar and begins at the sighting of the crescent moon, lasting for 29 to 30 days. At the break of dawn on the first day of Ramadan, Muslims will embark on a month-long journey of fasting, prayer and spiritual reflection. Abstaining from food and drinks, Muslims turn to the Islamic teachings of the Qur'an to re-evaluate their lives and renew their faith in God by giving charity to the less fortunate and strengthening relationships with family. The end of the fasting day is symbolised by the sounding of the call to prayer. After breaking the fast with three dates, according to tradition, family and friends gather to share meals and attend ritual evening prayers at their mosque.
The suburb I live in is Punchbowl, and the suburb next door, Lakemba, is extraordinary during Ramadan. People of all faiths come from all over Sydney, and the suburb is alive the whole night. I would encourage anybody to turn up at any time of night. For the first couple of nights it is very quiet. I would not recommend that you go then; most people are home with their families. But after that, if you are in Sydney during that month, please visit Lakemba at any time of night and you will find that the welcome is very warm and very genuine. So, as the crescent moon appears on the eve of Ramadan, I wish all those who are observing it a blessed and peaceful month of worship, love and prosperity. Ramadan Kareem.
On behalf of Labor I want to extend my best wishes to Jewish communities in Australia and around the world for the joyous occasion of Shavuot. Shavuot commemorates the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments form the moral basis for the Jewish faith and for other faiths around the world. It is also a harvest festival and the start of the season when ancient Israelite farmers would bring their first fruits to the temple in Jerusalem and celebrate the blessings of God given to the Jewish nation. Here in Australia it marks the beginning of winter and is a time for spiritual connection with God. Families and communities will gather at the synagogue to hear the readings of the Torah and eat dairy foods, which is a customary tradition. The celebration of Shavuot offers all of us the opportunity to reflect on the moral and ethical foundations of our society and to continue work towards building a prosperous nation of diverse cultures, faiths and backgrounds, celebrating the essence of modern multicultural Australia, a nation of vibrant cultures, faiths and backgrounds all united under one banner of unity. Happy Shavuot.
On behalf of Labor I want to extend my best wishes to the Baha'i community in Australia and around the world in commemoration of the ascension of Baha'u'llah, This day marks the death of Baha'u'llah, the prophet founder of the Baha'i faith. This death was only in 1892. It is one of the youngest of the various faiths in Australia. It is a solemn occasion that is usually marked at the time it occurred—around 3 am. It is one of nine major Baha'i holy days in the year on which work is suspended. Commemorations this year take place on 28 May. Baha'i communities in Australia and around the world will come together at that time to read special prayers and readings and to remember the life of their prophet. Commemoration culminates in the reading of a tablet known as the Tablet of Visitation. This tablet is also commonly read at his shrine, which has been designated a UNESCO World Heritage site. There will also be a commemorative service held in the Baha'i house of worship at Ingleside, Sydney. The traditions of the Baha'i faith reflect the strength of Australia's multicultural community and emphasise religious freedom, which is intrinsic to our national identity, and reaffirms our hopes for the continuity of our vibrant multicultural nation.
I next want to acknowledge the Sikh communities in Australia, who, on 16 June, here and around the world will be commemorating the martyrdom of Arjan Dev Sahib. The date marks the anniversary of his martyrdom. He is the fifth of the 10 revered Sikhs who made the ultimate sacrifice of their life to establish the Sikh faith. The Sikh's story of his sacrifice was that he was tortured for five days by the government of the Mughal emperor, and on the sixth day, after being taken to the river to bathe, disappeared and was never seen again. The day of remembrance is often observed by readings of the Sikh holy book, musical recitation of hymns from the Sri Granth Sahib, the central religious scripture in the Sikh faith, and lectures on Sikhism. The Sikh community in Australia has played a significant role in the Australian story for more than a century and continues to play an integral role in the fabric of our modern multicultural society through contributions to community and the broader Australian society.
