The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at a later hour this day.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Opp (1) [Sheet 8239]
Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), after item 3, insert:
3A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5.7B
Add:
588HA Review relating to safe harbour
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the following matters to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the last day of the 2 year period commencing on the commencement of this section:
(a) the impact of the availability of the safe harbour to directors of companies on:
(i) the conduct of directors; and
(ii) the interests of creditors and employees of those companies;
(b) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.
(2) The review must be undertaken by 3 persons who, in the Minister's opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review.
(3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.
(5) The report is not a legislative instrument.
(2) Govt (1) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 8 to 31), omit subsection 415D(1), substitute:
Stay on enforcing rights
(1) A right cannot be enforced against a body for:
(a) the reason that the body, if it is a disclosing entity, has publicly announced that it will be making an application under section 411 for the purpose of avoiding being wound up in insolvency; or
(b) the reason that the body is the subject of an application under section 411; or
(c) the reason that the body is the subject of a compromise or arrangement approved under this Part as a result of an application under section 411; or
(d) the body's financial position, if the body is the subject of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement; or
(e) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:
(i) the making, or possible making, of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement about the body; or
(ii) the body's financial position;
if such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement is later made about the body; or
(f) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection;
if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement.
Note: This result is subject to subsections (5), (6) and (8), and to any order under section 415E.
Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the body becoming the subject of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement.
(3) Govt (2) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (line 6), at the end of subsection 415D(4), add:
; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1) (e) or (f).
(4) Govt (3) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsection 415D(8), substitute:
(8) If the application under section 411 results in the approval under this Part of a compromise or arrangement, subsection (1) does not apply to the right to the extent that:
(a) the person appointed to administer the compromise or arrangement; or
(b) if a liquidator of the body is appointed after the start of the stay period—the liquidator;
has consented in writing to the enforcement of the right.
(5) Govt (4) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (lines 19 and 20), omit "a reason referred to in paragraphs 415D(1) (a) to (d)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 415D(1) (a) to (f)".
(6) Govt (5) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (after line 15), after section 415F, insert:
415FA Self ‑executing provisions
(1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision:
(a) cannot start to apply against a body for certain reasons; and
(b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a body with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes.
(2) Sections 415D to 415F also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 415D to 415F.
Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating:
(a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and
(b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 415D(1); and
(c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and
(d) paragraph 415F(2) (b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 415D(1) (a) to (f) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply.
(3) In this section:
self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically:
(a) for one or more reasons; and
(b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply.
(7) Govt (6) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (line 17), omit "415F", substitute "415FA".
(8) Govt (7) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 15 (line 27) to page 16 (line 17), omit subsection 434J(1), substitute:
Stay on enforcing rights
(1) A right cannot be enforced against a corporation for:
(a) the reason of the appointment or existence of a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(b) the corporation's financial position, if there is a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(c) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:
(i) the appointing, or possible appointing, of a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(ii) the corporation's financial position;
if such an appointment is later made for the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(d) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection;
if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement.
Note: This result is subject to subsections (5) and (7), and to any order under section 434K.
Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the appointment of a managing controller.
(9) Govt (8) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 17 (line 13), at the end of subsection 434J(4), add:
; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1) (c) or (d).
(10) Govt (9) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 19 (line 16), omit "a reason referred to in paragraph 434J(1) (a) or (b)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 434J(1) (a) to (d)".
(11) Govt (10) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 20 (after line 3), after section 434L, insert:
434LA Self ‑executing provisions
(1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision:
(a) cannot start to apply against a corporation for certain reasons; and
(b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a corporation with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes.
(2) Sections 434J to 434L also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 434J to 434L.
Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating:
(a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and
(b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 434J(1); and
(c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and
(d) paragraph 434L(2) (b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 434J(1) (a) to (d) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply.
(3) In this section:
self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically:
(a) for one or more reasons; and
(b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply.
(12) Govt (11) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 20 (line 5), omit "434L", substitute "434LA".
(13) Govt (12) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 21 (lines 3 to 19), omit subsection 451E(1), substitute:
Stay on enforcing rights
(1) A right cannot be enforced against a company for:
(a) the reason that the company has come or is under administration; or
(b) the company's financial position, if the company is under administration; or
(c) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:
(i) the company coming, or possibly coming, under administration; or
(ii) the company's financial position;
if the company later comes under administration; or
(d) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection;
if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement.
Note: This result is subject to subsections (5) and (7), and to any order under section 451F.
Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the company coming under administration.
(14) Govt (13) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 22 (line 18), at the end of subsection 451E(4), add:
; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1) (c) or (d).
(15) Govt (14) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 23 (lines 7 to 9), omit subsection 451E(7), substitute:
(7) Subsection (1) does not apply to the right to the extent that:
(a) the administrator of the company; or
(b) if a liquidator of the company is appointed after the administration ends—the liquidator;
has consented in writing to the enforcement of the right.
(16) Govt (15) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (lines 7 and 8), omit "a reason referred to in paragraph 451E(1) (a) or (b)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 451E(1) (a) to (d)".
(17) Govt (16) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (after line 26), after section 451G, insert:
451GA Self ‑executing provisions
(1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision:
(a) cannot start to apply against a company for certain reasons; and
(b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a company with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes.
(2) Sections 451E to 451G also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 451E to 451G.
Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating:
(a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and
(b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 451E(1); and
(c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and
(d) paragraph 451G(2) (b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 451E(1) (a) to (d) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply.
(3) In this section:
self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically:
(a) for one or more reasons; and
(b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply.
(18) Govt (17) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (line 28), omit "451G", substitute "451GA".
(19) Govt (18) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (line 4), omit "415D to 415F, 434J to 434L,", substitute "415D to 415FA, 434J to 434LA,".
(20) Govt (19) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 16, page 25 (line 7), omit "451E to 451G,", substitute "451E to 451GA,".
(21) Govt (20) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 17, page 25 (line 10), after "under", insert ", or self‑executing provisions of,".
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because this bill:
(1) cuts university funding by nearly $4 billion;
(2) hits students with higher fees;
(3) saddles students with bigger debts which they will have to pay back at the same time as they are trying to buy a house or start a family;
(4) compromises teaching and learning, and undermines research; and
(5) slashes investment in universities at a time when the Government should be investing in both universities and TAFEs in order to guarantee a strong and productive economy".
I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. This is an unfair bill which would rip billions of dollars from our universities, increase fees for students and saddle them with a greater debt. It would mean Australian students have to repay more, sooner, for a poorer quality education. At a time when we should be investing in our universities and TAFEs, this bill locks in nearly $4 billion of cuts over five years. This comes on top of an attempt by the government to abolish the $3.7 billion Education Investment Fund. Teaching, student programs and university facilities will all suffer. The cuts also damage Australia's research effort. Labor will oppose this unfair, economically irresponsible legislation.
Labor opposes this bill because there is no more important investment a government can make than in education. A strong education system is both a contributing factor to economic growth and a dividend from it. At a time when Australia's economy is transitioning from the resources boom to a more diverse, knowledge based economy, we must ensure that young Australians have the skills they need to compete in the global economy. Whilst so many countries around the world are increasing their investment in the skills of their people to ensure they are well-placed to compete, this government is doing the exact opposite. Research tells us that, by 2020, two out of every three jobs created in our country will require a diploma or higher qualification. We need more Australians with post-school qualifications. We should be encouraging participation in university and TAFE, not putting up barriers with higher fees and higher debts.
Children who started school this year will enter the tertiary education system in 2030. Will our post-secondary system provide them with the best opportunity to get the skills they will need in a vastly more globalised, more technology driven world? By that time, we'll be almost a third of the way through this Asian century. We should be preparing right now to seize the opportunities that that brings. A clever approach would have us investing in our people. But this bill is anything but clever, and it certainly doesn't invest in our future. In fact, it puts additional burdens and additional barriers in the way of our people. You can't ensure that we're set up for the challenges and opportunities of the future through cuts and cost shifting. That's not reform. We've now waited 2½ years for a government bill on higher education. We were waiting for something better than the cuts of the Abbott-Pyne era. Sadly, we've just got cuts again. That's what we've come to expect from this government when it comes to higher education.
As I said back in February in a matter of public importance debate, the one job the new education minister has been given is to find $3 billion worth of cuts in the university sector. I said it then and I stand by that now. The education minister has overperformed in only one area of his portfolio, and that's the cuts that he's managed to find. He has managed nearly $4 billion of cuts—$3.8 billion over five years. Of course, you can add in the $3.7 billion he's trying to cut with the abolition of the Education Investment Fund. So we're talking about a total cut of almost $8 billion from tertiary education alone.
Before the 2013 election the former Prime Minister told universities they would experience what he called a period of 'benign neglect'. He got the neglect part right, but it has been anything but benign. The Liberals have talked a lot. You wouldn't believe it, but there have been 29 reviews into higher education—reviews, inquiries, talkfests. That has cost the taxpayer more than $4.7 million. With almost $5 million invested in these talkfests, you would think we'd get something a little more nuanced in this bill. What we've got are the same old cuts. We know the government could not quite convince the Senate to allow fee deregulation—widespread $100,000 degrees or a 20 per cent cut to university operating grants. So this minister—the heir to 'the Fixer,' the heir to the member for Sturt, the 'son of Sturt' as we're calling him—was told to find a way to get cuts and fee increases through a parliament that generally values education. It's a shame that he has squibbed the opportunity for real reform and instead presented a package of measures that are just a series of cuts dressed up with minor tinkering around the edges. He's calling that a reform package. It's simply a return to the Liberals' only idea for universities, which is to cut funding for operating expenses and charge students more.
It's what happened in the Howard years. It started with Amanda Vanstone's devastating cuts to universities in the horror 1996 budget. That's when we first saw full-fee degrees. That was, in fact, the first $100,000 degree that we saw in the Australian market. We saw, of course, at that time as well the introduction of differential HECS when the Liberals hiked fees from $2,442 per year to $5½ thousand per year. After Amanda Vanstone, we saw Brendan Nelson jack up student fees again when he had the education portfolio. This is all part of a pattern. What we've seen is a minister who is heir to the tradition who is, in fact, claiming the exact opposite. He's claiming that there is an increase to resources for universities when we know what we're seeing is a real funding cut.
The chief of Universities Australia said just today that there is, in fact, a real funding cut to our universities, not an increase as the minister claims. But, to give credit where credit is due, at least the current education minister has managed to do one thing that the former education minister, the member for Sturt, couldn't do: he has managed to unify the university sector. He's managed to get institutions that are sometimes not on a unity ticket when it comes to university funding unified for the first time in many a year in opposition to his legislation. I note that Universities Australia on 16 May said:
An overwhelming majority of Vice-Chancellors agreed they could not recommend that the Senate crossbench pass the legislative package.
The Group of Eight said:
The Go8 is committed to an economically sustainable Higher Education System for Australia, but this package, for which we were not consulted, is fatally flawed in multiple ways, and will severely harm Australia's highly successful University system.
Many vice-chancellors have written to me directly, voicing their concerns about this legislation. Here are a few examples. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, Professor Dawn Freshwater, says: 'I'm also concerned that the changes to the HELP fees and repayment thresholds may discourage students, particularly from rural, remote and low-SES parts of our community, from attending university.' You would think that the Nationals had a thing or two to say about that. Apparently not. Martin Bean, the Vice-Chancellor of RMIT, said: 'We believe Australia must have a strong, sustainable and affordable tertiary education system that is accessible to all regardless of background and circumstance.' He continues, 'I do not agree with funding cuts to universities or an increased cost-burden on students. Universities and their students make a vital contribution to Australia's economy and play a critical role in the delivery of innovation and productivity.' Dr Michael Spence, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, has warned about the impact of cuts to our economy. He said: 'Negative economic and related impacts in Sydney and New South Wales will be unavoidable given the important role universities play in their local economies and communities.'
Of course, it's not just limited to vice-chancellors. This month, the Times Higher Education world-ranking director, Phil Batty, also commented. I should perhaps explain to members opposite who don't understand. This comment is like getting a negative warning from a credit rating agency. He said:
… funding cuts proposed by the government could seriously harm the country's institutions in future editions of the rankings … Australia's leading institutions are already falling behind peers in mainland China and Hong Kong, which receive high and sustained levels of state funding.
The people who compile the rankings of the world's best universities are saying to us that, as Australians, if we want to stay in those rankings of the world's best universities, these cuts are exactly the wrong thing to do. If we don't heed this warning, we are nuts.
This bill deals with more than 12 measures from the government's higher education package which it released in May. But I think it's very unreasonable to call this, as the government does, a 'reform' package, because reform is generally meant to improve things. It's about investing in our people; it's about nation-building. This bill isn't reform; it is a wasted opportunity.
This bill will cut university operating grants, the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, by 2½ per cent over the years 2018 and 2019. It hikes up fees for Australian students by 7½ per cent over four years. It also requires students to pay off their larger debts sooner, with new repayment thresholds starting at $42,000 and changes in the way these rates are indexed. It forces New Zealand citizens and permanent residents off Commonwealth-supported places, and requires them to pay full fees just like any other international student from any other country. It cuts the number of Commonwealth-supported postgraduate places by 3,000. It forces students in enabling courses to pay fees for the first time, and threatens universities with existing funding for enabling courses by putting these places out to tender.
This bill will see, for the first time in Australia's higher education system, the introduction of a voucher system for the allocation of postgraduate places, and it will hand the distribution of those places, around 34,000 of them, over to someone. We're not really sure who—some unnamed entity. This mystery body could be, potentially, pretty much anyone. It could be one of the existing organisations. It could be a new organisation. It could potentially be a private company. Voucher systems in education—honestly, this is not reform.
We've been provided with a perfunctory amount of detail in this bill about these very substantial changes as well as a range of other measures. The government's glossy brochure, distributed to representatives of universities and the media, contains little enough comment on some of the details of this. We thought that individual measures would be more thoroughly outlined in the budget. They weren't. In fact, the entire package rated only two lines in the budget. The one thing the government has admitted is the magnitude of the savings, and that's $3.8 billion over five years. But it took until July for the minister to outline how much each measure would cost or save.
Last year, the same universities that had been struggling along with this uncertainty since the election of those opposite were forced onto one-year funding agreements, to accommodate the government's policy inertia in this area. They're now, once again, struggling to scramble to work out how they can deal with these cuts, including the performance payment cuts that there is scant detail of now.
Students, of course, are the real victims of all of this. It's students who are wondering whether they will be able to afford to go to university. This bill leaves us with as many questions as it answers. One vice-chancellor said to me: 'This is not reform; it's merely a series of thought bubbles wrapped around a funding cut.' It is a perfect description.
To look at some of those measures that I mentioned in a little bit more detail: this bill reserves 7½ per cent of Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for a yet-to-be-determined performance-based funding system. All we know about the operation of this funding system is what we heard from the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills in her second reading speech: that next year the funding will flow to universities based on whether they provide certain data—details to come later. It's really like the government saying to the university: 'Sign here; we'll send you the bill afterwards. Give us your credit card, sign here and we'll send you the bill some other time.' In the meantime, 7½ per cent of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, around $500 million a year, will be taken from the universities, held back by the government and handed to the minister to distribute as he sees fit.
It is an extraordinary thing to create a $500 million slush fund for the minister in such uncertain circumstances. The proposal doesn't meet the most basic standards of good governance and completely lacks transparency. Moreover, this sort of uncertainty, being at the mercy of ministerial fiat, does not provide the kind of certainty that this sector needs to plan for staffing, building and student numbers, and all of the things that they need to project years into the future. Universities cannot assume, for budgetary purposes, that they'll ever receive that 7½ per cent of funding that they're actually entitled to under existing legislation. So how is any organisation, particularly one of the size and complexity of a university, supposed to budget with that kind of uncertainty? And then if you put that on top of the 2½ per cent efficiency dividend you could see university grants cut by up to 10 per cent. That would be devastating.
Swinburne University of Technology said that the cuts to the CGS would mean a loss of $31 million for them alone. If you factor in the performance-funding changes, this could mean potential revenue loss of around $82 million over five years. Imagine an institution coping with that scale of uncertainty in their budget? The University of Sydney said that the CGS cut would mean a loss for them of more than $50 million. La Trobe University said that the cumulative impact of these measures in the bill could impact their budget by up to $126 million over the next four years. Deakin University said that the cuts will dampen their appetite for risk, especially in the areas of innovation, acceleration, and product incubation. Honestly, if you were trying to design a package that discouraged universities from taking the risks that will make them fit for purpose in 10, 20 and 30 years' time so that they're preparing their students in this incredibly rapidly changing world, you couldn't design something that was more guaranteed to dampen enthusiasm for actually innovating in our university sector.
The bill brings in a voucher system for almost 34,000 post-graduate Commonwealth supported places. There are about 100,000 Australians studying in post-graduate coursework programs in Australia at the moment. It means that students wishing to take a post-graduate coursework program in the future would have to apply to some yet-to-be determined body for the chance of a Commonwealth supported place. To make it look prettier, the government is going to call this a scholarship program, because scholarships sound nice, don't they?
Rebadging Commonwealth-supported places as 'scholarships' is just spin. Alarmingly, before a body is set up to administer this new voucher system this bill would hand the power to allocate those places to the minister: another blank cheque for another thought bubble. Of course, we don't support this kind of uncertainty. While we believe that there should be reform to what is admittedly an irrational system of allocating postgraduate Commonwealth supported places, this approach is so light on detail and so at the behest of the minister that it is impossible to support it.
I want to talk very briefly about enabling courses, because one of the meanest parts of this bill is the proposal to introduce for the first time fees for enabling courses and to put these courses out to tender. Enabling courses are actually designed to get people who missed out the first time round—who had troubles in high school or who had a job in a sector which is rapidly changing, lost their job and want to retrain and go to university. These enabling courses are programs that are designed to prepare students, including some of our most disadvantaged students, for university study. These courses have been targeted in this bill.
Incidentally, students taking these courses don't actually end up with a formal qualification; it's just a pathway into university. It is a test to the student themselves; 'Do I like this environment? I'll get a little taste of what this university has to offer. Will I fit in here? Am I interested in this university and what it has to offer? Do I know how to write an essay and do the research that's required of me?' The students don't get a qualification; they get a taste of university. And, from next year, this government expects them to pay up to $3,200 for that. I've visited a lot of universities that have brought some of their best and brightest students in through the front door because of these enabling courses. Many of those students are from disadvantaged backgrounds; if they had been told they had to pay thousands of dollars to have a taste of universities, they would not be there. Those students told me that themselves.
And, to add further insult to this injury, these enabling courses are taught by such a passionate group of educators—people who see the best in the student in front of them, who invest so much in getting that student comfortable with the research and essay writing and group work that university requires—and those committed, passionate educators won't necessarily be offering these courses in the future. They'll all be put out to tender. They will be put out to the lowest cost. So there's no guarantee that students will get the same sort of high standards that they're getting now. It will be devastating for a significant number of universities, particularly those in the regions.
In July, for example, I visited the University of Newcastle's Ourimbah campus on the Central Coast with my colleagues who are here today. At the Ourimbah campus, I met just a few of the 800 or so students that are undertaking enabling courses at that campus, and those students told me exactly the difference that these enabling courses have made in their lives. They told me about how it is giving them a chance of a university qualification. They're building the skills and confidence in those students. They're helping those students overcome some of the difficulties that they had in high school. They're getting a second chance, and it's a second chance that many of them thought they would never have. But, to a one, every single one of the students I spoke to, when I asked them, 'Would you have paid $3,200 for the opportunity to do this?' said, 'No, I would not have had the confidence in myself to risk that sort of money.' And a number of them said: 'I just flat-out would not have committed to that debt. I couldn't have done it to myself.' So we've got people who are studying so they can better support themselves and their families being turned away because of these new fees. None of these students would have had the confidence in themselves to risk that sort of debt for an enabling course that doesn't even count as a qualification; it's just a pathway.