With this one, you will work out that the chief of staff in my office is married to someone who is from France. On the occasion of their national holiday, I have been encouraged to extend to the French people around the world and in Australia the heartiest and best wishes and congratulations of federal Labor in advance—putting down the marker now for Bastille Day, which is some time away. But my chief of staff thought we would sneak this one in now. Named after the infamous Parisian prison fortress that was invaded by revolutionary forces in the 18th century, Bastille Day commemorates the beginning of the French Revolution. I know for many people, particularly those living far from home, it is not remembering the storming of the Bastille; it is a celebration of French culture. That day, people come together to eat, drink and celebrate.
For many years now, Australia and France have enjoyed deep and friendly relations in all political, economic and cultural areas, underpinned by a shared sacrifice in two world wars. We currently share strong diplomatic links and work together in global forums on important issues, such as the economy and climate change. France is a nation with a proud history and a sense of justice. It also is home to people who enjoy life to the full. On that special occasion, I wish everyone celebrating happiness and prosperity—a particular shout-out to Sean and Gaelle.
In the time still available, I want to refer to two things in the arts portfolio. First of all, at the recent 44th Daytime Creative Arts Emmy Awards held in Pasadena, California, an Australian animated series for children, Beat Bugs, won the award for Outstanding Writing in a Preschool Animated Program for local Australian writers Josh Wakely, Cleon Prineas and Joshua Mapleston. This is a big moment for writer, director and producer Josh Wakely, who created the series, which centres around five young bugs who live in an overgrown suburban backyard—often like mine, I guess—and learn life lessons while having adventures. Josh spent years pulling off the impossible and secured the rights to the Beatles' songs, which are then woven into the narrative as performed by contemporary recording artists such as Pink and Sia. Importantly, he also brought on board Daniel Johns, former lead singer of silverchair, who arranged and produced the music for the series as musical director.
Josh has described the series as 'about teaching kids, but with a bit of humour and not in a patronising way'. The show's theme song is 'All You Need Is Love'. These elements led to the series being backed for broadcast in Australia on the Seven Network and internationally on Netflix. The multi-award-winning production also won an AWGIE Award in the animation category and an AACTA Award for Best Children's Television Series in 2016. Produced by local Australian company Beyond Productions, the production also included a worldwide team of writers and animators in Australia, including upcoming Australian talent. The series is yet another world-class production driven by and featuring Australian talent. Congratulations to Josh and to all the team—I add Rebecca Graham, one of the associate producers—and I encourage them all to keep telling great stories.
I want to refer to an issue that I expect I will be making a number of contributions on. It is not an attack on the government in any way. It is establishing that there is a problem that we as a parliament are going to have to find a way of dealing with. It is what is happening to the major-production live music industry in terms of ticket sales. There has been some attention given already to what is happening with bots. Robot systems are set up, and the bots basically clean out all the tickets the moment they go online so that people are left only able to buy tickets from scalpers. The additional issue I want to refer to in my contribution today is what is happening with fake tickets, and tickets that are real but are sold multiple times. Effectively, what happens is that someone buys one real ticket, and, because a ticket can now be printed off on a computer, they on-sell that ticket to as many as a dozen people. Whoever turns up to the venue first gets in the door. Everybody else turns up with a ticket that the scanner says cannot be allowed for admission because it has already been used. Similarly, some people are turning up with tickets that are entirely fake.
We need to bear in mind who we are talking about. For many Australians, a ticket to a music festival or to a major performance is one of the biggest discretionary purchases they will make during the course of a year. This is a really big purchase when people make it. Simply saying to people, 'Well, you need to be more careful; you need to make sure that you're buying your tickets from someone who's reputable,' is a bit hard when all the search engines are pointing people in the same direction.
I have had a number of music promoters say to me that, when people are turning up to venues and finding that their tickets are not real, one of the regular sites they have purchased from is a site called viagogo. I have heard of incidents, for example, from Frontier. When they last had Justin Bieber, he did not tour New Zealand. They had people fly from New Zealand to Sydney to attend the concert, only to find on arrival that their ticket was fake. I was at Bluesfest over Easter. One of my daughters who was with me was expecting to catch up with some friends of hers whose whole family had gone up to Byron Bay to attend Bluesfest for Easter. I asked her at the end, 'How come we never saw them?' She said, 'Oh, it turned out they had fake tickets.' I asked her to check where they had come from. The answer: viagogo.
I did the check myself, and I would encourage members to check on every search engine you can. Sometimes we get into Google bashing and things like that, but it is not just Google. You can go through Google. You can go through Bing. I even tried that DuckDuckGo search engine. Pick a major international artist, type 'tickets' and see what comes up as an early item, often the first item, telling you where to go for your tickets. Always on the first page—I went through Montane, the Lumineers, Santana, Midnight Oil, Julia Jacklin and Jimmy Barnes—viagogo came up as the site, and it says 'viagogo—official site', meaning it is the official site of viagogo. But if you are someone who might buy a ticket every two or three years and is not constantly out there buying tickets—and, if you are constantly out there buying tickets, it is a pretty expensive way for people to be getting entertainment, particularly if it is these major artists—you see the words 'official site' and you click through.
We need to find a way of making sure that when tickets say that they are not transferable and not to be resold we acknowledge that the site doing the reselling is engaging unlawfully and, when they are selling something that turns out to not be valid, they are engaging in theft. When they have a reputation of doing this repeatedly, can we continue with a situation where the search engines are receiving advertising dollars to continue to promote sites like that?
Viagogo's official policy is that, if you turn up and it turns out to be a fake ticket, they will give you your money back. That is not much good if you have flown to be at the venue. That is not much good if you have been looking forward to going to this particular gig, thinking you have got your tickets and therefore not going anywhere else, and by the time you turn up and discover that your tickets are fake it is impossible to get comparable seats, or possibly any seats, at any of the remaining gigs if they exist.
We are talking about a consumer affairs issue that has hit the music industry and is hitting everyday Australians on one of their largest discretionary purchases. In the first instance, we should find out if there is a way of working with the search engines to get a sensible outcome here, but we cannot allow there to be a continued situation where companies effectively operating in Australia are receiving advertising dollars to direct Australians to purchase stolen or illegal goods. That cannot be a valid commercial arrangement. It is happening every day. It is happening more and more. There is no benefit to the Australian economy. There is only loss for people who love live music. Whether it is turning up to a music festival or turning up to a major artist, whether they be Australian or international, we must start acting now so that, if someone buys a ticket, they know that they can turn up and get entry to the music they love.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (17:10): I rise tonight to speak in the address-in-reply debate, particularly to respond to the Turnbull government's recent budget but also obviously the Governor-General's speech. Some of the key themes of my speech, particularly in relation to rapidly growing outer-suburban Melbourne, are issues like infrastructure and population growth and the social services being provided to those areas. According to the National Growth Areas Alliance, Australia's fast-growing outer suburbs are home to five million people. In the Casey region of my electorate of Holt, we are home to the fastest growing suburb in Australia, Cranbourne East. There is rapid population growth occurring in the outer suburbs, but the key problem is that social infrastructure, roads, schools, jobs and services are not keeping up with this population growth.
Research commissioned by the NGAA shows that there is a $50 billion backlog in infrastructure for fast-growing outer suburbs like mine, and unless it is seriously addressed that figure will grow to $73 billion in the next 15 years. By then the population in these areas is expected to reach 7.5 million people. In light of that, I would encourage the Turnbull government, notwithstanding the budget they have just brought down, to give special consideration to setting up a specialised fund for the outer suburbs, in the same way that the rural and regional areas have a dedicated fund. I believe it is only fair that growing outer suburbs are treated equally to get their fair share of infrastructure funding.