The member for Newcastle and the member for Dobell have been particularly taking up the case for these enabling courses, because the University of Newcastle really is outstanding when it comes to delivering these courses. I know that they'll speak more about this in their remarks later on. We won't support attacking these students and we won't support putting these enabling courses out to tender to the lowest bidder.
On New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, I want to say that hitting this group of people, seeing them forced off Commonwealth-supported places and on to full-fee international places, is particularly troubling, given that many of these students have been here for years. They've gone to Australian schools, they speak with Australian accents, they or their families have chosen to call Australia home and they'll be here for years to come. Wouldn't it be a good idea if they could actually get a decent job and contribute to the tax system?
They're contributing to our society, they're contributing to our economy, and this higher education opportunity gives them the opportunity of contributing in an even greater way—perhaps for the rest of their working lives. Many of them just want to have the same opportunities that their classmates have got, kids that they've gone to school with in Australian schools, so it's particularly troubling that the government is making these changes at the same time that it's created so much uncertainty around the pathway to citizenship. We won't stand by and make these students pay more for their courses. We know that New Zealanders who live and study here are likely to make an even greater contribution to Australia's economy and society.
We do support some of the measures in this bill. We support the additional funding for VET, science and dentistry units. We cautiously welcome the announcement of regional student hubs, although, again, details are scant. Where will they be? How will the sites be selected? Of course we are very supportive of seeing the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program legislated. It is a policy legacy of Labor. We're sorry that so much money has already been cut from it. During its years of operation, HEPPP, along with the uncapping of student numbers, helped boost Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent, increased regional student numbers by 30 per cent and helped more than 36,000 additional students from low-income families into university. We are proud of that legacy. We are very sorry that in the 2014 budget HEPPP was cut by $51 million and then, in last year's budget, was cut by $152 million. But, yes, we would like to see what the government has left of HEPPP being protected by legislation.
We also support the expansion of sub-bachelor places—it's another recommendation of the Bradley review—but we have to make sure this is not at the expense of TAFE. We need a strong university system and a strong TAFE system working together in partnership to give our young people the best possible opportunity of getting a great job and to give Australians who are training and retraining to lift their skills the best possible opportunity to do so. We have seen $2.8 billion cut from TAFE, so we don't want to see an expansion of sub-bachelor places at the expense of TAFE.
We have a very proud record in higher education, and we will continue to fight to make sure that all Australian students have the opportunity of getting a terrific post-secondary-school education, because that's what our modern economy demands of them. It's good for them as individuals, and it's a great investment for us as a nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Giles: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:33): The member for Sydney can't make her mind up. Her entire speech is sprinkled with the phrase 'tinkering at the edges'. These aren't reforms; they're 'tinkering at the edges'. Then, of course, she paints the picture of the world being turned upside down should this very bill, the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, which apparently is just 'tinkering at the edges', get through the parliament. The member for Sydney and the Labor Party need to make up their minds: is this indeed tinkering at the edges or is it the Armageddon that they are in fact proposing it is?
If there was only one thread of consistency in the argument just put by the member for Sydney, it was the suggestion, as foolhardy as it is, that this bill is coming with cuts. Can I remind the member for Sydney, and the Labor Party, that funding to tertiary institutions is set to increase—increase!—from $17 billion up to $21 billion by the end of the forward estimates. Now, when you go from the number 17 to the number 21, it is actually an increase.
The Labor Party seem to not understand that when money goes up, when you get more of something, that's actually not called a 'cut'. Nevertheless, does the government need to ensure that universities are more efficient? Absolutely, we do. The Labor Party used to agree with the same principle. There are indeed economic benefits to this bill. Indeed, this bill is a microcosm of the great challenge that Australia faces to maintain the core values and responsibilities of our society at a time when our public finances are indeed in peril.
Since John Curtin introduced Commonwealth scholarships in 1940 and improved access to university education, there has been a largely bipartisan commitment to giving every Australian, where possible, the opportunity for the sort of advancement that we hold so dear in our classless, egalitarian society. Despite differences, that effort is ongoing. Sir Robert Menzies, throughout his record-breaking 16 years as Prime Minister, was perhaps Australia's greatest champion of tertiary education by providing far greater student access to university. This imperative was an abiding preoccupation for Menzies, central to his entire approach to leadership and his vision for Australia. Sir Robert greatly increased the number of universities and significantly expanded the scholarship system to open up access for many hardworking students, irrespective of their wealth or privilege. It was Menzies who brought in tax breaks for education expenses and for living allowances. In 1939, Australia had just six universities and just over 14,000 students. By 1966, the year that Menzies stepped down as Prime Minister, there were 16 universities and over 90,000 tertiary students.
Gough Whitlam, in 1973, went much further by removing all direct course costs for tertiary students, at least in terms of fees; although the cost of living for students, a cost largely falling on parents, remained a significant burden and meant that there was no great expansion of opportunity, despite what Whitlam may have hoped for. Bear in mind that 1973 was still a time when the great majority of high school students did not matriculate. John Dawkins, author of the so-called 'Dawkins revolution', made massive changes to the higher education sector in the late 1980s, not all of them universally praised, including introducing as a measure to help protect the budget what was then known as HECS, the Higher Education Commonwealth Scheme. Fees were reintroduced and were paid in part by loans to students with the funds passed on to the universities. These covered some of the costs of their degrees and only had to be repaid as students entered employment and achieved higher income levels, which then often triggered only modest repayments.
That system has been maintained ever since. It underwent tweaks in the later years of the Hawke and Keating governments and under the Howard government, yet it remains a cornerstone of the system today—as does the philosophy behind it, which was to relieve the taxpayer of total responsibility for the provision of a university education and to ensure that the principal beneficiary, the student, bore a proportion of the cost of their academic betterment. The view in the late 1980s, as it is today, was that the major beneficiary of a university education is indeed the student. A tertiary degree opens the potential, if not always the reality, of achieving an income greater than would ordinarily be possible for a person without that level of education. In broad terms, that remains the case today.
The last major change was in 2012 when the Commonwealth removed caps on the number of places that universities could offer, which, in turn, took the cap off student loans. The result was an explosion in the number of students and an almost exponential increase in HECS debt owed to the Commonwealth. There are now 1.4 million university students, up 100,000 over the past three years alone, attending 39 universities. There are almost one million students doing bachelor degrees, over 300,000 doing post-graduate courses and more than 65,000 doing postgraduate research. There are over 120,000 staff. That is significantly more than there were only 50 years before.
Today our HECS debit has ballooned to an astonishing $50 billion, and that debt, tied up in loans to students, is expected to grow even more dramatically in the years ahead as increasing numbers of students rush to take advantage of uncapped Commonwealth loans and almost unfettered tertiary access. The positives of this serial, steady, generally bipartisan expansion of opportunity are many. The first of that access has been continuously, incrementally and even exponentially, since the Curtin and Menzies years, extended to the sorts of levels that fit our national commitment to a classless and egalitarian society.
Over the decade to 2015, for example, there was a 50 per cent increase in the number of students from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds attending university. There was a 45 per cent increase in the number of regional and remote students, from just over 100,000 in 2008 to almost 160,000 in 2015. There were just over 7,000 Indigenous students in university in 2008 but over 12,000 in 2015, while the number of people with disabilities going to university was up an astonishing 94 per cent, from 24,000 to over 47,000. Thirty seven per cent of Australian 25- to 34-year-olds now have a bachelor's degree, or higher, and the Australian university sector has become an extraordinary contributor to the national economy. In 2001 there were just over 150,000 foreign students paying full fees here to study. There are now over 350,000, mainly from north-east and South-East Asia, and this generates export income that is third only behind iron ore and coal—an extraordinary achievement. It was almost $22 billion in 2015-16.
Australia is now, and has been for some time, one of the leading international providers of tertiary education. These are outstanding outcomes from a great deal of effort, but there are also some equally outstanding problems. The 2012 uncapping of entry, such that universities now decide how many students they enrol without the need to meet government-imposed quotas, means that at least some universities have dropped their standards in the grasp for dollars from students and from taxpayers, who continue to foot most of the bill, which has increased by 71 per cent since 2009. People are being enrolled with entrance scores for some disciplines that are so low that the potential for them to successfully complete their chosen course is likewise very low, and the universities know it. Clear evidence of this is a dropout rate of about one-in-three—a tremendous waste of time for the student and an equally tremendous waste of resources, including precious taxpayer dollars, bearing in mind that upwards of 80 per cent of the cost of many degrees continues to be borne by the taxpayer.
There is also a lot of wasted effort and resources for students enrolling in courses where the opportunity for employment, once they have their degrees, often varies from limited to virtually non-existent. The universities enrolling students for these courses know that too—and if they don't, well, they should. These are clear flaws in the system. These are unintended consequences, if you like, of a rampant, self-regulation that we simply can no longer afford. This bill, it is hoped, will go some way to correcting such flaws in the interests of students, universities and the economy, not to mention, of course, the interests of the taxpayer.
Members opposite, in signalling opposition to at least some of the measures in this bill, are simply continuing their long, ubiquitous flight over the cuckoo's nest, just as they still flap away in relation to their fake commitment to Gonski, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and their mad plan for 50 per cent renewables by 2030. Labor has no plan to fix this. They certainly have no money when the public debt is now at $500 billion—half-a-trillion dollars—and headed upwards to $700 billion on the trajectory they established with their spendthrift ways when they were last in government. Via their relentless opposition now and ever since they were booted from office in 2013, they stymie each and every attempt by this government to rein in debt, preserve our AAA credit rating and restore our budget to balance.
Australia simply cannot afford more nonsense from those opposite, whether across the board or in relation to the crucial goal of ensuring a university system that is sustainable, fair and transparent. The key measure in this bill is a 1.8 per cent increase each year for the next four years in the share of the cost of university education that is borne by students. It is a cumulative 7½ per cent increase by 2021 with the Commonwealth contribution reduced by the same amount. We cannot afford more. This bill is driven by the same imperative that drove John Dawkins and Neville Wran—who was a key advisor to Dawkins and Bob Hawke in 1988—when they reintroduced fees and established HECS, and that is the budget.
These are still very competitive arrangements for our students. In New Zealand graduates pay 12c in every dollar they earn over $17½ thousand. In the United Kingdom graduates pay nine per cent of their income once their income reaches the equivalent of $36,000. In Australia the new threshold set by this bill is $42,000 and a minimum repayment is one per cent, or just $8 a week, and it is only slightly more for higher-income earners. That is, by international standards, extremely generous, and I'm confident it will pass any fair-minded pub test in any part of this country.
Other important measures in the bill will ensure that universities are more open, more transparent and more responsive to students by giving them clearer information about the prospects of employment at the completion of their course. There will be expanded support for subdegree courses to reflect the reality that for many students a diploma or certificate course could serve them and their community better than attempting a degree. This is indeed a very sensible and positive move. It continues the historic, generally bipartisan effort in this country to enable those who want to achieve a university education to obtain it regardless of their wealth, social standing or background. We are very deliberately, even fiercely a classless and egalitarian society. That attitude, typically supported by Australian governments, recognises and reflects the core values of the Australian people. This bill advances that cause but also recognises—as did the mentors of the members opposite back in the late 1980s—that budgetary pressures are real and have to be responded to. It is for these reasons that I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:48): Last night, my grandfather passed away. He was born in 1932 and he was incredibly intelligent—the smartest person I ever met. But there was never any risk that he'd be able to go to university; there was never any prospect of that. He left school as a child and became a fireman on a steam train. Later, when he started his own business, he was incredibly successful. The business he founded is still running today. I think it is fantastic that people of his generation were able to do well without the same opportunities that people of my generation have. But I also think it would have been incredible had he had those same opportunities.
I'm a first-in-family to have gone to university, like a lot of people on the Labor Party's side of this parliament and like a lot of people who are at universities today. I got opportunities two generations after my grandfather, but they're also opportunities that my mother never had and that my father never had. They left school at grade 10, as was normal at the time. Again, there was never any suggestion they would go to university. Again, they were very intelligent people who started small businesses, who have worked very hard their whole lives but who just have not had the same opportunities. Yet there I was finishing school in the nineties and going off to James Cook University to start a degree. Why? Why was I was able to do that? It was because of Labor reforms to higher education. It was because of Gough Whitlam's reforms, and it was because of Bob Hawke's reforms.
I just heard the coalition member who spoke before me in this debate try to appropriate Bob Hawke and John Dawkins and the reforms that they made in the 1980s and try to compare this bill, the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, to those reforms as though that is a rational thing to do, but it is not. Those were reforms under which students were asked to pay a small contribution into the public purse to help defray the cost of university and to increase the availability of funding for universities. This bill seeks to implement Liberal Party ideology, where they think students should pay more. They just think students should pay more. You heard why, because of what the member before me said. He said it is because students are the principal beneficiaries of higher education.
This bill seeks to increase the overall proportion of the costs of university study paid by students to the highest proportion it has ever been since Gough Whitlam freed up higher education in this country. At the same time, this bill, unlike Bob Hawke's reforms, unlike John Dawkins's reforms, seeks to cut funding to universities. This is a bill that is aimed at putting up fees for no other reason than that the Liberal Party think people should pay more, because that's what they reckon, and at the same time they want to deliver funding cuts to universities. It's a disgrace to be doing it, and it's definitely a disgrace to be appropriating Labor heroes like Bob Hawke in doing so.
To argue that students are the principal beneficiaries of university education is, I think, really revealing on the part of the coalition member who spoke before me. Not even the minister's own documents argue that students are the principal beneficiaries. Even the leadership of the Liberal Party acknowledges that the public benefit of university education is greater than the private benefit that accrues to individuals. But the member argued that students are the principal beneficiaries, and let's talk about that. Is a student who becomes a community legal centre employee, working in an Aboriginal legal service for family and domestic violence victims and survivors, the primary beneficiary of their legal education? They're not earning much. They're taking longer to pay off their HECS debt. They're doing the right thing by their community. Are they the principal beneficiary? What about the engineer who ensures the safety of the bridges we drive over every day? Is she the principal beneficiary of university education? Emergency department doctors who save lives get paid well—absolutely, of course they do—but are they the principal, the primary, beneficiaries of university education?
University education is a good. It is not the only good, and it's not better than vocational education. It's not better than a life in business, but it is nonetheless important. People deserve to have the opportunity that comes with being able to go to TAFE or go to university, or do neither and go into business—whatever they see as their path. They deserve that opportunity.
It is an utter nonsense to suggest that increasing the amount of private debt that people have to take on in order to get a university education will not affect that choice. It is an utter nonsense to suggest that a 33-year-old woman with two kids who is thinking about how she can improve her qualifications so she can make more of a contribution will not be affected in deciding whether to go to university by the prospect of an even greater amount of private debt that she would be taking on than under current settings.
It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that the parents of working-class kids in Western Sydney would not think twice about encouraging their kids to go to university if the consequence was decades of debt for those kids. It's also a nonsense to think that the couple in their mid-30s with a massive higher education debt won't find it harder to save for a house deposit, particularly given the housing market in Australia at the moment. Do you really think—does anyone really think—that this greater burden of higher education debt that they carry through their lives won't make them think twice about going to their local small business and buying a coffee or buying locally to support small businesses? Of course, people aren't just one thing. They aren't just HECS debt owers. They're also small-business consumers; they're also customers; they're also parents; they're also, hopefully, homebuyers.
This is a bill that seeks to do several objectionable things. It seeks to increase the fees that students are asked to pay, on an entirely spurious, ideologically driven basis. It seeks to decrease, by corresponding amount, the public funding provided to universities and then seeks to further decrease the public funding provided to universities. I understand that the previous speaker claimed that there were no cuts to higher education, which is, frankly amazing.
Mr Giles: Incomprehensible?
Ms BUTLER: Incomprehensible—thank you, Member for Scullin. It is an incomprehensible proposition given that the government's own budget papers acknowledge that this is a $2.8 billion cut, or $3.8 billion in fiscal terms. The government's budget papers acknowledge that this is a cut—and, in fact, it is a cut.
The other highly objectionable problem with this bill is the proposition that we should reduce the threshold at which HECS repayments kick in to a much lower threshold. So, when people are earning not much more than the minimum wage, and a long way from average weekly earnings, they will start to pay an additional tax to the government. They will start to pay to the Commonwealth a contribution for higher education. I've seen the press this morning reporting on government media that suggests that this is great. It's going to mean we recover more debt, as the Commonwealth. It seems to ignore one little aspect of income contingent loans, doesn't it? The income contingent aspect of them. Of course, the point of these income contingent loans is that if you never earn a high enough income—and by high income I'm talking about $54,000; I'm not talking about $180,000—then you never pay it. People might like to describe that as bad debt; I see that as the liability not arising in the first place because you don't get this lauded private benefit that the government carries on about. Are you really trying to tell me that someone earning $42,000 is somehow enjoying an amazing massive windfall because they've had a higher education? It's a ridiculous proposition. If people want to claim that it is somehow good that we're recovering higher taxes from people on low incomes, they can go ahead, but I will not support that. I will not support the argument that graduates who earn $42,000 should pay higher taxes than nongraduates on the basis of some perceived private benefit that they have obtained.
It's not just a question of the regressive nature of that arrangement, though that is obvious; it's also a workforce issue. Not-for-profit organisations may say to people, 'We'll pay you much less but you'll have the satisfaction of making a contribution,' whether it's social work, whether it's community legal or whether it's medical or pharmacy—whatever you might do for a community organisation. Those people might take a significant reduction in the amount of income they get and, yes, that might mean that it takes them longer to pay off their HECS ultimately as they move up. How are these organisations now going to say to people, 'You should still come and work in a lower-paid job even though it's going to be much more expensive and difficult for you to do so'?
I notice that there's not much focus and attention being given to the gender ramifications of this bill, but the fact is that this reduction of the threshold is more likely to affect women. Women are more likely to be in part-time work or in low-paid work. This is absolutely a gender-impact bill and we should be considering it in those terms. This will have an effect on women's ability to get a higher education. It will have an impact on their ability to manage the cost of living after they've got that higher education.
Labor opposes the fee increase. We say it is unreasonable, it forgets the impact on individual students and it is oblivious to the impact on the broader economy because of the impact it will have on household consumption by graduates who have high debts. We oppose the cuts to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. We do not support cutting public funding to higher education. Last year, higher education was part of the international exports sector, which had a record trade of $23 billion. One of the reasons that we do so well in our international education exports is the high quality of Australia's universities. Countries in our region know this. China knows it. Japan knows it. Our competitor universities are getting the benefit of additional public funding and additional investment. And what's Australia doing to this really important export service? We're going to cut funding to it. We're going to make it harder for it to be a quality service. That's what Australia's going to do under this bill, and that's yet another reason why it's so ridiculous.
We're concerned about the performance-contingent funding for universities. We support performance based funding in principle, but reducing the funding by 7.5 per cent and then using that as a pool to pay for the performance pay for performance indicators which are as yet unknown is the wrong way to have gone about doing this. On top of the cuts to higher education public funding, there's a further reduction of 7.5 per cent of the funding which will be put into a pool which will be contingent on, as I said, as yet unknown performance indicators. That is very problematic.
The bill also goes to a reorganisation of scholarships for postgraduate coursework places. I think most people would agree that the current distribution of Commonwealth supported places for postgraduate study needs review and needs to be rearranged. But without consultation about how that should be done, and without apparently really formulating the actual policy mechanisms by which that will be done, there are significant difficulties in just announcing and legislating and hoping the rest will fall into place later. So we're concerned about that as well.