As an example of that, in 2015 I supported the investment of $10 million under the National Stronger Regions Fund to build a new arts precinct at Bunjil Place at Westfield Fountain Gate. That will be finished later this year. However, subsequent to that, the Turnbull government cut the National Stronger Regions Fund, replacing it with the Building Better Regions Fund, which now excludes outer suburban electorates like Holt. Given the amount of population growth that is occurring in areas like Holt and outer suburbs dotted all around the country, it is absolutely ludicrous that you could not reuse funding in that fund for projects like Bunjil Place. There are tens of Bunjil Place type projects that cannot be funded. It seemed to be good enough for us to access this fund when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister. Perhaps it was the change in Prime Minister, because it is now not good enough: since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, we cannot access it.
This particularly strikes me when we have, for example, a local bowls club—the Narre Warren Bowls Club—looking for about a million dollars to fund a new shade structure. That sounds like a lot of money for a bowls club, but, particularly given the work happening in the private sector around Bunjil Place, around Westfield Fountain Gate, the area is becoming a regional hub. There is innovation in this design, and the concept behind it is to have a shaded area which people from everywhere can use as an entertainment area. It fits in perfectly. We recently wrote to the minister responsible for the Stronger Regions Fund and were told they did not have funding for that anymore. It is absolutely ridiculous. Twelve months before, you could access this fund; now you cannot. How many projects like the one I mentioned would there be?
The member for Watson, who spoke prior to me, was talking about the contribution made by the Sikh community in our area. They are a substantial presence in my area. They are a great boon to our community. They work very closely with me in the area of taxi driving and the compensation the Victorian state government is paying taxi drivers, and also on issues like community safety. They have been at the forefront of representing the general community on these issues. They have a wonderful temple that they want to expand so that they can offer services like feeding homeless people at night. Under normal circumstances, under the previous fund, that would have qualified for funding, but now it does not.
This sends a message to the outer suburban community, who can see the great population growth that is occurring. If you drive down Clyde Road in Narre Warren going to Cranbourne you can see the phenomenal growth that is occurring. You really do know that it is the fastest growing area in Australia when you drive down there, because of the number of houses that are being built. You would think that, given the taxes that all those people pay and the lives that they are establishing there, it would be a very well developed area, that there would be the social infrastructure, that there would be the funding capacity to build soccer stadiums, football stadiums and all the infrastructure that a growing outer suburb needs. But there is not, and I think that is absolutely ridiculous. So my request as part of the address-in-reply is for the Turnbull government to look at what their predecessors did and then see whether or not they can do something like that—make a readjustment or create a separate fund—so that suburbs like mine can access the regional funds they are entitled to.
Obviously, there is an issue about community safety. My constituency has been struck quite hard by terrorism and extremism in our area, our very suburbs, in particular the shooting at the Endeavour Hills police station in 2014 and the foiled Anzac Day plot in April 2015. One of the great things about my constituency is the way in which the community has come together cohesively, inclusively and in a measured way. It would do great credit to the shock jocks, the people who mouth off about terrorism, and others even in this place who mouth off about various communities if they came to my community and saw the cohesiveness that it has, notwithstanding the challenges it has experienced. I would certainly like to thank our agencies for the work they do—our intelligence agencies, the Federal Police and in particular our local police, who are right at the front line of that threat. The threat has not abated; it is still there. But one thing we will not do is allow that threat, however it manifests, to shape how we live our lives. As I said, that is to the great credit of our community. When you walk into the Westfield shopping centre, the Endeavour Hills Shopping Centre or the Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre you see we have a very strong, resilient, capable group of people there. As I said, they do great credit to the community, particularly in countering those who are trying to foment hate in various sections of the community.
I remember that when I first came here in 1999 I said the worst form of politics is wedge politics—dividing one element of the community from another. We saw elements of that in 1996 when a particular person established a party. I can recall that that party was going to be established in Dandenong around the late nineties—it was 1996 or 1997—and for the first time I saw what were almost riots in the streets, around Dandenong Town Hall, when that party tried to establish itself right in the heart of multicultural Melbourne. There was such a strong feeling that this was not Australia; that it was not about wedging groups against each other. We were all Australians no matter what race, colour or creed we were and we were all together on this journey in our part of the Australian story.
That meeting was not successful. They did not establish a branch of One Nation—let's call the party the party. But further down the track what disturbs me is when others use the difficulties we have experienced in our local area, be they terrorism or community safety, to attack the community. That does not help us at all in dealing with it. As members in the chamber know, I am Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It does not help us in trying to deal with the problem. It does not help us in trying to solve the problem. It just causes tension between communities. It actually exacerbates the problem. We have strong communities, like our Sikh community. We have a very large Indian community, a Sri Lankan community, a Chinese community—I could go on and on; it is a very multicultural area—and they are not succumbing to that fear.
I would, though, touch on one issue that I campaigned on during the federal election, which was community safety—not community safety in the sense of national security but community safety in the sense of people not feeling safe in their homes. That had emerged as an issue, but I think a number of people on the other side of the fence were quite confused as to why I was campaigning on it.
My attention was drawn to concerns about community safety when I was doorknocking in the area around Cranbourne East prior to the election campaign and someone I doorknocked was too afraid to open their door. Originally I thought, 'Of course that would happen; it's a politician doorknocking around election time,' but when the person actually did come out, after identifying who I was, she said the reason she would not open the door was that she was afraid of local gangs that were around the area. We conducted a forum during the federal election campaign and we have been campaigning on this issue ever since. I have talked about the explosive growth that we have in my electorate. I have 120,000 electors but I have 196,000 people living in my electorate. It is a very large number of people. When those people move to the outer suburbs they deserve to be kept safe. That is our job; that is a government's job. That is what we have to do whether we be state, federal or local government, but predominantly in the national sphere, the macro sphere, it is the federal government. In the state sphere, obviously, it is the state government.
We are seeing, through the investment of the Andrews government, more police coming online—I think there is funding for nearly 3,000 extra police—but in the meantime there is still much to be done. That is a welcome development, but we really do need to get those resources out there as fast as possible. It takes time and resources to train police officers, and then they need to get experience before they can become fully operational. So we certainly welcome that investment, but I draw the attention of my state colleagues to the fact that those concerns remain. There is still an issue. There are still ways in which this difficulty can be challenged, and I think it is something that we should talk more about. I will be talking more about it on behalf of my constituency, because that has been raised as an issue.
The other thing I wanted to touch on, particularly given the national security issue I just talked about, is the budget that the federal government has delivered. Some, even within the honourable member's own ranks on the other side, are talking about it as being socialist, which is a very scary concept when you are throwing it at the Turnbull government. Perhaps Malcolm in 1994 to 1996 might have been close to the mark, but I do not regard him as being a socialist at this point in time—and we could talk about that in much greater detail. But one of the key concerns I have—it touches on national security but it touches on other areas as well—is how people perceive the role of government these days.
In national security there is a classic case in point. I was in the United States after the San Bernardino massacre. I was there, in my capacity as deputy chair of the intelligence and security committee, to meet intelligence agencies—the CIA, the FBI—and also the US Department of State and other people. The great issue of concern being raised by those agencies was that Apple would not unlock for the FBI the iPhone that was used by the perpetrators of that terrorist act, the two individuals. The FBI then had to resort to other means to ensure that the phone could be unlocked. It struck me, as someone in government—we had cross-jurisdictional conversations about this, and it is something I would put on the record—that the question is: when do private companies dictate how we run national security, whether in this country, in the United States of America or in the United Kingdom, because they are similarly minded jurisdictions?