In relation to sub-bachelor courses, obviously this requires a lot of discussion and negotiation with the vocational education sector to ensure there's not inadvertent cannibalisation there. In respect of enabling courses, we are gravely concerned that taking away the loading and turning it into student fees will limit the opportunity for people to take enabling courses and will therefore limit the number of people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds who get to go to higher education. We oppose the bill.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:03): Today it is an honour to rise and speak to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. Education is a passion of mine. My wife is a qualified teacher. All of our six children either are currently studying or have undertaken higher education in recent years. And I'm a proud graduate of undergraduate and graduate studies at Australian universities. In my home electorate of Groom, back in Toowoomba, the University of Southern Queensland, my alma mater, has just seen the appointment of its new vice-chancellor, Professor Geraldine Mackenzie. Professor Mackenzie returns to USQ from Southern Cross University, where she was deputy vice-chancellor (research). I look forward to catching up with her shortly to discuss higher education in our city and in our region.
This year, the coalition government is investing a record $16.7 billion in higher education. This means, for the University of Southern Queensland, base funding of $206.7 million in 2017. This is projected to rise to $239.7 million in 2021—a rise of $32.9 million, or 15.9 per cent—and that is a tangible investment in the future of regional Queenslanders from anyone's perspective. This figure is also just base funding. It doesn't include research funding, or other additional revenue from resources such as the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, and, when it comes to research, USQ is attracting plenty of notice for the work that it does in agriculture and agribusiness and in the creation of environmentally sensitive building materials, for example.
We know that Australia must continue to improve the commercialisation of such research. Toowoomba's Wellcamp airport is a fantastic example—the world's first and largest application of modern geopolymer concrete, saving 6,600 tonnes, or 90 per cent, of carbon emissions. This product and its development and the work of the university highlights the value of regional universities.
As a part of the Higher Education Reform Package, the government will provide $15 million of funding over four years to assist in the establishment and maintenance of up to eight community-owned regional study hubs across Australia, to improve access to higher education for students from rural and remote communities. Regional study hubs will provide infrastructure such as study spaces, videoconferencing, computing facilities and internet access, as well as pastoral and academic support for students studying via distance at partner universities. I certainly will be encouraging the government to consider Queensland as the base for such hubs in the future.
The Higher Education Reform Package has been developed after substantial consultation and discussion with a broad range of stakeholders and will continue to support the best features of the current higher education system, underpinning a vibrant education export industry, supporting student career aspirations and ensuring that industry as a whole has access to a skilled workforce. We are encouraging, for example, more and more of our young students, particularly women, to look at a future in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics—an effort which, I'm pleased to see, extends back into high school and primary school education spheres as well. We are doing this because this is a government that supports work for Australians, jobs for Australians and a future for Australians in the future industries of Australia.
In terms of technology, I refer to the Toowoomba Technology Park, which consists of a number of market leaders in their respective fields, including FK Gardner & Sons, who are project managers and the site developers; the University of Southern Queensland, which is the technology and education collaborator; and Energy Queensland, the electrical and fibre infrastructure provider. The tech park will represent Australia's largest facility of this type, with capacity for retail and wholesale data centres, an incubator, disaster recovery facilities, and, of course, industrial and office space. The total investment for the overall project is estimated to be $573 million over a 20-year period. Over this 20-year initiative, the tech park will employ more than 2,600 people directly in this new economy, and they will be in high-value-added jobs. The multiplier impact will see an additional 6,600 positions in my community, created through our broader economy.
As this new tech industry continues to emerge, we need skilled Australians to take up the positions on offer, and, as these jobs of the future come online, our universities—regional universities in particular—will need to provide courses to train students in these new technologies. There is an exciting time ahead for our education sector, and this government realises that and is seeking to make the system sustainable for future generations of Australian students.
Since 2009, taxpayer funding for teaching and learning has increased by 71 per cent—twice the rate of growth of the economy as a whole. The current funding arrangements are not sustainable, and reform is needed if future generations are also to enjoy the benefits of an affordable, world-class higher education. A key element of the higher education system is the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, which supports universal, merit based access to higher education in Australia and is one of the most generous student loan schemes in the world. We are keeping that loan system in place. We will improve the sustainability of the HELP scheme by introducing a new HELP repayment system of thresholds and rates for all current and future HELP debtors from 1 July 2018.
As I touched on earlier, Toowoomba is the heart of the Darling Downs and the service centre for all of southern Queensland, and to the west and into northern New South Wales. Many young people in those regions may not have seen university study as an option in the past, and they may not see it as an option in the future. The Turnbull government recognises that students from rural, regional and remote areas are underrepresented in higher education, often facing obstacles such as a lack of financial resources and, of course, distance from campuses. The government aims to improve access to these students by providing rural and regional enterprise scholarships to students from regional and remote areas to undertake, in particular, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and certainly in the areas of agriculture and most health courses. The scholarships will be valued up to $18,000 each and will be available for certificate IV courses right through to PhD courses. The first 600 scholarships will be awarded for the 2018 academic year, and there will be 600 more in 2019.
The Australian government will also change the fee arrangements and allocation of Commonwealth supported places for enabling courses. An enabling course is a course of instruction provided to a person for the purpose of gaining entry into a degree program, and that is particularly important for regional universities such as my own University of Southern Queensland. The provider will be able to tell a student if they are in an enabling course, which is sometimes also known as a foundation study or pathway program. From 1 January 2018, students enrolled in such courses will be required to pay a student contribution amount, and the amount that a university can charge a student will be based on a maximum rate set by the government. The average enabling course is less than half a year, full-time, and equates to around $1,400, which eligible students can defer through a HECS-HELP loan. Additionally, from 1 January 2019, a fixed number of Commonwealth supported places for enabling courses will be allocated to universities on a three-year basis. These allocations will be made to universities which demonstrate high standards of academic preparation and deliver high-quality student outcomes. This will improve the quality of enabling courses that are offered under the program and will enable a better match, if you like, to place students' needs and to meet those needs.
Overall, the Commonwealth government is supporting Australians living in rural and regional communities through a range of programs. Rural students, Indigenous students and students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds will benefit from the government's higher education reform package. Regional students will benefit from enhancements to the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program. The reforms to this program will help remove the barriers that many regional and remote students face in seeking high-quality education and, of course, in accessing support.
The reform to deliver three funding streams to universities—a loading for each eligible SES student, performance funding based on success rates of low SES and Indigenous students and a national priorities pool to give a greater focus on rigorous evaluation research and to encourage collaboration between universities—will also be a feature. This is essential as our knowledge economy continues to grow in capital cities and across regional Australia. Education is our third-largest export. It was worth $21.8 billion to the Australian economy in 2016 and supports more than 130,000 jobs nationally.
International students studying in Australia, along with visiting friends and family, also add significantly to the tourism industry over and above our education sector. They enrich our campuses and our communities—that's certainly the case in the University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba—as do our students, of course, who travel overseas to other communities under programs such as the New Colombo Plan. This reform package means so much to the entire country, particularly to young students who want to make their way in the world to the benefit of regional Australia. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:16): I want to indicate to the House it's my attention to support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this bill and to oppose the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. I'd like to first of all go through some of the detail of the bill and why I think it should be opposed and also address how that will impact in my own local area. This particular piece of legislation has been debated around not only this place for a while now but also in our communities. I can assure the parliament that it is very hard to find anybody on the grounds of my own university at Wollongong who has any affection for these particular so-called reforms that the government has encapsulated in this bill, the 'triple-whammy bill'.
First of all, it will reduce funding to universities so will be a direct cut in funding. Secondly, it will increasingly shift the cost on to students, seeing students have to pay more for their courses and pay back at an earlier pace. These combined effects are significant also because despite what my colleague, the member opposite, said before my contribution, while it is important to have more and more people with post-secondary skills and an education, this particular bill does nothing to increase participation and everything to discourage participation. It is, in particular, of great concern that despite the fact that this has been roundly rejected across communities, across the university sector and across student bodies directly affected by it, we continue to have it fed to us in this place, and so again we do today.
It is important to note that, in fact, Australia has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD. And so what does this bill contribute? It contributes to making that position worse. Our students, despite the previous speakers claiming that we're extremely generous to them, already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. This bill will only make that worse too. It is again an example across the education sector of this government saying we need to upskill the nation and then doing everything they can to either cut funding or shift costs in a way that will achieve exactly the opposite. We've seen it in schools with the cuts to the Gonski funding and with their bandaid proposal to say that they were doing something on school education. We've seen it in the TAFE sector; every time there is a budget or a MYEFO, they've cut funding to the skills sector. And we see it in the higher education sector as well. In fact, it is very important to point out that the money a government spends on education at all levels is an investment. If we want to talk about economic growth and if we want to talk about jobs and growth—which apparently was once the priority for those opposite—then we have to invest in our people, and cuts such as are before us in this bill are not the way to achieve that.
I want to particularly make the point, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did, that there are proposals in this bill around sub-bachelor degree programs. As the deputy opposition leader indicated, we have some concerns around ensuring and taking action to ensure that the outcome of that is to not to cut at the heart of our TAFE sector. Diplomas and associate diplomas can appropriately be delivered in the university sector when they're specifically designed for the sorts of target areas that a university might be better delivering, but they are not intended to compete for little purpose against the TAFE sector, which already has a world-class reputation in delivering those sorts of qualifications. So I want to make the point that I think it is very, very important that we be careful what we do in that space.
Across the board in this particular bill, it's clear that the efficiency dividend—the 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend that the government is placing on grants for 2018-19—means that there is a funding cut at the heart of this bill. The increase in student contribution amounts—student fees—of 7.5 per cent over four years is a cost shift onto students, which can significantly decrease the capacity of students to consider undertaking tertiary education, and that is a serious issue. The change to the repayment threshold—lowering it to a $42,000 income, at which point you start to repay—is going to have significant impacts on young adults starting out in life. They're already dealing with the fact that they've finished their tertiary education with a debt that has to be repaid and they're going into a workforce that is increasingly irregular and unreliable. Many young people I talk to are working full time, but none of those jobs and hours they work are actually permanent, reliable income, so, whilst they may actually be earning a reasonable flow of income, the reality is that they don't have the security on which to build a life—security many of us took for granted when we first came out of our post-secondary training and education and were able to do things like start a family or get a mortgage. They're facing an intergenerational unfairness in terms of housing affordability, often paying rents that are so prohibitive that they can't save in order to get a deposit to get ahead in the housing market. If they could save to get a deposit, they'd be facing a market that increasingly shuts them out because of the cost of housing. These are the issues that they are already facing. Quite rightly, I think, they're looking at our generation, saying, 'Why is it that you continue to make decisions that make it even harder for us to get a start as young adults'? This bill, by decreasing the repayment level to $42,000, will affect that.
Across the board, I think that the government should understand that this bill and the proposals within it have been discussed and debated across the community. It doesn't matter how they try to put it together; it's not a proposal that is supported by the broader community, and it is certainly not supported by this side of this chamber, because we actually understand the challenges that people are facing in our communities when they look at getting a start as a young person in the community: making a family, buying a house, and doing all those things that they have a right to do. It's important for our communities that they be able to do that. They're not doing it, and this will add to that difficulty.
In the time that's left to me, I want to particularly talk about how the bill will affect my own region. Obviously, I have a world-class university, the University of Wollongong, in my area. The implication of this legislation is that my university, the University of Wollongong, will have a funding cut of $45.7 million over the next four years. Of course, that's part of a $617.8 million cut across New South Wales. That is a direct hit to the bottom line of the university, which plays out in reduced quality, a reduced range of offerings for students and increased costs being put onto the students.
The students at my university have had many rallies and protests about their serious concerns about the implications of this bill for them. It is the case that we have persistently high youth unemployment in my area, and I will not stop campaigning and lobbying in support of post-secondary education in my area. At the end of the day, that is the thing that will give young people a fighting chance in an employment market that is rapidly changing and in which they need the foundation of a post-secondary education for them to be competitive in it. I will continue to fight for my TAFEs and my university and for the students who need them to be there in our community.
I'm particularly concerned to see some of the proposals by the government around the Higher Education Partnerships and Participation Program. This is a program that particularly supports disadvantaged Australians to get a university education. I'd like to point out that I met, in a number of universities across the country, Indigenous students who found access into higher education through this program. There has already been nearly $200 million cut from it, and I have really serious concerns about how we're going to continue to make sure that students from all walks of life, those who have the capacity and interest, are able to participate in a university education.
Finally, I want to contrast the approach of the government with what Labor did when we were in government. It is important to note that we took very seriously the significance of investing in education, and also in investing in higher education. It's very clear that the focus of both the Rudd and Gillard governments was to invest in higher education. We lifted funding in it when we came to government: in 2007 it was about $8 billion; by 2013, we had lifted that to $14 billion. That's a significant increase after the Howard years, when universities were under the pump and saw their funding consistently slashed.
In my area, through things like the higher education infrastructure investment that we put in place, there was $135 million invested in my university: $25.1 million was invested in the Sustainable Buildings Research Centre; $42.8 million was invested in the Australian Institute of Innovative Materials; $35 million was invested in the SMART Infrastructure Facility, which is the Simulation, Modelling, Analysis, Research and Teaching Infrastructure Facility; and $31 million was invested in the Early Start facility, which is about driving transformation and outcomes for children, particularly those from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds. That's $135 million, and the deputy leader visited it only recently with me and saw the wonderful work that they are doing there.
In the Rudd and Gillard years, Labor governments invested $135 million in my university, and we are now seeing world-class research in critically important areas to our economy and society. It is seeing significant employment boosts in my area. It is seeing the university enabled, in partnership with my local businesses and councils, to help transform our region at a time when we're under real pressure to make sure we have a future for manufacturing and steel. My university is working with local manufacturer and working with BlueScope to ensure that research and development can partner with them to give them a future.
This university is driving so much of that agenda in my local area, because Labor governments invested in it. I couldn't name anything from the Howard years that was anywhere near a match to the investment in my university by a Labor government, and I can't name anything that's happened under the Abbott and Turnbull governments that would even come close to reflecting the investment by Labor governments in my university and in the people in my region. This bill before us today is only an addition to the gallery of shame of Liberal governments in the higher education sector. It should be rejected, and I support the amendment that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved. I will continue to fight on behalf of my university and my community and the students who rely on it. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Cunningham will be given an opportunity to conclude her contribution at that time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Marriage
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:30): Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition and I met with a group of very special people. We met with Eddie Blewett and his mums—Claire and Neroli—from Tathra in New South Wales and a whole group of rainbow families and their supporters. I'd hoped that since they were last here, about a year ago, the parliament would have done its job and legislated for marriage equality. Sadly, this Prime Minister has instead delivered a ridiculous $122 million postal survey. None of us wanted it, but we are determined to win it. We've already seen the vitriol that this postal survey is inflicting on the LGBTIQ community, Australians, their family and their friends. I know that over the next few weeks that times will be very tough for people like Eddie and his friends, but I want to say to them today that we stand with them and that we've got their backs.
Ballot papers will begin arriving in people's letterboxes over coming days. I urge people to fill in their ballots and post them back as soon as possible; don't get distracted. I urge people to vote 'yes', because I'm voting yes for family like Eddie's, Claire's and Neroli's. I'm voting yes for people I've never met, for someone in a country town who's just coming to terms with their sexuality and who hasn't told anyone yet. I'm voting yes for that person. I'm voting yes because I want a country that supports all its citizens equally. (Time expired).
Forrest Electorate: Headspace Bunbury
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:31): If you're a young person between the ages of 12 and 25 and you're going through a tough time for any reason, headspace in Bunbury is providing services for you to treat your head right. The centre manager, Marie Eckersley, and her dedicated friendly team are there for you.
Some years ago, I worked with a group of local people to help secure headspace in Bunbury, which opened in January 2013. Since then it has assisted over 2,700 young people on 16,200 different occasions. Over 32 per cent of those people were 15- to 17-year-olds and 25 per cent were 12- to 14-year-olds. Young people from other towns in the South West have also sought positive assistance from Bunbury headspace. They offer services from social workers, psychologists, a doctor, a nurse, drug and alcohol counsellors and a vocational advisor. They offer workshops, a Youth Connections program and free fitness. There's a headspace app aimed at training your mind for a healthier happier life—your own personal trainer, in fact.
But, if you're not ready yet to meet one of these wonderful people face-to-face then eheadspace might be a first step, providing a confidential and free service through web chat, email or phone support with a qualified youth mental health professional. Headspace Bunbury has a youth reference group and a family and friends reference group, and we know how important headspace is in our communities. I would like to thank Marie and everyone involved at Bunbury headspace for the work they do.
Energy
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:33): After five years of failure from the Liberals, Australia is now in the middle of a major energy crisis. People in my electorate of Wills has seen their electricity bills go up on average to $721 and in Sydney, it's almost a thousands dollars per year. This government has taken over 4,000 megawatts of power generation out of the grid without replacing it, putting constituents at risk of enduring blackouts this summer.
Instead of taking sensible action to solve this energy crisis, the Prime Minister is talking about buying a 50-year-old coal-fired plant, which is due to close in five years' time. Now, I've got my old man's 50-year-old Torana, with more than 500,000km on the clock. I would like the Prime Minister to buy that from me as well, but he might have a problem finding some leaded petrol!
What the government should be doing is pulling the trigger on gas so that Australian gas stays in Australia. What the Prime Minister needs to do is end his war on renewables and get the clean energy target in place so that the market can confidently allocate capital to the investments required to drive our renewable energy future. Take these actions to stop the summer blackouts, because skyrocketing power prices are hurting families now, and the risk of blackouts will hurt families over the summer. This Prime Minister blames everyone else. He has no answers and no idea.
Groom Electorate: Pittsworth State High School
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:34): Last Saturday, I drove my 40-year-old Ford LTD out to Pittsworth—and I can assure you she'll go forever!—for the Pittsworth State High School Jubilee to celebrate their 50 years. What a day we had! It was fantastic to see a roll-up of staff and students past and present, of course, and lots of visitors to the school for this jubilee celebration. I've spent a lot of time in Pittsworth in my childhood and my adult years, in and around the town, working and pursuing social activities as well. Whilst I'm not a past student of Pittsworth State High School, I have plenty of mates who are. To see the community come together to celebrate after half a century, releasing a history book and having judo presentations and a jubilee concert, including a performance by the Pittsworth Amateur Theatrical Society, was a sight indeed.
I congratulate principal James O'Neill, P&C president Jeanna Lee and the entire Pittsworth State High School community past and present on a fantastic celebration in what is a magnificent town on the Darling Downs. Students from this school are well recognised throughout the country for their achievements and their advancement over the years. I'm particularly pleased to see so many of them focusing on science, technology, engineering and maths, particularly and most especially in relation to agribusiness, be it the grain industry, the cotton industry or intensive livestock around the area.
Energy
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:36): This government lurches from crisis to crisis. It has a problem when it comes to energy. You can't hide it, and you can't spin it. You can't blame everybody except yourself. The Abbott-Turnbull government has been in power for four years and is going into its fifth now. My community know the Turnbull government is failing, because they haven't forgotten the promises made. Every single time they open their power bills, they remember the promise that was made to reduce bills by $550 per year. What a lie—especially when households in Sydney have had an annual bill increase of close to $1,000 since 2013. That's right: $1,000 on your watch.
This government needs to act urgently. It sat on its hands and let 4,000 megawatts of coal out of system and has done nothing to fix it. That's the equivalent of powering six million households, three-quarters of Australian homes. If the bill shock isn't enough, the risk of blackouts this summer is higher than ever before. In my community in Lindsay, we had our highest temperature in history, where the thermometer peaked at 45 degrees, and we want solutions now. This crisis is real. Families need action now and not in five years time.