This is not an argument to say that we should have further sweeping national security reforms that compel companies to do things that they might not want to do or that would inhibit the way in which they make money. That is not what I want. But what has occurred to me in my time in the national security space, which is about 12 years, is the increasing challenge that major companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and other such companies have—Apple, for example, which was the manufacturer of the phones—when there is a need from a national security perspective to access their telecommunications devices or communication streams. I think this is one of the issues that governments—come what may and in some, way shape or form—are going to have to confront: where do we draw a limit on the role of the state? This needs to be confronted by this government, and, if we are successful at the next election, a Shorten Labor government, and also by governments across the world—not so much by Russia and others, but particularly by our Western democracies.
My belief is that our primary role as a government is to provide security for our citizens. We do that. We send people overseas to conflicts to defend our way of life. They have served our country incredibly faithfully and well, and continue to do so in conflicts that we are dealing with at the present period of time, such as the eradication of ISIS, in particular, in Iraq. So, that is our primary responsibility. Then the question occurs: in a functioning Western democracy, where does the state intersect with the role of imposing, perhaps, legislation on a corporation that compels it to provide information that might be essential for the safeguarding of national security? An example, as I said, was San Bernardino, and there are other examples that have been provided in classified briefings that I cannot go into. This is going to be a major problem. I am certainly hoping to travel to the United States in the next couple of months. Why am I talking about this during an address-in-reply speech? Because national security affects everyone. We do not have functioning economies and we do not have a functioning way of life unless our security is protected—at a macro level with national security and at a micro level with our state police and local law and order.
There is an area that I intend to flesh out, and, as I said, I have had conversations with counterparts in the United States and the United Kingdom about this issue, which has been going now for some period of time: I believe that government is going to have to play a greater role with the information that it might need to obtain from companies like Apple and Google—not in an authoritarian way, but in a way such that we do not have to go to third parties. I think going to third parties is a very unhelpful way of doing it, and, citing the San Bernardino case in particular, it is just not going to work. We really do need those companies to come to the party. That does not mean, necessarily, building backdoors in, as some have suggested with some of the Apple products or other products on the market. But it does mean that, when we really do need to access the technologies, the data streams and the devices, we can do that in order to keep our community safe.
I promise you that this is going to be an evolving conversation. We talk about encryption, and companies have become remarkably successful providing encryption services that, basically, protect organisations commercially and protect individuals. That is to be welcomed, but the question is how do you get that overall balance right—from them trying to protect their customer base to the issue of national security? This is going to be one of the great arguments that we will have as governments of any persuasion over the next two to three years—particularly as we should anticipate that there will be more leaks about what agencies do. One thing I disagree with in terms of my discussions with the Americans is that they were quite confident that there would not be further leaks. That was last year, and, in fact, we have seen further leaks. When you have aggregated data in any way, shape or form, it can be hacked, regardless of what the security levels are. So I think we should assume that that is going to happen, and we should assume at some stage in the national security environment in the next five to 10 years that we will have ongoing leaks about the way our agencies do their business. That is going to provide a challenge for legislators, governments and security agencies, but we are operating in that environment. I do not think there is any need to pretend that we are not. I think what we do need to do, as a safeguard, is ensure that we have appropriate oversight of these agencies—not so much by the executive of the parliament, but by duly elected committees comprising parliamentary members. I am fortunate to be part of a committee—the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—which I think does perform an important oversight role. I understand there is an independent review that is being conducted into the intelligence agencies by some nominated individuals, and there are also the oversight arrangements, which include the oversight arrangements by our committees. I say to those independent reviewers, to this government and to any government that we made need to increase our powers. If we do not increase the oversight, we will not have the support of the public. You can rest assured that we will have more leaks and, when we have more leaks, they will need to be investigated and there will need to be more oversight. That should come from elected officials; it should not come just from people who are commissioned for the purpose of an inquiry. In the next two to five years, I think you will see that become another of the great arguments of our age. I will leave it there.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:30): by leave—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17 : 30