The Prime Minister must urgently act, pull the gas trigger, end the war on renewables and stop the summer blackouts. I hear the Prime Minister talking a lot about dispatchable power, but I know that right now, if I had the power, I would certainly know how to dispatch him.
I look forward to welcoming everybody in my electorate to the energy crisis forum that I'll be holding later this month.
Tangney Electorate: Schools
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (13:38): Over the last couple of weeks, I've been visiting local high schools in Tangney to meet with some of my electorate's brightest students in year 11 and 12 politics and law classes. It's been really enjoyable sharing my journey, answering questions and hearing their ideas. Thank you to the Rossmoyne Senior High School year 12s, the Melville Senior High Year School year 11s and year 12s and the Kennedy Baptist College year 12s for letting me share with you my experience and receive your views. It was a really interesting time catching up with these switched on P and L students. We had some great conversations.
I want to particularly congratulate the Melville Senior High School students and their principal, Phillip White, staff and parents for their second consecutive finalist placement in the WA Secondary School of the Year award. The school is now placed in the top 10 public schools in WA for ATAR results, which is a massive achievement. The school has so much to offer, including an aviation studies program with two full-motion flight simulators, the only program to offer this in WA.
I wish every student the very best as they head back to their mock exams very soon and on to complete their ATARs. Good luck as well if you're moving on to the workforce. With your hard work and the support of your teachers and families, I am sure that you will achieve your full potential. Good luck to all of the students in Tangney, and thank you to their teachers and their parents for their support.
Energy
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:39): This Prime Minister needs to grow up. We need a leader in this country on energy. We do not need somebody who resorts to name-calling—and I have to say pretty pathetic name-calling at that, as my colleague the member for Hunter would know too well—and blame-shifting on energy.
Before the 2013 election, those opposite promised people in my electorate that their bills would go down by $550. How's that going? Not too good! Four years, going into your fifth year, in government, and you still haven't delivered on that—in fact, you've made it worse. As my colleague the member for Lindsay said, there has been an increase of up to a thousand dollars in the price of electricity for constituents in my area and in her area, across Sydney. This is your record. This is the result of—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I would remind the member for Cunningham to address her remarks through the chair.
Ms BIRD: I will, Deputy Speaker. This is this government's record. This is the result of their failure to act. They abolished the carbon price that we had put in place. They attacked the renewable energy industry. The Nationals were out there on the weekend deciding that we don't need any renewable energy. They are failing our communities. The Prime Minister's response is to try and bully and heavy industry, instead of getting on with pulling the trigger on gas, putting a carbon energy target in place and taking the decisions we need as a nation. Grow up! (Time expired)
Buderim Foundation
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:41): I'm concerned that in recent decades we've seen a gradual erosion of civil society, at a time when community has become, unfortunately, increasingly reliant on government. We know that, post GFC, government budgets right across the Western world are under continuous strain, and, as a result, we risk people falling through the cracks. I believe that we do need to rebuild civil society in Australia.
To that end, I want to make mention of the Buderim Foundation. This foundation is a community philanthropic not-for-profit up in my seat of Fairfax on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. Its operating model is simply this: it receives donations and bequests; it invests those funds, generating income; it then takes that income and redistributes it to needy not-for-profit groups in the community.
We need to take inspiration from this group that now has $1.4 million under management and has distributed nearly half a million dollars. Only last Saturday, it distributed $65,000 to 17 different not-for-profit organisations. The erosion of civil society can indeed be addressed.
Centrelink
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:42): In response to my question yesterday about the difficulties with Centrelink services, the minister refused to acknowledge a problem and instead spouted a list of innovations—making Centrelink sound like the most accessible, efficient, user-friendly system in the world. Well, my constituents are telling me the exact opposite.
Why, just yesterday, my office was contacted by a father who works full time and is trying to access a families payment. For six days in a row, he called the families line at various times and was unable to get through. So he went into the Centrelink office and was referred back to the families line. And, Minister, don't tell me he should go and use myGov, because this man has no computer and is not computer literate.
Moreover, one of my staff recently called the disability support pension line more than 100 times in one afternoon and, every time, got the engaged signal. Just last week, I was contacted by a frontline worker in student support, who said she's increasingly seeing distressed students, unable to access payments, who can't pay for textbooks, power, food and rent.
According to the minister, the Centrelink system has been fixed. But, frankly, that is patent nonsense, and either he knows that or he's being misled.
Energy
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (13:44): I want to put on the record my support for the resolution to reject the Finkel-proposed clean energy target of 42 per cent of renewable energy by 2030, passed by the Nationals' federal conference on the weekend. My constituents ask me: 'Why does our country, so rich in energy-producing resources, pay some of the world's highest electricity prices?' We must exploit our natural advantage to provide cheap and reliable energy to create jobs and maintain our international competitiveness. Finkel found that coal is by far the cheapest and most reliable source of power, whereas solar and wind cost taxpayers many billions of dollars in subsidies each year.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Barker will be quiet.
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN: The renewable energy target flies in the face of every principle of the Liberal and National parties. It distorts the energy market and places a needless burden on those who have elected us to act in their best interests. The renewable energy target simply drives up the power price. To continue to support an RET status quo undermines our nation's competitiveness. Renewables need to stand on their own two feet and not be propped up by taxpayer subsidies. We need a level playing field to deliver true competitive cheap power prices. Renewable energy is a wonderful idea but reliable, cheap energy is essential to keep the wheels of our economy turning.
Energy
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:45): Two weeks ago, I met with Maria in my electorate. Maria is an age pensioner and she came to see me to explain that she lives frugally. She turns the heater on for an hour a day in the morning and her electricity bill has doubled in the last two years, In this place, every day, we listen to our Prime Minister blame everybody else for an issue that he is clearly responsible for. Maria is just one example. I also visited Quenos recently and they need action on gas. They need the Prime Minister to pull the trigger on gas. I met young Rhys, who is reliant on the Prime Minister to pull that trigger so he can keep his job. Young Rhys has a good job and I would like him to keep it.
I want the Prime Minister to stop shouting and blaming the rest of the world; stop having 'hard chats' with retailers, to no effect; and stop talking about what he might do in five years. I want him to come in here and explain to the Australian public why they spent three years at their letterboxes waiting for their $550 refund on their gas prices and electricity prices and now he wants them back out to their letterboxes waiting for an explanation from the retailers. I want him to come in here and give the House an explanation as to why the energy crisis is here.
Agriculture
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:47): I rise today to note the incredible contribution agriculture is making to the economy across the nation and in my large electorate of Durack. We have recently seen the updated national accounts—and what a welcome set of numbers they were. The better days that we were elected to deliver are emerging. Under this government the potential of our regions is being unleashed. Agriculture contributed over $50 billion in exports through the period 2016-17. Just under 14 per cent of our total goods and services are exported. This is up from some $41 billion five years ago. This makes agriculture the fastest-growing economic sector in the nation.
This agricultural growth is occurring not only in the traditional sectors of grains and cattle but also in new sectors such as nuts, wine and citrus. One fabulous example of this is Moora Citrus, some 200 kilometres north of Perth, in my electorate. Established nine years ago, Moora Citrus is a booming local business supplying both local and export markets with the best oranges you will ever eat and providing jobs for the community.
Please spare a thought for parts of my electorate, especially those through the north-eastern Wheatbelt region, who may be experiencing a poor growing season. I sincerely hope this late rain will help them recover from a potentially disastrous yield to perhaps a just-below-average yield.
Energy
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (13:48): We have had five years with the Liberals in office and five years of soaring power prices. We have had five years with this government in office and five years of Australians footing higher bills for their failures. This government's energy crisis isn't just costing all of our households; it is costing our public hospitals. Hospitals are one of the most significant consumers of energy in Australia. It is estimated that public hospitals consume 60 per cent of public sector energy in Victoria. In Western Australia, they consume around 45 per cent—and they're being pushed to the brink because of this government's inaction.
Victorian hospitals will have to find an extra $44 million a year for energy costs because of this government's negligence and complete lack of action. This is an additional pressure on public hospitals when they are already struggling with their budgets from this government's failure to properly fund them. As an example, Mildura Base Hospital say they are expecting their annual electricity bill to rise by $200,000. That is an extra $16,000 a month that they will have to find, money that would be better put towards improving hospital services and looking after patients. They say that this extra money would be better directed to looking after patients. The buck stops in just one place, and it stops with this appalling, useless government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! Before I call the member for Barker, I will remind members that the 90-second statements are not a team sport. One at a time.
Barker Electorate: Foodbank South Australia Limestone Coast Food Hub
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:49): I rise to speak about the Limestone Coast Foodbank in the south-east of my electorate of Barker. Foodbank is an exceptional organisation. Its core is simple: to feed those in need by redistributing surplus food. Growers, manufacturers and processors produce quantities of food which, for various commercial reasons, cannot be sold while, at the same time, welfare agencies are involved in the ongoing struggle to provide food relief to thousands of Australians in need. In short, it is a perfect solution to a very real problem for many struggling to put food on the table.
The Limestone Coast Foodbank began with the work of the late Barry Maney OAM some 15 years ago. Barry and his wife, Shirley, were instrumental in the establishment of the regional Foodbank hub and it is one of Barry's great legacies. The Foodbank in Mount Gambier was first established in 2005 and since then has distributed a whopping 1.1 million kilograms of food, equating to 2.2 million meals or an estimated value of $5.5 million at the supermarket shelves.
Recently I attended the official opening of the food hub expansion at the Regional Foodbank Limestone Coast. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to John Sandercock, who recently retired from his role of branch manager after 14 years of dedicated service. I wish Lynne Neshoda all the best as she takes on this important role. From what I saw recently, Lynne is already doing a wonderful job.
Energy
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:51): As hardworking Australians and those who are retired watch the debate on energy in this place, they will be remembering one thing more than any other—that is, the member for Warringah's pre-2013-election promise to cut our electricity bills by $550 every year. Yet many, many Australians are paying $1,000 extra per year since this government came to office. The Abbott-Turnbull government are now in their fifth year in office; energy prices continue to rise, and energy security continues to fall. Australians are wondering whether they're going to be able to keep the lights on this coming summer. You know, the member for New England mystically claims credit for the total value of our farm output, but of course, energy prices and energy insecurity are all our fault. Those opposite have no shame. We have an immediate energy crisis. Summer is coming. Six months ago, Tomago Aluminium was forced to go offline. A little more than six days ago, the Prime Minister decided he might do something about it. What is his mystical plan to do something about it, in five years time? Prime Minister, the crisis is here, right now. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:53): I would draw issue with some of the conclusions the member for Hunter was reaching there. It is interesting we are talking about energy and electricity. I have been reading through the Finkel report. There are a couple of specific recommendations that Mr Finkel makes that have great import on South Australia: firstly, the security obligation for new generators. Regional systems need to provide for inertia levels. For a reliability obligation, new generators need to ensure they can supply electricity when needed for the duration and the capacity nominated by the National Electricity Market for each region. This is very important in South Australia, where in fact the South Australian government have vigorously pursued renewable electricity to the point where it has become totally unreliable and they continue to do that. They continue to license and approve the building of new wind farms and new solar facilities without actually insisting on storage and dispatchability. Every new renewable project that comes on stream without storage is actually undermining the economic case for the baseload generators that are so important in the system. I have been saying for some time: no more renewable without storage—renewable, yes, but without storage, no. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:54): It's time the Prime Minister stopped blaming everyone else and accepted the fact that as the leader of the government he is responsible for the problem that we have with energy prices. Remember when this government came into power five years ago and they promised that power prices would go down? What happened? They went up. Average prices in Melbourne are $700 dearer than they were in 2013. The National Party, the Canberra National Party, sit here and want to attack farmers who want to protect their land from fracking. They sit here and say, 'Oh, coal is the future. Coal is the future.' I look forward to the member for Grey coming in here and saying, 'Gee, the Finkel report says, "No, it's not."'
What we actually find is that the price for coal is low because you never, ever include the cost to the environment. You never, ever include the longevity that it takes to clean up after it's been done. We've seen 4,000 megawatts of power lost under this lot while they were sleeping, first with Prime Minister Abbott and then with Prime Minister Turnbull. Both have sat here and said, 'It's not our fault. We are just the leaders of the government.' We asked them, 'Why don't you pull the gas trigger? Why don't you do that?' They know that they can't because the Deputy Prime Minister is in the High Court because he doesn't even know if he is an Australian! He doesn't even know if he is legally allowed to be in here. It's time that we got a Prime Minister in this country who stood up for Australia and no more years of 'mendacious Mal' and this government's false claims.
Local Sporting Champions Program
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:56): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the amazing opportunities for young Australian kids through the federal government's Local Sporting Champions program. Local Coomera student Sophie McGeachie popped into my office recently with her dad and younger brother to tell me about her success at the Australian Pool Rescue Championships. Sophie came away with three gold medals and one bronze, making her the best in Australia in three events. She was able to attend the championships in Adelaide thanks to a $500 grant from the government's Local Sporting Champions program through the Fadden grant program. The grant can be used towards travel, accommodation, uniforms or equipment when competing, coaching or officiating at any official national sporting organisation, endorsed state, national or international sporting championships or School Sport Australia state, national or international championships.
What makes Sophie's story so amazing is that she headed to these championships after healing from a broken humerus—which is not funny—and trained six to seven days a week between 5 am and 7 am, with her long-suffering dad driving her there each morning. Sophie's dedication to the sport and her fantastic achievements highlight the importance of the Local Sporting Champions program. Well done, Sophie; well done, Dad. Let me encourage all young people wherever they are in this country, including the students here in the gallery today, to apply for the Local Sporting Champions program. It will make a big difference to your competitions.
Energy
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (13:58): We are in the fifth year of this government, and we are in the fifth year of an energy policy fiasco. What have we seen? They promised a $550 cut to power prices. Instead, they've jacked it up by $1,000! And guess what else has happened? They've shut down seven coal-fired power stations—seven!—Redbank, Morwell, Wallerawang, Anglesea, Northern, Playford and Hazelwood. There have been 4,000 megawatts of coal-fired power gone under their watch. I have a message for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister: being mates with Gina Rinehart doesn't make you friends of coalminers. Not many coalminers get free trips to India on Gina's private jet. Not many coalminers get to go to the $40,000 a year Riverview private school. I say to the Prime Minister that a $1,000 increase in electricity bills might not be much to him in Point Piper but it means a lot to the people in my constituency. It means a lot to every single constituency over here. I have another message for the Prime Minister: stop blaming others, own up to the fact that seven coal-fired power stations have closed under your watch, take responsibility and start acting like an adult government for once.
Energy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:59): Coalmining is very important to me and Flynn. We have eight coal-fired power stations that have a life of another 10, 15 or 18 years if we come on board and support our coal-fired power stations. It is by far the cheapest form of energy in Australia.
We haven't got a problem in Queensland. The only problem we've got in Queensland is with the state government. There are too many middlemen in the middle, producing cheap electricity for Queensland industry. The Queensland government has got to be held to account for this. It's no good blaming the coal-fired power stations for the demise of the electricity industry. This is a disgrace. We cannot close another power station down in Queensland—in fact, we cannot close another power station down in Australia—until we get the energy circle and the energy mix correct. Nuclear is the next step in this line. So let's go.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. This government is now in its fifth year in office, and the state Liberal government of New South Wales has been in office that entire time. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the average Sydney household is paying almost $1,000 more in power bills since this federal Liberal government was elected to office?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): I can confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that during Labor's time in government electricity prices doubled. They doubled. And I can confirm that the policy errors the Labor Party made in government and continue to make at state levels continue to put our energy market, the sustainability of Australian businesses and the affordability of electricity in Australian families' homes at risk.
We know exactly what they did, and we saw another confessional creep-back today by the Leader of the Opposition on gas. We know that, when Labor was in government, they decided that we should open up the east coast to exports with no protection given for the domestic market. That was their decision. They took that risk. They were warned against it by the electricity market operator and by the energy department here in the federal government. They took that risk. They were warned.
The member for Port Adelaide first said he knew nothing about it. Then, finally, he confessed. And then—
Mr Shorten: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance. What about the $1,000 extra that Sydney householders are paying on his watch?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr TURNBULL: So the member for Port Adelaide confessed. But, as Mark Twain said, confession is good for the soul but bad for the reputation, and it definitely signed the member for Port Adelaide up to the group that put this extraordinary pressure on Australian businesses, on Australian jobs and on Australian families. We're taking the tough action to bring gas prices down, and they are coming down. They are coming down.
But we saw another confession today. They keep on coming. It's like a virus on the Labor side of politics. They're all being driven to confess. Not so long ago, the Leader of the Opposition stood shoulder-to-shoulder with his comrade the Premier of Victoria in opposing the exploration and development of gas under the state of Victoria—onshore conventional and unconventional gas. We've had every piece of advice imaginable from Finkel, from AEMO and even from the government saying that gas has to be explored and developed in Victoria. This was resisted by the Labor Party.
But now, in a blind panic, the Leader of the Opposition rushes out in front of the parliament and says: 'Oh, I've changed my mind. I think they should be exploring for gas in Victoria.' It's good to see he's putting his toe into the waters of the real world, but he's got to fully commit. (Time expired)
Energy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure that there is no gap in reliable base-load power for households and businesses, including in my electorate of Robertson? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the honourable member for her question. She well understands the importance of reliable base-load power. So much of it is generated in her electorate and, indeed, for the benefit of all of the families and businesses in her electorate. The truth of the matter is that we have for a long time in Australia been substituting high-emission dispatchable power with low-emission variable power. What that has done, as everyone should understand by now, is put our electricity system at grave risk. We cannot afford to have another large base-load generator go out of operation unless there is the adequate base-load power to replace it. We cannot have another Hazelwood. The consequence of Hazelwood was that wholesale prices in New South Wales alone went up by nearly double—by over $50 a megawatt-hour. Talk about why electricity prices are going up; that is a big part of the answer to that question.
When we were told by AEMO, who we asked to report on this, what would happen if Liddell closed as forecast in 2022—they said there would be a thousand-megawatt gap in base-load power—the obvious solution to that was to keep Liddell going for a longer period. Plainly, that was the most obvious solution. You would think the Labor Party would recognise the obvious, but, oh no, they turned their back on that just like he turns his back on me at the moment. I'll tell you who's not turning his back. The member for Hunter is not turning his back on Andy Vesey. Oh yes—the Labor Party are not prepared to protect tilers and plasterers who are not part of a CFMEU approved contractor. They're not prepared to protect workers on building sites from union thuggery and bullying, but they are quick to rush to the aid of multimillionaire American chief executives of giant electricity companies. 'Well,' says the member for Hunter, 'Andy Vesey is being bullied by the Prime Minister.' Bullied! He couldn't even sell that to Patricia Karvelas. She came back and said, 'Come on. Do you really think he's being bullied?' 'Oh yes,' he said. He goes on and on about the bullying. He rushes to aid him: 'Andy Vesey was bullied into taking this proposal to the board.' He said, 'Of course, when the Prime Minister stares you down,'—most people would regard that as a compliment by the way—'you say—'(Time expired)
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before coming to office, the Liberal Party promised families they would be $550 a year better off because of lower power prices. But isn't it actually the case that the average Sydney household is paying almost $1,000 more for their power bills every year since this Liberal government came to office?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House will cease interjecting, and the member for Hughes is warned.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:10): The $550 figure was confirmed by the ACCC in a report to the minister dated July 2015. So I refer to the ACCC. But I want to get back, on the subject of electricity prices, to my friend from the Hunter—Andy Vesey's friend. The single most obvious solution to the problem created by the closure of Liddell is to keep Liddell going for a longer period. We've suggested another five years because, if it closes in 2022, it will deliver a shock of the scale of the closure of Hazelwood—and we know what happened then. We know that caused a big spike in electricity prices, and there is no doubt that, if Liddell were to close in 2022 without that replacement baseload power, you would get a similar shock. The only beneficiary from that—let's be frank about this—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: is AGL and the other big energy companies. In a tight energy supply market, prices go up and they do well; that's why they're making such big profits.
Dr Mike Kelly: It's called privatisation, Malcolm!
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member over there from Eden-Monaro talks about privatisation. He should be aware that the biggest price gougers—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro has been warned. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't hear because he continued to interject. If he interjects again, he'll be ejected from question time.
Mr TURNBULL: What is most concerning about the position of the member for Hunter is that he has declared that not only is he in favour of AGL's plans but he's been part of them. He says: 'Andy Vesey has had these plans on the books for a long time. I've been very aware of them. I've been supporting them since 2015. He said he needs to put the final touches on the plan before bringing it back to the Prime Minister. It's a good plan'—it's the Vesey-Fitzgibbon plan. That'll go down really well at the workers club in Muswellbrook, I can tell you. There it is.
The reality is that the people that pay the cost for this incompetent Labor policy are the people of Australia—the businesses of Australia and families of Australia. They're the ones that have to pay the blackout bill.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Dunkley, the member for Ballarat now also joins the list, and the member for Rankin is warned. And the Leader of the House is in no position to lecture anyone on interjections.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:14): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the parliament of Egypt, led by Her Excellency Nabila Makram. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of how the government is working to deliver more affordable and reliable energy to all Australian businesses and households, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Will the Treasurer inform the House of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:14): I thank the member for Dunkley for his question and I thank him for his support, along with all the members on this side of the House, for the Prime Minister's plan to put downward pressure on rising electricity prices, which was outlined in this year's budget. It is about securing our gas; ensuring we get a fairer deal for consumers and businesses from the energy companies through the initiatives of the Prime Minister and the inquiries being run by the ACCC; and ensuring we remove those loopholes which have been gamed by companies, both privately owned and government owned, to drive up prices and have impacted on households and on businesses. It includes a new-energy investment framework, which we're working to deliver and which supports investment right across this spectrum, with an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to resources: from coal, of course, through to the more-renewable energy sources, the investment in Snowy 2.0 and our support for lower emissions technology. This is a comprehensive plan. It is a full plan.
Those opposite have no plan whatsoever to put downward pressure on rising electricity prices. Labor's policies are driven by emojis and ideology, not engineering and economics. That will only lead them to one thing: another big, epic Labor fail like that we saw in South Australia under the ridiculous experiment put in place by the South Australian Labor government, which switched the lights out. On top of that, they have their emissions reduction target of 45 per cent, which by their own admission, by their own modelling in government, will drive up prices by up to 80 per cent—78 per cent is what their own figures showed on their 45 per cent emissions reduction target. Their 50 per cent RET will only drive prices further up. They will shut down baseload coal-fired power stations like Liddell, which they're happy to support.
Labor's members are standing up for inner city Greens ideology; they're not standing up for the workers they're supposed to represent. The member for Hunter put the white flag up on Liddell, and today he's putting up the big white hankie for the CEOs of large energy companies. They're the people he doesn't want us to stand up to. He wants us to take away the jobs of the people who live in his own electorate. The member for Port Adelaide was no better when he was asked on radio last night what he was concerned about. He was asked: 'What would you like to see, outcome wise, from the PM's meeting with Andy Vesey from AGL?' This is what he said: 'I'd like to see the tone calm down a little bit.' That was his answer. It wasn't that we'd like to see it stay open or that there would be a plan. This petal just wants a more polite conversation. He doesn't want lower energy prices. The Australian people have worked this mob out.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I don't like that language. I cautioned the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, on 'mob', and I just think it's better—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I didn't ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw, from memory—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I didn't. Can I also say that your reaction then didn't match my rhetoric yesterday.
Mr Hammond interjecting—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr Pyne: Are you reflecting on the Speaker?
The SPEAKER: You hear me? You want to go on? A little bit? The Treasurer for three seconds.
Mr MORRISON: They've worked this Leader of the Opposition out, and they know he's shifty!
Energy
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:18): My question is to the Treasurer. The Australian Financial Review reports that at a private function at Wombat Hollow the Treasurer said:
… the era of cheap, coal-fired power is coming to an end and anyone claiming it is the sole solution to the nation's energy dilemma is propagating a myth.
Does the Treasurer stand by his Wombat Hollow Declaration, or do his views change depending on whether he's carrying his pet rock?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:18): I thank the member for his question. I do stand by those comments, because this is what I said: we need to sweat our existing coal-fired power generation assets for longer because it's those assets that are putting energy into the system at between $20 and $40 per megawatt hour. If you go and build a new coal-fired Healy plant, that is going to produce energy at about $80 per megawatt hour. That's why we need to sweat the existing coal-fired power assets for longer.
It's not the policy of those who sit opposite, though. It's not the policy of the coalophobes who sit opposite, who want to shut down coal-fired power stations in their own electorates. I reminded the House of this yesterday. We have the member for Grey up there, who kept a steel plant open. We have the member for Wannon down here, who kept an aluminium smelter open. And we have Labor members across the dial over there who want to shut down businesses with their higher taxes and they want to shut down coal-fired power stations, which will deliver baseload energy for Australian households and consumers.
So I welcome the question from the member for McMahon, who used to believe in lowering company taxes and who used to believe in policies that support growth. Now he's just got on board with the caravan of the most left-wing Labor leader we have seen in generations. And it's not just me who has said it. We heard that from Michael Costa as well, who accused him of exactly the same thing. And we have Richo, who has described the Labor policies on energy as 'an absolute farce'. They said, 'Oh Richo'—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: You made him a life member the other day. He knows a lot more about the Labor Party than this mob of neosocialists ever will.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER: I also wish to advise the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Louise Asher, the honourable member for Brighton, and the Hon. Ron Best, former member for North Western Province in Victoria. On behalf of the House, a welcome to you both. And we have present this afternoon from the Northern Territory the former Chief Minister, Mr Terry Mills, and the former Deputy Chief Minister, Ms Robyn Lambley. On behalf of the House I extend a warm welcome to you too.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Mission Beach is a jewel in the crown: jungle, waterfalls, 14-kay beach, Harold Holt's refuge from cold Victoria and home to actress Diane Cilento, wife of 007, and acclaimed artist Helen Wiltshire. Australia lost its innocence when Helen Mirren lost her clothes!
Since there's no safe harbour between Townsville and Cairns, $5.5 million for Yasi recovery went to a safe harbour breakwater. Visitor numbers pre Yasi were 36,000 and now they're 20,000. Twenty-three businesses are gone and a little town is dying. Yet GBRMPA advises that the breakwater is still a year away. Minister, will you be— (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I'll call the minister in a second. There was one question in there. Whilst I allow preambles, can I point out that they need to be connected in some way to the question and not a series of unconnected sentences. But there was one question in there.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:23): I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I can't help him with Helen Mirren's clothes, but I can tell him that the Commonwealth will not stand in the way of his request that there be a breakwater at Mission Beach and boating facilities. He knows that GBRMPA, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, has previously, on two occasions, issued permits.
Now, we know that the Queensland government has not progressed this particular issue because they were concerned about community sensitivities. That's a Labor Queensland government. We, on this side of the House, understand how important it is to tourism and to the local community that there be this breakwater in place, and that's why we will not stand in the way.
Mission Beach sits between two World Heritage areas: the wet tropics and the Great Barrier Reef. It's an important source of tourism, it's an important source of funds for the local economy, and the Commonwealth government, under Prime Minister Turnbull, will not stand in the way of a breakwater and boating facilities for the local community.
Energy
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:24): My question is also to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister please update the House on action the government is taking to ensure there is enough baseload power to deliver not just affordable but also reliable energy supplies to Australian families and businesses that employ Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:25): I thank the member for Petrie for his question, and I acknowledge his focus on getting affordable and reliable power. That's why he supports the actions of the Turnbull government to ensure more gas for domestic users, to rein in the power of the network companies and the pole and wire companies, and also to ensure that the retailers offer millions of Australian households a better deal. We're in possession of the Australian Energy Market Operator's report, which indicates a supply shortfall were Liddell to close in 2022. That's why we began discussions with the company AGL.
On this side of the House, we understand the importance of coal to the energy mix. We understand the importance of keeping these assets going for longer. The Labor Party, on the other hand, wants to close coal-fired power stations. The Leader of the Opposition will say in this parliament that coal has no future in Australia, but then he will go and put the high-vis vest on and say, 'Coal has a future in Australia.'
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
Mr FRYDENBERG: But he's not the only one who will say one thing to blue-collar workers and then say another thing to the Canberra press gallery pack, because the member for Hunter has said on the white flag he will not support the workers at Liddell. Guess what the member for Hunter says in his own electorate? Guess what the member for Hunter wrote in the Newcastle Herald earlier this year? Listen carefully. This is what the member for Hunter said:
The coal industry remains strong and it can continue to count on my energetic support. So too can those who keep our coal-fired electricity generators humming, our lights on, fridges cold and our manufacturing plants and other businesses running.
So, Member for Hunter, which one is it? Is it your energetic support to keep coal-fired power plants humming, or is it supporting your Leader of the Opposition and motions in the Senate to close down our coal-fired power stations? You can't have it both ways. You're being dishonest with the Australian people. You're telling your electorate and the workers one thing, and in this House you are supporting another. This goes to the heart of the Leader of the Opposition's lack of understanding about what comprises the energy market and how important thermal synchronous baseload dispatchable power is to the system.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter is now warned.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Only the coalition can deliver lower energy prices and a more stable system. The Labor Party, with its record of doubling electricity prices and its sellout of blue collar workers across the country, has joined the Greens in a policy for a less stable energy system.
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. The government is now in its fifth year in office. In that time, seven coal-fired power stations have closed, removing over 4,000 megawatts of capacity. This is equivalent to nearly six million households' power, or more than enough energy to power every home in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Why has the government done nothing to replace the energy which has been progressively switched off since 2013?
Mr Chester interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will cease interjecting. He's in an unfortunate spot. He's yelling into my ear as I try to hear the question.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:29): The only complaint the Labor Party has had about the closure of coal-fired power stations is that there haven't been more of them. They've wanted to close more of them, and more frequently.
I made the observation earlier that the great mistake that has been made in energy policy has been to replace dispatchable baseload coal-fired power with variable renewable power. In the course of doing that, not one person on the Labor side in government, either in the federal government when they were here or in state governments, paid attention to the need for storage or backup. No attention was paid to that at all. It is my government that has set out to build the largest battery in the Southern Hemisphere, Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will make renewables reliable.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: I hear all the laughing and carry-on on the other side. The Leader of the Opposition described Snowy Hydro 2.0, the largest single renewable project in the country's history since Snowy 1, as 'just a stunt for helicopter trips'.
Mr Dreyfus: That's right!
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: There he is! The member for Isaacs calls out, 'That's right!' That's the vision you've got in the Labor Party.
So, basically, the Labor Party have learnt nothing about energy. Every step we've taken to benefit Australian consumers, they've either sneered at or opposed. When we called in the electricity retailers and secured, for thousands of Australian families, cuts of hundreds of dollars in their electricity bills, that was a 'stunt'. When we took action on gas, they claimed they had no responsibility for creating the problem until they finally fessed up to it.
And what about the limited merits review? This is a very interesting one. This is a case where the energy companies, the owners of the poles and wires, have been appealing to the courts, with the privilege not granted to other utilities, to get their rates that they can charge up and above what the regulator says. It has resulted in over $6 billion of higher charges. It's plainly wrong. We've brought in legislation to abolish it. Labor actually said they supported it. But, when it got to the Senate, what did they do? They kicked it off to a committee. They could have passed it through the Senate and given relief immediately.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: And then, when we go to AGL and say, 'Look, the most obvious way to avoid this blackout, to avoid Australians having to pay this blackout bill, is to keep that power station going for longer', they attack us over that too. They have no plan and no vision for Australia's energy. (Time expired)
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have asked the member for Sydney to cease interjecting on a number of occasions, as I do most days. She is now warned.
Energy
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. I refer the minister to recent media reports showing the Western Australian government's ban on gas. Will the minister outline to the House why energy security is vital for business and jobs, and explain what risks this reckless policy might have?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:32): I want to thank the member for Durack, who not only represents an electorate that is one of the great natural resource powerhouses of the world but also voted for lower electricity and gas prices when she voted to abolish the carbon tax along with every member on our side and against the wishes of every member on that side.
Today we heard a very interesting thing: the Leader of the Opposition, after long support for the Andrews government's ban on gas exploration in Victoria went wonky at the knees. It was a bit like his visit to the Australian Christian Lobby before the 2013 election.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned!
Mr HUNT: He indicated that perhaps he might not be so in favour of their ban on gas.
Victoria has a complete ban on gas exploration; however, only last week we saw a new ban on gas exploration by WA Labor. It joins the Northern Territory Labor government, which has put in a ban on gas exploration, and they both join the Victorian ban on onshore gas exploration. And so there's a very simple proposition for the Leader of the Opposition: if he actually supports gas, he should move now to say to the Victorian government, to the Northern Territory government and to the Western Australian government that they should allow gas exploration.
What is it that the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia has stated?
This decision threatens the reputation of the resources industry, as well as jobs and economic prosperity across the entire state.
The small business ombudsman has said:
The states need to stop grandstanding and get on board with a national approach.
And we heard from Adam Creighton, not long ago:
The Victorian Labor government's proposed ban on gas exploration will shut off gas reserves big enough to supply the east coast of Australia's gas needs for almost 40 years.
So what we have is a ban on gas exploration across Labor states. We have support for gas on our side. We also have the Prime Minister's energy plan, which deals with storage, deals with supply and deals with retail. Compare that, though—all of what the states have done is nothing compared with what a 45 per cent emissions reduction target under the Leader of the Opposition would deliver. That is a recipe for one thing: a massive electricity and gas tax. If we have seen damage from Labor states so far, that compares in not one jot to what we would see under the Leader of the Opposition's plan for higher electricity and gas prices. So, at the end of the day we voted to bring gas and electricity prices down, and they voted to put them up. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. The government is now in its fifth year in office. In that time, the government has lost the equivalent of power supply for nearly six million households, with seven coal-fired power stations closing, including the Wallerawang Power Station in New South Wales, which had up to 1,000 megawatts of capacity. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of making a decision on energy? Why is the Prime Minister letting the chaos and division of this government stand in the way of solving the energy crisis?
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:36): Well, it's good to hear from the member for Shortland again, on the subject of coal-fired power stations—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. I couldn't have been more clear with the member for Eden-Monaro. He will leave under 94(a).
The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will continue.
Mr TURNBULL: Yes, the member for Shortland is running a very tight race with the member for Hunter to see who is the best collaborator with and apologist for Andy Vesey and AGL. In responding to the proposition that Liddell might be sold to somebody who would keep it running—a possibility that the CEO of AGL agreed to, and said that yes, he would be prepared to sell it to a responsible party; he said that in a room full of many people, including quite a few cabinet ministers, so there's no question he said that—in trying to discount that, the member for Shortland, in his role as a PR flack for AGL, said:
We need to think about the logistics; Bayswater and Liddell power stations are right next to each other. They share the same coal mine—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland has asked his question. The member for Shortland will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: He said:
They share infrastructure, they share the same water resource—is it practical that we have two different companies running those power plants?
Well, of course, if you want to make sure there's less competition, you certainly wouldn't want them being run by two different companies.
It is extraordinary to see the member for Hunter and the member for Shortland, who represent all of these workers in the power industry and all of these workers in the coalmining industry, becoming these extraordinary apologists for AGL—a company that they know is the prime beneficiary of tight supply of power. The honourable member for Isaacs obviously can't read his own electricity bill, let alone anyone else's.
You know, what we have succeeded in doing is bringing down gas prices. And wholesale electricity prices are starting to come down because gas has come down. So the actions my government is taking are putting downward pressure on prices. What we're looking out for are actions by big generators in shutting down plants which would have the same effect as the closure of Hazelwood did. So this is no more than prudent government, looking after the interests of Australians, as opposed to looking after the shareholders of big energy companies.
Regional Development
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to support jobs in regional areas, including by supporting affordable and reliable power? What is the importance of policy consistency to generate and foster investment, and are there any alternatives to the government's approach?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:40): I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. She is a great champion of the people of the Capricornia region, a fighter for her electorate. She understands the issues that matter to her community—issues like national security, the affordability and reliability of power supply, and jobs—and she is delivering every day through our infrastructure investment right along the Capricornia coast. And the Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering right around regional Australia. Whether it is our cities, our regional centres or our rural and remote areas, we know that businesses need certainty to invest. They need to have confidence to invest. That is why we have an infrastructure pipeline of projects that will see investment right around regional Australia and also in our cities. The member for Capricornia also knows who she has to stand up for. She stands up for people in her community—homeowners who need that affordable and reliable supply of energy and small business owners who need that affordable and reliable supply of energy. The Prime Minister, just like the member for Capricornia, is standing up for small businesses, households and manufacturers right around Australia.
It is important in this place to know who you are standing up for. You often have to pick a side in this place. The Australian Labor Party used to have a side: those opposite used to stand up for blue-collar workers. The member for McEwen is waving his hand around and the member for Shortland is arguing about this every day. I do feel sorry for the member for McEwen. He comes from a regional area where there are some blue-collar workers, so he must feel hopelessly compromised by the group he associates with now. The group he associates with now sell out blue-collar workers for green votes in the city every day. They used to stand up for people like members of the AWU.
I looked on the AWU website just the other day to see what industries you would be in if you wanted to join the AWU. You can be in industries like coalmining. You can be in industries like agriculture. If you joined that union, what do you think your union fees would be used for? Do you think they would be used for things like workplace safety or maybe a bit of training or something like that? I will quote from the union website:
The best way of improving your wages and conditions is by making sure you and your workmates are AWU members …
What did the Leader of the Opposition do with those union fees when he was the leader of the AWU? What did he do with that money? He gave $100,000 of union fees to a group called GetUp!. What does GetUp! do? GetUp! runs campaigns against blue-collar workers—'Join the GetUp! crew to help stop Adani once and for all'; 'Let's close down—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I guess there are a few: it is not relevant to the question that he was asked; it is nothing to do with his portfolio; he has just strayed.
The SPEAKER: The answer is broad—I'll say that—but there was a section at the end about any alternative policies, which is fairly broad. The minister has the call.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: The member for Grayndler says I'm 'better than this'. Well, I thought the Labor Party was better than this as well—$100,000 to GetUp! to campaign against blue-collar jobs at Adani, to campaign against Hazelwood power station, to campaign against live exports. Kevin Rudd couldn't trust the Leader of the Opposition, Julia Gillard couldn't trust the Leader of the Opposition, the AWU members couldn't trust the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian people can't trust this Leader of the Opposition.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:44): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a Political Exchange Council delegation from the United States of America. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Canavan, Senator Matthew
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. On 24 July, Senator Canavan made a legal instrument which notified the government's intention to pull the trigger on gas export controls even though he was already aware he might be an Italian citizen. The next day Senator Canavan resigned from cabinet. Why did the government put the reservation of Australian gas for Australian households and businesses at risk of legal challenge when it was already fully aware there were problems with Senator Canavan?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:44): The answer is that the government did not do so.
Agriculture Industry
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:45): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is supporting farm and agricultural businesses in Australia? Is he aware of any threats to these businesses and the cost of living for families across Australia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:45): I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously, in the beef capital of New South Wales and, debatably, the beef capital of Australia, he understands full well what agriculture has been doing for our nation, especially with regard to the most recent GDP figures. The percentage point contribution to year-on-year GDP growth of 1.8 per cent was 0.49 from agriculture. This goes to show what a difference a government makes. We note that for the year it's more than 22 per cent growth. The last quarter for the Labor Party went back by 0.5 per cent.
So the difference is quite clear. We put through a $4 billion agricultural white paper. They have not got a policy on agriculture. They never come to the dispatch box. They don't believe in inland rail. They're not going to build it. They're going to get rid of the Regional Investment Corporation. They're going to take money out of the dams portfolio. It all falls to a common theme within the Labor Party—that is, they have given up on blue-collar workers and they're now residing with the basketweavers. They're the party of the basketweavers. They have given up. They managed to change their allegiances, just like the member for Maribyrnong once upon a time. He used to support South Melbourne; he believed in South Melbourne; he barracked for South Melbourne; he followed the Swans. Then all of a sudden he decides, 'It doesn't work with South Melbourne anymore; I'm now with Collingwood.' He can change his allegiance. He is a crazy leopard that can change its spots. He can change his spots.
Now we find that they have given up on the manufacturing workers. We've got the member for Hunter. He's a knight in Newcastle, but he's a coward in Canberra. Once he gets down here, he doesn't stand up for the coal workers down here. Oh, no! And the member for Shortland has never stood up for his coal workers—not in this building. He has never stood up against the member for Maribyrnong. The member for Maribyrnong, as you always see in question time, turns his back on your manufacturing workers. He turns his back on the coal workers. He turns his back on all the blue-collar workers. It does not stop there. The member for Herbert has never had the ticker to stand up for the manufacturing workers and coal workers. The member for Paterson has never had the ticker to stand up for workers.
So this is what we have. What we have now is the member for Hunter saying that he's sad about the closure of Liddell. He must be sad about the loss of those jobs. He must be sad about the coal workers of Liddell. Why don't you stand up for the coal workers of Liddell? Why doesn't this person, the Leader of the Opposition, come to the dispatch box and endorse what the manufacturing workers do? Why don't you once more stand up for manufacturing workers? Why have you turned your back on the Australian people? Why are you so shifty? Why don't you stand up for the people who actually once upon a time gave you a job? (Time expired)
Mr Khalil interjecting—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wills will cease interjecting, as will the member for McEwen.
Energy
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:48): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Attorney-General claimed the government had already triggered gas export controls, saying in the Senate, 'We have restricted gas exports.' Isn't it actually the case that the government has failed to pull the trigger to restrict gas exports because there are serious legal doubts about the ministerial actions of Senator Canavan and the Deputy Prime Minister? Why is the Prime Minister allowing his deputy and Senator Canavan to stand in the way of lower power prices for all Australians?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up what I think is a misunderstanding on his part. The restrictions on gas exports, whenever the minister makes a determination, do not come into effect until 1 January. So the restrictions do not come into effect when the minister makes the determination. The determination has to, obviously, be made before 1 January, but it has to be made after a very careful consideration of all of the facts concerning the supply of gas.
The fact, however, is that by foreshadowing these export controls we have already seen a considerable amount of additional gas coming into the market, and we have seen, as a consequence, the short-term prices of gas easing across the east coast. For example, the average July price was $6.80 per gigajoule in Brisbane—these are the spot prices—and the July average across the whole east coast was $8.61 per gigajoule, compared with just under $12 in July last year. They went up above that in the interim. August prices have already fallen by a dollar a gigajoule in the east coast market.
Mr Frydenberg: It's $10 per megawatt hour!
Mr TURNBULL: The energy minister just made a very valid point: $1 per gigajoule is $10 per megawatt hour, so it is a very significant impact on electricity prices.
We have seen additional provision of gas. An announcement was made on 7 September, just a few days ago, that Santos and the GLNG consortium will supply 30 petajoules of gas to the east coast in 2018-19. The following day, Santos and Origin signed a new agreement to continue the supply of ethane gas to Qenos of up to 27 petajoules between now and the end of 2019. So there is lot of additional material coming in. All of that has to be assessed and considered. When the minister has considered all of that material and appropriately consulted, then he can make the determination in accordance with the mechanism.
North Korea
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister update the House on how the government, as part of international efforts, is stepping up pressure on North Korea?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:52): I thank the member for Mackellar for this important question. The Australian government welcomes and strongly supports UN Security Council resolution 2375, which was passed unanimously overnight by all 15 permanent and temporary members of the Security Council, imposing further sanctions on North Korea just nine days after North Korea had conducted its sixth illegal and most powerful nuclear test.
Last Thursday I spoke at length with the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, about the contents of the proposed resolution, and we noted that while North Korea is isolated diplomatically, it is not self-sufficient economically, particularly in relation to basic commodities, including energy. Secretary Tillerson and I agreed that ever-increasing economic pressure on North Korea is an essential pillar of the collective international strategy to compel North Korea to return to the negotiating table and to abandon its illegal missile and nuclear programs. We noted the special responsibility of the five permanent members of the Security Council—particularly those who maintain an economic relationship with North Korea—to uphold the authority of the Security Council in the face of the repeated violations by North Korea, and to impose maximum economic pressure on the North Korean regime to make it change course.
The new additional sanctions target very important parts of the North Korean economy. There will be a complete ban on the export of all North Korean textiles. That's worth about $950 million per year to the regime. The amount of oil that North Korea can import will be reduced by a third. There will also be a prohibition on the importation of natural gas. All joint ventures with North Korean individuals and entities are banned. No North Korean worker will be permitted to work overseas once their current contracts are completed, and no new work visas will be issued. Again, this will deny the regime of hundreds of millions of dollars that it has been channelling from remittances to fund its illegal programs. Also, the powers to stop and search vessels that are carrying cargo to and from North Korea will be greatly expanded.
Australia continues to fully implement all sanctions, including those that were imposed on 5 August, and will implement fully the latest sanctions. We also have our own regime of autonomous sanctions against 31 entities and 37 individuals from North Korea. If the international community remains united and resolute, we can deter North Korea from its course.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): On indulgence: I associate the opposition with the foreign affairs minister's remarks. This parliament, too, is united in its resolve. North Korea's repeated defiance of international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions is unacceptable. North Korea's ballistic threat and missile tests are a direct threat not only to their neighbours but to the broader region and beyond. We should be upholding the UN Security Council resolutions and doing more where we can. Every nation has an obligation to do what it can. Later this month, I will travel with Senator Penny Wong to South Korea and Japan to discuss the security situation on the Korean peninsula. All of us in this parliament should do what we can, in a united fashion, to be able to contribute to greater world peace and deal with the threat of North Korea.
Energy
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Attorney-General blamed Labor for not supporting gas reservation earlier. So why did the minister for energy attack Labor's gas reservation policy last year when he said:
It will kill investment, destroy jobs and ultimately lead to less gas supply.
Given this government's now in its fifth year of office, when will this government stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for the mess that this Liberal government has made of energy policy in this country?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:57): The Labor Party never had a gas reservation policy. The only idea you put forward is that future developments may be reserved for some domestic use. That would do nothing for the immediate issue we have today, which is the supply shortfalls, as indicated by AEMO and others. Only Prime Minister Turnbull's response, which is to put in place these export restrictions, can have that effect to meet the supply shortfalls.
We're already seeing the positive impact of the discussions and the actions that we are taking. In the member for Port Adelaide's own state of South Australia, he knows that the second unit at Pelican Point—240 megawatts of gas-fired power—was able to come on because the Prime Minister spoke to the energy companies and, as a result, ENGIE was able to secure the gas contracts from Origin. That's a practical initiative which is better for the people of South Australia. We've seen the spot price come down significantly, as the Prime Minister has alluded to. We've seen companies like Origin and Santos ensure there is more gas available in the domestic market. We're starting to see the flows of gas from the north, from Wallumbilla, down to the south, whereas previously it was the other way. And we've seen more gas into the domestic market than previously.
These are the concrete actions that are having a practical effect. The members opposite should know that, for every dollar a gigajoule you can bring down the price of gas, that is worth $10 a megawatt hour. The Labor Party ignored the advice of their own energy white paper, ignored the advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator and denied that they were ever given that advice, only to confess under enormous pressure. It's the coalition and Prime Minister Turnbull who are getting more gas into the domestic market and ensuring that the spot price for gas is coming down significantly.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for Sydney seeking leave to table a document?
Ms Plibersek: I am, Mr Speaker—the minister's comments at the launch of Labor's gas reservation policy. Can I just table the comments?
Leave not granted.
Citizenship
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen the requirements for Australian citizenship, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for Fairfax. He's a great member on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland and making a great contribution here in Canberra.
The Martin Place siege inquiry made clear the importance of strengthening the process around gathering information in granting and revoking both visas and citizenship. In fact, the inquiry recommended:
… policy and legislative changes necessary to support decisions to grant or revoke an initial visa, subsequent visas and, citizenship.
The Turnbull government strongly believes that aspiring Australians should support the fundamental Australian values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Of course, becoming an Australian citizen is an incredible privilege, and we must ensure that new Australians support our laws and obey not only those laws but our values as well. The vast majority of people who migrate to our country, we know, contribute to our society and economy, are law abiding—
Dr Aly interjecting—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will just pause for a second. The member for Cowan and the member for Barker will cease their conversation immediately, or they'll have it outside the chamber. The minister has the call.
Mr DUTTON: They are law abiding and they are good, decent people. But the government have introduced changes which at one point were supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and now he's flipped his position and doesn't support what we're doing in relation to citizenship changes. Is it any wonder that the Australian people don't know where this Leader of the Opposition stands from one day to the next?
What we're proposing is very reasonable. We're proposing, for example, that we can make changes around the way in which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can block decisions for citizenship and dangerous individuals. The fact is that the AAT has found that child rapists, murderers and drug dealers have been of good character and that they should be allowed to be granted citizenship. I'm sorry, but I think I talk on behalf of all members of this side of the parliament when I say that we do not agree with that opinion. If the law needs to be changed, it will be changed, and that's what we're proposing, but we are opposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
Again, on this topic, there was one point in time when the Leader of the Opposition supported this position, but again he has backflipped and has now adopted a new position. If you look at his history both inside this place and outside this place, that would come as no surprise to anyone at all, because he's not a person of consistent character, and he's not a person who can hold a position from one day to the next. No wonder the Australian people have a huge question mark over this Leader of the Opposition.
This government will make sensible changes around citizenship laws so that it can support the vast majority of people who would do the right thing. But we want to knock out those people who do not support Australian laws and who do not abide by the Australian way of life or integrate into the Australian community. The government is absolutely determined to get these laws through, with or without the support of this weak Leader of the Opposition.
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the government expect industry to decide on new generators if the government can't even decide on a clean energy target?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:03): The real challenge to the reliability of the energy system is the failure of the current market system to take into account the importance of having base-load power. That is the fundamental problem that we face. Honourable members opposite can persist in ignoring the very obvious failure of their years in government and their approach to energy policy. They were focused on replacing high-emission base-load power with low-emission power that was not base load, the consequences being that the electricity system has become less stable, less reliable and much more dependent on gas. That, coupled with Labor's failure on gas exports, resulted in a higher price of gas and that is what has driven both instability and unaffordability. Now, we're correcting those. It takes time to deal with them. We've had good results already with gas. We're having good results already on retail prices. We're making long-term investments with Snowy Hydro—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Shorten: A point of order on relevance. Whatever happened to the clean energy target, Prime Minister?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: The clean energy target was proposed by Alan Finkel in his report, and 49 recommendations of that have already been accepted and are being worked through by the relevant energy minister's council. We have the 50th recommendation under consideration.
I'll be very plain with all honourable members: we need to make sure that we get the energy market right this time, because there has been a consistent failure in policy. We need to ensure that the energy market design provides a suitable framework for investment that doesn't simply get new generation but which gets generation of the right kind, because you have to keep the lights on and you have to ensure that people can afford to pay to keep the lights on. That is where Labor has failed. Of course, we will meet our international emission reduction obligations. We're approaching this with a deliberation and a care that was utterly lacking on the part of Labor, when they failed.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: They can laugh as much as they like, but I'll tell you what: their constituents aren't laughing when they can't pay for Blackout Bill.
The SPEAKER: I'll just remind the Prime Minister to refer to members by their correct titles.
Superannuation
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (15:07): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to ensure that the interests of hardworking Australians are put ahead of the vested interests in the superannuation industry, including, for instance, the trade unions?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (15:07): I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. The Turnbull government is introducing—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will pause for a second. The members for Burt and Brand, and I'm sure Wakefield was in there—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, I tell you what, if I were wrong, I'd be very unlucky! Can I just say that it's never too late to be ejected under 94(a). The minister has the call.
Ms O'DWYER: The Turnbull government is introducing very comprehensive reforms to our compulsory superannuation system to protect members' interests and to make sure that their money is protected. On top of giving APRA, the regulator, powers to investigate and prevent fraud and misuse of members' money in super funds, the government is also ensuring that at least there will be some non-conflicted directors with the right skills and expertise to protect the growing retirement savings and to make sure that it's done solely in members' interests. The government's changes apply equally across the sector, whether it's to industry funds, whether it's to corporate funds or whether it's to retail funds.
Today it was revealed in The AustralianFinancial Review exactly why these reforms to superannuation fund directors are needed. It uncovered that, of the 166 so-called 'member' representatives of industry funds, 119—almost 72 per cent of them—were, in fact, appointed by trade unions. This is a remarkable figure when you consider that only 10.4 per cent of people who are working in the private sector actually think that trade union membership is worth something and is good value.
Now, it was also revealed that there are, in fact, directors of a number of funds who have a tenure of not 10 years, not 15 years, not 20 years and not 25 years, but even more than that. For example, in Media Super—the default fund for journalists—Gerard Noonan, a director of the industry fund newsletter The New Daily, has been on the board of Media Super for an extraordinary 26 years. But it gets worse. There is someone with an even longer tenure, someone who has had a sinecure with REST Super—the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust—for no less than 29 years. According to the REST website, he receives an annual director's fee of $161,000. That director is Joe de Bruyn, former president of the SDA, former member of Labor's national executive and a factional ally of none other than the Leader of the Opposition. This is the same SDA that failed its members when it cooked up a deal with the Leader of the Opposition's AWU to underpay 30,000 casual workers at Coles—a deal that was found to be illegal by the Fair Work Commission. When it comes to endorsing and authorising election payments to himself, when it comes to selling out the workers of Chiquita Mushrooms or Clean Event, the Leader of the Opposition looks after his own personal political interests and not the interests— (Time expired)
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Questions in Writing
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:11): In accordance with standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs seeking reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing. The relevant questions appear as numbers 756, 758 and 759 on the Notice Paper.
The SPEAKER (15:11): I thank the member for Kingston. I will write this afternoon. I am happy to help.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Higher Education
The SPEAKER (15:12): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sydney, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government cutting billions of dollars from universities.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): This government is cutting almost $8 billion from our universities. A country that wants a strong economic future and a strong future for its young people doesn't cut $8 billion from its universities. Almost $4 billion will be cut from university funding and another close to $4 billion will be cut from university infrastructure when the Education Investment Fund comes under attack by those opposite if they get their way. This government wants students to pay higher fees and to repay their debts sooner for a poorer quality of education. What a rip-off! It's no wonder that around two-thirds of Australians who were surveyed recently by Universities Australia are opposed to those university cuts and it's no wonder that people in South Australia and Victoria are particularly opposed. For the Liberals and the Nationals—for those opposite—every change to universities during their time in government has been about funding cuts. There's no reform agenda from those opposite. It's always about funding cuts. It's never about helping students.
But, if it's budget savings that those opposite want, we're here to help. We are. We're here to help. How about those opposite dump their $65 billion big-business tax cut? How about those opposite dump their tax cut for those on $180,000 a year or more? There's another $19 billion we can find for them. How about they join us in cracking down on negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions? There's $37 billion that they could save. There you go: well over $100 billion that we could save them if they took some of our sensible suggestions instead of slugging students once again.
We have been very proud of our record on universities from the Whitlam days onwards, where we made a particular effort to open university education to students with merit, to students who were prepared to work hard and study hard, who were prepared to be judged on their capacity for hard work and on their intellectual capacity, not on their parents' bank balance. That has always been our record. That has always been our approach to university funding, but it has not been the case for those opposite. Those opposite want to return us to a day where only the rich can afford to send their children to university. It's very interesting that they're saying, 'Oh, look at that, look at that: wasting money here, wasting money there.' They've talked about high salaries for vice chancellors—and, actually, some of those salaries are pretty eye-watering. Nothing those opposite are proposing will actually bring these salaries down, but they do want to give those people a $16,000-a-year tax cut on top of the generous salaries. So the only people in this chamber who want to see those on high incomes in the university sector do better are those opposite.
Those opposite have also complained about the money spent on advertising. Well, it is a little bit rich, isn't it, from those opposite, when they're spending $15 million promoting the Prime Minister's favourite slogan of Australia being an innovation nation? So they actually want to cut university funding that delivers innovation but they're prepared to spend $15 million advertising innovation at the same time—I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in that—or spend $3 million on the now-axed Green Army, or $10 million congratulating themselves on signing free trade agreements.
It is also a bit rich for those opposite to be complaining about universities, which are enormous generators of economic activity in this country and which are enormous generators of export earnings for this country, actually advertising what they do. In fact, Deloitte Access Economics says that university-educated workforce participation added an extra $140 billion to Australian GDP in 2014. International education is a $22 billion export industry for this country. So I actually think it's probably a good thing that we're advertising to attract more overseas students to come to Australia to participate in our excellent higher education system.
Universities directly and indirectly account for about 160,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. It's only those opposite who think that it's a bad idea to be promoting an important industry like that in Australia. We will continue to stand with students, with academics, with university staff and, in fact, with any Australian who's concerned about our future in opposing the cuts of those opposite, in opposing the fact that those opposite want to jack up student fees by 7.5 per cent.
Those opposite want to bring down repayment thresholds so that students who are currently repaying their HELP repayments when they start to earn $55,000 a year would start to repay instead at $42,000 a year, just $6,000 above the minimum wage. If you reduce the repayment threshold to $42,000 a year, what you are effectively doing is asking some young Australians, most often women—let's be frank about it—to face 100 per cent effective marginal tax rates introduced at this budget. Those opposite say it's unfair for people on more than $180,000 a year to face a tax increase because that's a 'success' tax. If you're on $180,000 a year and you have to pay a bit more tax, that is a 'success' tax that will drive educated Australians out of Australia. But if you're earning $42,000 a year and you've just struggled to put yourself through university, and you're hoping that you can get that higher-paying job to pay for yourself to move out of your parents' home, or maybe start to save a deposit for a house or maybe pay the rent, then that's not a 'success tax', that's just fair enough, isn't it? For those people paying 100 per cent effective marginal tax rates, that's just fair enough.
We know also that this government wants to cut funding from the Education Investment Fund. I have travelled around Australia and I have been to university after university where they have proudly showed me the excellent investments that have come from this Education Investment Fund, proudly showed me the difference that this investment has made in providing state-of-the-art buildings and facilities for students—not just for Australian students but, again, to attract students from overseas to study in our excellent institutions. Those opposite want to kill that as well.
There is no more important investment we can make than in our young people—as individuals, from the time of early childhood education, right through a decent school education, in post-secondary education, through TAFE and through universities. Every individual young Australian benefits when we properly invest in our education system. It's not just the young ones. We know that more and more today, Australians won't be doing one job through their working life and they won't be doing half a dozen; they'll have half a dozen, a dozen jobs, in several different careers throughout their working lives and they will need to train and retrain for those opportunities.
If we don't make those investments, we are leaving people behind throughout their working lives and we are robbing ourselves as a nation. Highly successful nations invest in their people, and one of the best investments we can make as a nation in our national prosperity is to have a highly skilled, high-productivity workforce that invents and discovers and innovates—one that uses all of the opportunities of the Asian century, globalisation, automation and artificial intelligence, not to impoverish our people, not to see them washed up on the shores of fate, but to use those great global trends to benefit our people. We can't do it unless we're investing in those same people. We rob ourselves as individuals and as a nation if we don't make these investments. And that applies equally to the wealthiest Australian and to the poorest Australian, because we know that intelligence is not captured at the wealthy end of our population but spread across it.
I'm proud of the fact that when Labor was in government we boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent, and that there were 36,000 extra students from low-income families. That's the sort of change we need to invest in. (Time expired)
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (15:22): It is an absolute delight for me to be able to speak on the MPI today. I absolutely support the reforms that the Turnbull government is making to higher education.
From a local point of view, the electorate that I represent on the Gold Coast has two universities. In fact, there are three universities on the Gold Coast: Griffith University, Southern Cross University and Bond University. And it's Southern Cross University and Bond University that are in my electorate of McPherson. Southern Cross University is a public university and it has been going from strength to strength. They have embarked on a significant building program, which has been in place for a number of years. They are doing a fabulous job in South-East Queensland, and also in northern New South Wales.
Bond University, a private university, is in the northern part of my electorate, and it has topped institutions from around the country to earn the highest level of student satisfaction. There are a number of criteria that are measured, and the indicators include the quality of the education experience, teaching quality, learner engagement, learning resources, student support and skills development. Bond University is an outstanding university, and it has significantly punched well above its weight for a number of years now. It is a university, clearly, that has high levels of student satisfaction. It is very well regarded in a number of disciplines, particularly law. So I congratulate Bond University. There are many things that I would say that the public sector could learn from Bond University and how it has developed and evolved over the years.
Australia does have a world-class higher education system. It's a modern and a successful system. We have 16 universities in Australia in the top 300 world university rankings for 2017-18, and our Australian universities support about 1.4 million students. Our higher education system provides job and career opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young Australians every year, and the reforms that this government has put forward will ensure that it continues to provide those same opportunities for generations of Australians to come.
Our reform package follows extensive consultation with stakeholders, and I really do congratulate the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, because he has done a terrific job, making sure that he has consulted widely for well over 12 months, and the reforms that have been put forward are based on that very extensive consultation that he in particular has undertaken. Our reform package focuses on three key issues: improving the sustainability of higher education, providing more choices for students and increasing transparency and accountability. Our reforms are fair. They will continue to drive quality and excellence in higher education and ensure that Australians who want to study have the right support and the right opportunities.
The growth in both student debt and taxpayer costs is significant to us, and it's an issue that we have taken on board. The demand driven system has certainly led to a significant but unsustainable growth in higher education loans that has to be addressed, and our reform package clearly does that.
I'd like to put today's MPI into some context. There is legislation that's currently being debated in the House, and that is the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill. That bill delivers on the Turnbull government's commitment to a stronger, more sustainable and student-focused system that preserves and expands access to education while, importantly, achieving savings that were outlined in the budget. I'd just like to go through some of the key features of the bill that is currently being debated in the House. There already has been some debate, and I understand that that will continue this afternoon.
The bill before the House rebalances the costs of higher education between the government and students by adjusting the relative shares of taxpayer contribution amounts and student contribution amounts for courses, whilst still ensuring that the majority—about 54 per cent, on average—of the cost of a degree is paid for by the taxpayers. It does introduce an efficiency dividend for universities, of 2½ per cent in each of 2018 and 2019, so that universities are sharing in the cost, along with students and taxpayers, of keeping the sector sustainable.
The bill lowers the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, thresholds for repayment, and it introduces new indexation arrangements to encourage more of the $50 billion in loans to be repaid and to be repaid sooner. It strengthens the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, which supports disadvantaged and under-represented student cohorts to access and to succeed at university.
We will retain the demand-driven arrangements for undergraduate qualifications and we will extend them to sub-bachelor places, with significant safeguards to ensure quality and industry links. We'll provide a subsidy for units of work experience that count towards a Commonwealth-supported qualification. We're allocating subsidies for postgraduate places directly to students, rather than to universities, so that students can exercise choice in their provider. The bill does introduce performance benchmarks for universities, linked to funding, that increase transparency on how funding is used to support student achievement, and the metrics will be developed in consultation with the sector.
The key features of the government legislation are that it's a fair, sustainable package of reforms; there's no fee regulation; the helplines will stay; and accountability of higher education institutions will be increased with expanding access for students. Those are the key features of it. All of us in this House would agree that education is vital to Australia's future successes, but so is lower debt. The Turnbull government's reforms are focused on encouraging quality and excellence in Australian higher education. They ensure that students have the support that they need to succeed while also making sure that the system is sustainable for future generations so the students that are yet to come have the sorts of opportunities that this and other generations have had.
We're going to keep growing our record level of funding for higher education. However, it will be better targeted and provide equitable access for underrepresented groups. It will meet the needs of industry and the community and hold higher education institutes accountable for the taxpayer funding that they receive.
The reforms start from a clean slate. There will be no fee deregulation and no 20 per cent funding cut for universities. We've been through a comprehensive process, including a discussion paper that attracted more than 1,000 submissions, and worked with an expert advisory panel. Out of that consultation—and again I congratulate the minister—we have come up with a responsible suite of reforms. That's in stark contrast to the brash approach from the Labor Party when they were last in government and announced over $6 billion worth of cuts to the higher education sector.
We believe that this gets the balance right. We have a very high-quality higher education system in Australia, and it's important that we build on our current strengths. Education is our third-largest export, and higher education is a key part of that. I was recently in India as part of the Australian Business Week in India program, and it was very pleasing to see that there were a number of our universities at that forum. They were very focused on building opportunities for their university in the Indian market and also on encouraging Indian students to come and study here in Australia. To do that, it's very important that we maintain our high-quality higher education system and that we ensure—as we are doing—that the reforms we are putting in place will ensure that that system is sustainable into the future.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (15:32): Rebalancing, efficiency measures, dressing up cuts as reform—the bill to cut university funding, currently before the House, is yet another example of the government dressing up its cuts as so-called reform. There are some $3.8 billion of cuts to university funding, cuts that come on top of cuts of $17 billion in school funding and cuts that come on top of cuts to TAFE of more than $2.8 billion, with further cuts of $637 million slated in this year's budget. These cuts aren't just numbers on a budget paper. These cuts are putting education and training out of the reach of the most vulnerable people in our community.
This government is cutting university funding, increasing student fees and hiking up student debt, forcing students to pay back bigger debts sooner. It is introducing fees for university-enabling courses that are currently free and that under these changes will cost a student $3,200. It is putting financial obstacles in the path of people who can least afford it—people starting out in life, people starting over in life and people who've never had a start in life.
I want to particularly focus on the government's proposed fees for enabling courses. Enabling courses are taken by some of the most disadvantaged people to give them the skills and the confidence they need to go to university. Dr Joy Christensen is a program convener for enabling education at the University of Newcastle Ourimbah Campus. Joy and I went to primary school together. I spoke to Joy this afternoon. There are currently more than 800 students enrolled. They are predominantly from under-represented backgrounds, low SES, regional and remote students, people with disability, people living with mental illness, and students who are predominantly the first in their family to go to uni.
This is what Joy said when I spoke to her today:
We don't want this pathway to be taken away. These students have so many obstacles already, the introduction of fees is a huge obstacle for them. The reason many of them are involved is to improve the financial situation for them and their families. They are taking time away from work, they are taking time away from their families and money away from their families to find out whether they can do this. They won't do it if there is a financial cost.
Joy says:
I am amazed what it has taken many of them to put a foot in the door—
to take a step on a university campus—
they have incredible potential. This program is life changing for them, their families and our community. It transforms lives.
Enabling courses are particularly important in my electorate of Dobell, where around 57 per cent of people of working age did not have the opportunity to complete high school. At the Central Coast Campus of the University of Newcastle, around a quarter of undergraduate students begin their studies through one of these preparation courses. The University of Newcastle, under the government's cuts, will lose $63.2 million of funding over four years. In July, Labor's deputy leader and shadow minister for education, the member for Sydney; Senator Deborah O'Neill; Anne Charlton, Labor's candidate for Robertson; and I visited Ourimbah Campus of the University of Newcastle. I met with Dr Joy Christensen and Associate Professor Seamus Fagan, the Director of the English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, together with Open Foundation students Maureen and James and current Newstep student Claire.
The story I will share with you now, Jackie's story, is typical of the stories that we heard that day. I spoke to Jackie's sister, Sam, today. She gave me permission to speak on behalf of Jackie. Jackie started Open Foundation at Central Coast Campus this year and wants to be a teacher. Jackie finished high school without an ATAR, fell pregnant at 19, is a mum to three children and at 29 years old was working in a bakery earning $15 an hour. Jackie is doing it tough: her middle child, Ryan, has autism and started kindergarten this year. If Jackie were charged $3,200 up front she couldn't start Open Foundation. She wouldn't have taken the first step to a better life. This is unfair. The enabling course is a perfect introduction to a degree. It gives people access to the confidence and support that they need to be able to make a decision, when all they have been told is that they are not good enough, that this is out of their reach.
This is unfair. These cuts must be reversed.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (15:37): Whilst the heartfelt message of the previous speaker, the member for Dobell, indeed reflects a very serious situation, the fact remains that these reforms to higher education do not represent cuts to the university sector at all. What we are in fact seeing is that the $17 billion for higher education that we currently have in 2017-18 is going to grow by 23 per cent over the next four years, the period that we have in the out years on our forward estimates in our budget. In a sense, this is typical Labor Party posturing whereby they can somehow or other see a 23 per cent increase in university funding as a cut.
This government has been able to work through this reform process knowing that education accessibility not just in the cities but also in regional Australia is critically important. The government recognises that a gap does exist in university provision for remote students, who may wish to remain in their local areas so they can complete their studies where they have grown up. As part of the higher education reform package, the government will provide $15 million over four years to assist with the establishment and maintenance of up to eight community owned regional study hubs right across Australia.
Regional study hubs will provide infrastructure such as study spaces, videoconferencing, computing facilities and internet access as well as pastoral and academic support for the students studying via distance at partner universities. This support, provided by the regional study hubs to students, will address the government's aim of improving accessibility to higher education for students from rural and remote communities. In addition, regional businesses and employers will benefit from an increased pool of skilled graduates in their regions.
In my electorate of Murray, the coalition government has recognised a need to invest in higher education as well, with the University of Melbourne contracted to receive funding of $38.9 million for the period of 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018 through the federal government's Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program. The University of Melbourne's rural health department will operate across a range of locations in regional Victoria, and its main campus, based in Shepparton, will therefore be a major beneficiary of this funding. As a previous speaker from the coalition mentioned, in the last three years of the Labor government, they proposed to cut more than $6 billion from higher education and research and also introduced the 3.25 per cent efficiency dividend. So, as a regional overview of these reforms, this portfolio supports the Australians living in rural and regional communities through a range of programs.
We also see the HEPPP will be reformed to deliver three funding streams to universities: a loading for each eligible SES student; performance funding based on success rates of low-SES and Indigenous students; and a national priorities pool to give a greater focus on rigorous evaluative research and to encourage collaboration between universities. The Australian government is also going to commit $24 million over four years for the Rural and Regional Enterprise Scholarships program, which will support 1,200 regional and remote students to undertake science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The scholarships are for undergraduate, postgraduate and vocational education students, and they aim to improve access to educational opportunities for regional and remote students.
Students in the regions will also continue to benefit from the investment of more than $280 million over the next four years through regional loading to support the cost of educating students in regional and remote Australia. We understand that over the last few years taxpayers have been funding education, which has grown at 71 per cent under the demand-driven system for higher education since 2009, and that this rate has been twice the growth of the economy. (Time expired)
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (15:42): The issue of debate before the House today is really one of those that encapsulate the lack of vision that the coalition government has for our nation—the short-sightedness, the smallness of ambition. When the Prime Minister challenged the member for Warringah for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he promised a new style of leadership that explained the challenges facing our country and how to seize the opportunities that were open to us. The Prime Minister promised advocacy, not slogans. Instead, this week he's given us name-calling and buck-passing on energy policy, and billions of dollars of cuts from our universities.
These cuts are dumb cuts. There's almost $4 billion of cuts from universities over the next five years in a bill before the parliament this week, including nearly $40 million in cuts over four years from Victoria University in my own electorate. Almost $4 billion is being cut from university infrastructure funding from the Education Investment Fund. And this government's billions of dollars of cuts to our universities represent a double whammy for Australia's economic growth prospects, as they undermine the future of one of our strongest performing export industries and sabotage an engine of economic opportunity for young Australians.
Education is one of Australia's strongest export industries. In fact, in the 2015-16 financial year it was worth about $21 billion—seven per cent of our total exports and about 30 per cent of our services exports. It's one of the few non-commodity bright spots in Australia's trade performance in Asia. But this is an export industry that's built on quality; it relies on Australia's brand as a prestige provider of higher education services, as a high-value exporter of university education. We should not be complacent about our ability to maintain this brand in our region. Australia is already facing increasing competition on this front. The top five source countries of international students in Australia last year were all Asian nations: China, Singapore, Malaysia, India and Vietnam. Yet these are the same nations that are investing heavily in their domestic higher education institutions and they are making significant strides. In 2007 there were just eight Asian universities in the QS World University Rankings, formally the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Ten years later, another four Asian universities have joined them and entered the top 50. Now eight of these top 50 Asian universities are from those five largest source countries for international students at Australian universities. Competition is accelerating for this important export industry. Indeed, just this month we saw Tsinghua University in China move past Melbourne University in these rankings. Unless we invest in the quality of this important sector, our competitors in the region and our biggest export customers will quickly close the gap. Indeed we have already heard warnings from the sector that the government's cuts are a wrecking ball which threatens to demolish one of the best university systems in the world. We cannot be complacent about this golden goose of Australian services exports.
These cuts are also a blow to the important engine of economic opportunity for Australian kids. I feel this acutely as a representative of an electorate containing the University of Opportunity and Success, a Victorian university that has specialised in bringing through those first-generation members of families to attend higher education. These are the students who are most easily dissuaded, the most easily deterred by increases in upfront fees. That's why Labor will oppose the increases in fees being proposed by the government. We will also oppose the Liberals cutting the number of Commonwealth supported post graduate places and the changes to the payment thresholds.
But I want to draw particular attention to probably the meanest proposal in this package—that is, to increase the four enabling courses that are currently free but after these reforms, if they're implemented, will cost students $3,200 a year. These enabling courses are often taken by some of the most disadvantaged people, the most vulnerable trying to get their foot on the higher education ladder to give them the skills they need to go to university. As I say, I have spoken to many of these families in my community; it's not easy. It costs more. They need extra help, but the whole nation benefits when we succeed. The whole nation benefits when we expand access to higher education to more Australians. And that's why I'm extremely proud the previous Labor government got 190,000 more Australians into university.
When last in government, we on this side invested in the sector. We lifted overall investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013 and this is the approach we will need if we are to secure the sector into the future. (Time expired
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:47): Well, here we go again. We have the Labor Party coming in again claiming there are cuts. They normally put the word 'cruel' in front of them and talk about these so-called cruel cuts' that the coalition are making. We saw it during the end of the last session, where they talked about our alleged cuts to public schools. And I remember the member for Sydney standing at the dispatch box ranting and raving how they were going to pursue us everyday and tell the public about how we're making these cruel cuts to schools. And they have even threatened us with the bunting; that's right, they threatened the bunting in the election campaign. 'Not the bunting,' we said. But they threatened us with the bunting.
What have we heard since then from the Labor Party on schools? What have we heard? Not a beep. And why have we not heard a beep? Because their claim of cuts was completely debunked by the facts. As we know, truth is not something that we associate with those that sit on that side of the chamber. Now let's just have a look at the numbers here for higher education. Labor claim they're cut. The first thing I did was say, 'Let's look at the numbers and let's see where these cuts are.' Labor left office in 2013. We had $14.9 million in spending on higher education. In 2014, the first view of the coalition government, we increased it to $15.3 billion. No cuts there. In 2015, did the coalition make cuts? No, up it went again. It was $16 billion in 2015. So what about 2016? Was there a cut there?
No, there was $16.5 billion in 2016. Perhaps there was a cut this year? If you listened or if anyone is listening in the parliament, you would think that we cut funding this year. What do we have, finally, with the numbers for this year? In 2017, we have $17.2 billion. In fact, the truth is that, this year, the coalition government is spending 15 per cent more than the last year of the Labor government. That's right. We are spending 15 per cent more than the Labor government were in their last year of government. They come in here and embarrass themselves by talking about cuts. What an embarrassment! They talk about cuts when the numbers show they are clearly increasing. Truth, like mathematics, is not something that is strong on the Labor side.
What about going forward? Perhaps there are some cuts going forward. Let's look at the numbers going forward? Remember, this year we are at $17.2 billion, 15 per cent more than in Labor's last year in office. For 2018, the coalition has budgeted for yet another increase to $18.6 billion. Up it goes again under the coalition government. In 2019, again, we've budgeted for an increase to $19.2 billion. And in 2020, yet again, there is an increase under the coalition to $20.2 billion.
So, this story that we hear about cuts over and over from Labor members of parliament is simply untrue. I could use another word that's unparliamentary. Perhaps you have to show intent for that other word, but I don't think the Labor Party actually do their homework. I don't think they actually look at the numbers. I think they just get their talking points from head office and mumble through their talking points: 'They're cutting, they're cutting and they're cutting.' They repeat like parrots. If they looked at the numbers and facts, they would see there's a clear increase under this coalition government.
We are doing the right thing by higher education. Changes need to be made because we have to make the system sustainable going forward. Yes, the end result is no student in this nation that wants to back themselves and get a higher education has to put one cent out of their pocket. The government will back them up-front for all their cost. On average, the government will pay 54 per cent of their cost of education. That is a pretty good deal. We are spending more money. There are no cuts. There is record funding going into higher education, and we're giving every student the opportunity to get into university if they want to back themselves without one cent coming out of their pocket. (Time expired)
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (15:53): The member for Hughes says there are no cuts and he's accusing us of misleading the parliament. Universities Australia articles say 'Rankings highlight risk of uni funding cuts' and 'Science would be hardest hit by proposed university cuts'. It is Universities Australia and not the Labor Party. The actual sector is saying that you are cutting. You should do some research, Member for Hughes.
A pathway to higher education has never been more important for people living in regional Australia. In my electorate, we have so much to do to increase the number of people engaged in higher education. Torrens University Australia Social Health Atlases states that Braddon's school leaver participation in higher education, at an average of 18.58 per cent, is lower than the Tasmanian and national average. Respected economist and University of Tasmania Vice-Chancellor's Fellow Saul Eslake has previously said:
Higher levels of educational participation and attainment won't solve all of Tasmania's economic and social challenges—but they will make them less difficult to solve, not least by sustainably increasing the resources which can be used to solve them.
In my electorate, I have the Cradle Coast Campus of the University of Tasmania, which offers full and associate degrees. It offers a wide range of opportunities for postgraduate study and PhDs in agricultural science through the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture. It works closely with local industry, delivering courses in partnership with the Tasmanian Manufacturing Centre of Excellence for advanced manufacturing in Burnie.
During the 2016 election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition committed $150 million to the UTAS northern transformation project, a project that will transform higher education in my electorate. It will offer even more opportunities for regional students and more study options. UTAS estimates the project will draw more than 12,000 new students and create 3,100 new jobs.
It is somewhat telling that the Prime Minister was shamed into matching Labor's commitments in the dying days of the election campaign. When it comes to accessing higher education opportunities in regional Australia, the coalition doesn't get it. What they do get is cuts to education. They have identified savings, which are cuts, and they certainly do not see education as an investment in our people and in our economy.
This Prime Minister wants to impose an $8 billion cut to universities, charge fees for university enabling courses and reduce the payment threshold for HELP. Overall, these cuts mean $51.3 million will be lost from UTAS. Former UTAS Vice-Chancellor Peter Rathjen has previously been on the public record saying that cuts to UTAS could threaten the future of regional campuses, particularly the Cradle Coast Campus.
These cuts have hit the Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program, HEPPP, which was introduced by Labor, hard. The Liberals and Nationals have already cut nearly $200 million from HEPPP. Under Labor, HEPPP increased Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent and regional students by 30 per cent, and it supported more than 36,000 extra students from low-income families to attend university.
Embedded in these cuts is a cruel plan by the Prime Minister to start charging fees for university enabling courses. It is almost as if this government does not want to give aspiring students, particularly in regional areas like mine, even the opportunity to attend university. Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robinson recently had this to say about the Prime Minister's cuts:
As our economy changes and old industries face new threats, Australia needs to keep—not cut—our investment in universities to create new jobs, new industries and new sources of income for Australia.
Ms Robinson's message is particularly relevant to the regions where local economies are in transition. Universities Australia also stated that, if the government's legislation and cuts are passed, STEM disciplines will take the biggest hit—35 per cent of the brunt of these cuts—and STEM students will pay higher fees.
Cutting funding, axing programs, putting up fees and reducing the payment threshold for HELP all combine to make it harder and put up more barriers for regional students to obtain a higher education. Young people in regional areas will have to wait for a Labor government to give them a better future.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (15:57): It's hard to know where to begin with this matter.
Mr Wallace interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: You are right, it is also hard to follow the member for Fisher. It's hard to know where to start on this matter, because in the end what we have just heard is a sad, myopic understanding of what you actually need to deliver better education and—this is the critical point; listen to the words of those opposite—outcomes for Australian students. There was an obsession and a focus only on inputs, but there is no actual interest in making sure there are good outcomes for those people who go to Australia and invest in building their own career path, their knowledge and their expertise to be successful in life.
That's why I don't accept the terms of this proposition of the government cutting billions of dollars from universities, which the opposition is condemning. It's a completely ridiculous proposition. Firstly, it's not actually based on any evidence and it's not even true. In fact, what we know is that, during the final three years of the previous Labor government, it cut about $6 billion from higher education and research, including its cumulative 3.25 per cent efficiency dividend, which applied to research grants and the Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program. The government's proposed efficiency dividend does not apply to these programs, yet Labor now opposes a measure similar to what it announced in government, which goes to the heart of hypocrisy—let's face it.
More than anything else, it doesn't actually focus on outcomes: making sure that students who go to university get an education and get an improvement.
I'm not sure what the experience is of many members in this place in universities; but, having actually sat on the board of a university, what I know is that just handing out more and more dollops of cash to universities actually doesn’t improve outcomes for students. What actually—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: That's good; there are other members who apparently have been on boards. They might know the experience as well. But since I have been on the board of Monash University, in the great state of Victoria, I have seen firsthand how the myopia, dependence and chasing government money distracts universities from the core task of actually delivering outcomes for students. In fact, when universities are focused on delivering education services that people demand, and actually put them in the best position to go into the workforce to be able to live a successful life, students quite like it! They actually do understand. They understand, support and appreciate that you need to have equity measures and that, regardless of who you are—your background or your circumstances—if you have merit, talent and ingenuity and if you can make a significant contribution to this country that you can secure the opportunity for tertiary education.
Equity measures are appropriate to make sure that people do not face unnecessary burdens or limitations. That is why what Labor introduced—it was called HECS, and today is called FEE-HELP—still stands today. It doesn't matter who you are; if you are an Australian, you can go to a university and get FEE-HELP and support, and you can be in the best position to graduate. But there is a basic acknowledgement that if you are going to go through the process of getting that tertiary education—which is quite an expensive process for everybody, including Australian taxpayers who contribute a very substantial component of the costs of education—the benefits are both public and private. So the repayment has to involve both public contributions and private contributions.
But what we really need is a tertiary education sector that is export-oriented and focused; one that recognises the potential of the sector to grow and not just to provide services to Australian students—although that is an important part of it—but to be able to provide the services demanded around the world. That doesn't come from becoming lazy and sucking more and more money off the taxpayers' teat. It's about being—let's use those words—'innovative and agile', and being able to develop the sector that people want to invest in. This is at the heart of the criticism of Labor. They would prefer a system dependent on the government, not delivering improvement for student outcomes but delivering for the membership of the National Tertiary Education Union, who are the membership base of many of the people sitting opposite. In the end, they are not interested and have not focused in this debate on how we deliver better student outcomes. (Time expired)
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:03): It's interesting to reflect on the contribution from the member for Goldstein and how you can have two gents in this place with the same last name that bring very different perspectives to an issue like this. I guess if your perspective on universities is from having sat on a university board and if your approach to universities is in terms of the personal agency and resources that enable them to secure a university education and invest in a university education, then you might well take that approach.
But that is not the perspective of a young Indigenous woman who attends an at-risk high school that has an on-site childcare centre so that young pregnant mums can first finish high school and perhaps aspire to university. That is not the perspective of a young fellow I spoke to at an open office at the weekend, who can't see a way forward in his life. He doesn't understand how he is going to get an education that will enable him to participate in the workforce. He can't see how he will ever have the opportunity to buy his own home. So Labor understands that education has always been the great enabling force in Australian society; the great leveller and the key mechanism for delivering opportunity. And that's why we lifted investment substantially in universities when we were in government.
The member for Gellibrand talked about 190,000 additional students. That included 36,000 additional students from low-income families. It included an increase in Indigenous student numbers of 26 per cent and an increase in regional student numbers of 36 per cent. That's the commitment that we made, just like we make commitments across the full range of the education system, from early childhood and schools through TAFE and apprenticeships and university. From this government, those people who can't secure themselves a spot at university and who can't invest in a university place get $4 billion in cuts to funding. They get an additional $4 billion in cuts to uni infrastructure. They get fee increases of 7½ per cent. They get a lower HELP repayment threshold.
When I started university in 1990, it was the first year that HECS was introduced. The threshold was $22,000, which at that stage was 73 per cent of average earnings. The new threshold, down from $55,000 to $42,000, is less than half of average earnings. It's barely $6,000 above the minimum wage. Two-thirds of new university graduates will be women. Women face the worst of the rising inequality in this country. The gender pay gap is bad enough as it is. Even women with university degrees face a 10 per cent pay gap at the point of graduation, and these changes are going to make those kinds of inequities even worse than they currently are.
In Western Australia, we will see cuts of $75 million to Curtin University, $42 million to Edith Cowan, $26 million to Murdoch University, $50 million to the University of Western Australia and $19 million to Notre Dame, which has a campus in my electorate. The cuts to enabling courses are among the most terrible, short-sighted and mean aspects to these changes. Enabling courses help people who otherwise are very unlikely to go to university to have that chance. I know that's important in West Australian electorates like mine, and others. Murdoch's OnTrack program is delivered in the seat of Brand. Of the participants in OnTrack, 55 per cent are the first in their family to attend university and 56 per cent are from low-SES households, and the success of that program is such that 70 per cent of the people who participate in OnTrack go on to undergraduate enrolment. That's how successful it is. Those people now, instead of getting that assistance, face a $3,200 up-front fee.
This government is making a clear transition from ineptitude to outright harmfulness. Proper support of our education system from top to bottom is critical to our future wellbeing. This government, having walked away from needs based school funding, now seeks to squeeze universities and step down hard on university students. It's a recipe for economic harm. It's a recipe for sharply reduced opportunity and fast-rising inequality. It is a shame.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:08): I'm very happy to discuss this matter today. It is often said that Bennelong is Australia's capital of innovation. This has not happened by accident. It has come about through my electorate's commitment to, and investment in, the local university, which sits at the heart of our innovation district. I refer, of course, to Macquarie University. This university was first founded back in the sixties by a local council with vision to turn the pastures and orchards of Marsfield into a science based industrial area—an innovation zone, before the invention of the buzzword. It was an audacious move and no-one could see it turning into the fastest-growing corner of New South Wales just 50 years later. And here lies the point: knowledge is critical to driving our economic growth, but, in order to be these drivers, our universities must be looking to the far horizon, beyond the petty politics of parliamentary debates and the microscopic duration of election cycles.
Education is vital to Australia's future successes. This government's reform is focused on encouraging quality and excellence in Australian higher education and ensuring students have the support they need to succeed. But it must also make sure that the system is sustainable for future generations so that students yet to come have the sorts of opportunities this and other generations have had. That's why we're going to keep growing our record levels of funding for higher education. However, it will be better targeted and provide equitable access for underrepresented groups, meet the needs of industry and the community and hold higher education institutions accountable for the taxpayer funding they receive.
The reforms start from a clean slate. There will be no fee deregulation and no 20 per cent funding cut for universities. The department has been through a comprehensive process, including a discussion paper that attracted more than 1,000 submissions and worked with an expert advisory panel. Our higher education system is modern and successful. Across the country, we have 1.4 million students, 43 universities and 123 non-university providers. Education is our third-largest export earner and universities are an essential part of this market. And, importantly, graduates enjoy a sustained two to three percentage point advantage in employment rates. The system is in great health. Domestic undergraduate enrolments have grown 118 per cent between 1989 and 2015. However, as a result, taxpayer funding for Commonwealth-supported places in higher education has increased 71 per cent since 2009, effectively growing at twice the rate of the economy.
We must ensure our higher education system promotes excellence and innovation and is sustainable for generations to come. Our focus is on more innovative courses, greater relevance to industry, more transparency for students and more accountability for higher education institutions. We're rebalancing the costs between taxpayers and students to better share the burden and make the system sustainable into the future while ensuring government continues to be the majority funder of student loans. Students will not pay a cent up-front and no longer face deregulated fees. Instead, they will face a modest 7.5 per cent fee increase phased in over four years from 2018 to 2021.
I'd like to end by returning to my cutting-edge university. Our great university sits at the heart of Macquarie Park. The Hearing Hub and the headquarters of Cochlear are both situated on the grounds of the university, and these internationally recognised world leaders interact daily with the students at the university and the businesses at Macquarie Park. The teaching hospital is also unique in its structure and a great asset to our local community, as well as home to some truly revolutionary technologies and skills, not least the life-saving Gamma Knife.
The uni is a linchpin of a group called the Macquarie Park Innovation District. This is a group of companies dedicated to the innovation sector and aiming to increase the output of our cutting-edge suburb. They work together, they collaborate—companies, council and universities—to forward ideas, connect people and design our future. This is how universities should be: not isolated, stuffy or siloed but rather a dynamic part of an innovation and entrepreneurial community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
Amdt – Senate - Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017
Schedule of the amendments made by the Senate
(1) Opp (1) [Sheet 8239]
Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), after item 3, insert:
3A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5.7B
Add:
588HA Review relating to safe harbour
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the following matters to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the last day of the 2 year period commencing on the commencement of this section:
(a) the impact of the availability of the safe harbour to directors of companies on:
(i) the conduct of directors; and
(ii) the interests of creditors and employees of those companies;
(b) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.
(2) The review must be undertaken by 3 persons who, in the Minister's opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review.
(3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.
(5) The report is not a legislative instrument.
(2) Govt (1) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 8 to 31), omit subsection 415D(1), substitute:
Stay on enforcing rights
(1) A right cannot be enforced against a body for:
(a) the reason that the body, if it is a disclosing entity, has publicly announced that it will be making an application under section 411 for the purpose of avoiding being wound up in insolvency; or
(b) the reason that the body is the subject of an application under section 411; or
(c) the reason that the body is the subject of a compromise or arrangement approved under this Part as a result of an application under section 411; or
(d) the body's financial position, if the body is the subject of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement; or
(e) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:
(i) the making, or possible making, of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement about the body; or
(ii) the body's financial position;
if such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement is later made about the body; or
(f) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection;
if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement.
Note: This result is subject to subsections (5), (6) and (8), and to any order under section 415E.
Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the body becoming the subject of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement.
(3) Govt (2) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (line 6), at the end of subsection 415D(4), add:
; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1) (e) or (f).
(4) Govt (3) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsection 415D(8), substitute:
(8) If the application under section 411 results in the approval under this Part of a compromise or arrangement, subsection (1) does not apply to the right to the extent that:
(a) the person appointed to administer the compromise or arrangement; or
(b) if a liquidator of the body is appointed after the start of the stay period—the liquidator;
has consented in writing to the enforcement of the right.
(5) Govt (4) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (lines 19 and 20), omit "a reason referred to in paragraphs 415D(1) (a) to (d)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 415D(1) (a) to (f)".
(6) Govt (5) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (after line 15), after section 415F, insert:
415FA Self ‑executing provisions
(1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision:
(a) cannot start to apply against a body for certain reasons; and
(b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a body with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes.
(2) Sections 415D to 415F also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 415D to 415F.
Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating:
(a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and
(b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 415D(1); and
(c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and
(d) paragraph 415F(2) (b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 415D(1) (a) to (f) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply.
(3) In this section:
self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically:
(a) for one or more reasons; and
(b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply.
(7) Govt (6) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (line 17), omit "415F", substitute "415FA".
(8) Govt (7) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 15 (line 27) to page 16 (line 17), omit subsection 434J(1), substitute:
Stay on enforcing rights
(1) A right cannot be enforced against a corporation for:
(a) the reason of the appointment or existence of a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(b) the corporation's financial position, if there is a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(c) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:
(i) the appointing, or possible appointing, of a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(ii) the corporation's financial position;
if such an appointment is later made for the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or
(d) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection;
if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement.
Note: This result is subject to subsections (5) and (7), and to any order under section 434K.
Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the appointment of a managing controller.
(9) Govt (8) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 17 (line 13), at the end of subsection 434J(4), add:
; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1) (c) or (d).
(10) Govt (9) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 19 (line 16), omit "a reason referred to in paragraph 434J(1) (a) or (b)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 434J(1) (a) to (d)".
(11) Govt (10) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 20 (after line 3), after section 434L, insert:
434LA Self ‑executing provisions
(1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision:
(a) cannot start to apply against a corporation for certain reasons; and
(b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a corporation with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes.
(2) Sections 434J to 434L also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 434J to 434L.
Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating:
(a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and
(b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 434J(1); and
(c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and
(d) paragraph 434L(2) (b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 434J(1) (a) to (d) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply.
(3) In this section:
self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically:
(a) for one or more reasons; and
(b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply.
(12) Govt (11) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 8, page 20 (line 5), omit "434L", substitute "434LA".
(13) Govt (12) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 21 (lines 3 to 19), omit subsection 451E(1), substitute:
Stay on enforcing rights
(1) A right cannot be enforced against a company for:
(a) the reason that the company has come or is under administration; or
(b) the company's financial position, if the company is under administration; or
(c) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:
(i) the company coming, or possibly coming, under administration; or
(ii) the company's financial position;
if the company later comes under administration; or
(d) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection;
if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement.
Note: This result is subject to subsections (5) and (7), and to any order under section 451F.
Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the company coming under administration.
(14) Govt (13) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 22 (line 18), at the end of subsection 451E(4), add:
; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1) (c) or (d).
(15) Govt (14) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 23 (lines 7 to 9), omit subsection 451E(7), substitute:
(7) Subsection (1) does not apply to the right to the extent that:
(a) the administrator of the company; or
(b) if a liquidator of the company is appointed after the administration ends—the liquidator;
has consented in writing to the enforcement of the right.
(16) Govt (15) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (lines 7 and 8), omit "a reason referred to in paragraph 451E(1) (a) or (b)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 451E(1) (a) to (d)".
(17) Govt (16) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (after line 26), after section 451G, insert:
451GA Self ‑executing provisions
(1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision:
(a) cannot start to apply against a company for certain reasons; and
(b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a company with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes.
(2) Sections 451E to 451G also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 451E to 451G.
Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating:
(a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and
(b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 451E(1); and
(c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and
(d) paragraph 451G(2) (b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 451E(1) (a) to (d) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply.
(3) In this section:
self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically:
(a) for one or more reasons; and
(b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply.
(18) Govt (17) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (line 28), omit "451G", substitute "451GA".
(19) Govt (18) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (line 4), omit "415D to 415F, 434J to 434L,", substitute "415D to 415FA, 434J to 434LA,".
(20) Govt (19) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 16, page 25 (line 7), omit "451E to 451G,", substitute "451E to 451GA,".
(21) Govt (20) [Sheet GZ221]
Schedule 1, item 17, page 25 (line 10), after "under", insert ", or self‑executing provisions of,".
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (16:13): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to introduce a safe harbour for company directors undertaking corporate restructures outside of formal insolvency proceedings and to restrict ipso facto clauses that make it harder for businesses to successfully recover from financial difficulties. It is a bill that promotes a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation to drive business growth and global success and help save local jobs. As a result of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill, the government made some minor and technical attempts to part 2 of the bill to ensure that it operates as originally intended. In addition to these amendments, one other amendment was passed in the other place that enshrined a review of the safe harbour provisions in legislation two years from commencement. The government is confident that this review will confirm the government's position that this legislation will improve our insolvency regime.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:14): Part 1 of schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 contains a safe harbour for directors for liability for insolvent trading. That safe harbour is intended to support directors to restructure the business and to continue operating to the overall benefit of the company and the stakeholders. Labor acknowledges the intent of the legislation to ensure that directors who honestly and diligently seek to turn around a business are not prevented from doing so.
Labor moved amendments to the bill to strengthen the safe harbour and to protect against its misuse, including increasing the proof that directors must show. Those amendments were not accepted by the Senate. Labor also moved amendments to require a review of the safe harbour after two years to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. That amendment requires that the review look at the impact of the availability of the safe harbour to directors of companies and at the conduct of directors in the interests of creditors and employees of those companies, as well as any other matters that the minister considers relevant. It must be undertaken by three persons who, in the minister's opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review, and it requires a written report which must be tabled in each house of the parliament within 15 days after the day on which the report is given to the minister.
This is an important amendment and I commend Senator Gallagher in the other place for her work to ensure that this amendment passed the Senate. Labor will be watching to ensure that the safe harbour does not have a negative effect on workers being paid their entitlements. We will move to make changes if the safeguards in the bill are not effective.
Part 2 of schedule 1 of the bill sets out new provisions to stop the enforcement of ipso facto clauses that are triggered when a company enters administration. Labor has supported government amendments to fill gaps that were identified as part of the Senate inquiry and Labor is supportive of part 2 of the amended bill.
Question agreed to.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:17): Before I call the member for Moore, I'd like to recognise in the students' gallery, the students from Narromine Christian School who are visiting Parliament House today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:17): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled: Human Rights Scrutiny Report 10 of 2017.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr GOODENOUGH: by leave—The committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In performing its scrutiny function, the committee may play an important role in enhancing the understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia, as well as ensuring appropriate consideration of human rights issues in legislative and policy development. In my view, the committee is well placed to take on a crucial leadership role in the consideration and oversight of human rights matters. To this end, the committee recently had a very productive meeting with the new president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Rosalind Croucher, and a number of areas of interest were discussed.
Turning to the committee's current report, the majority of new bills considered, 11, were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. There are also two matters in respect of which the committee is seeking further information from the relevant minister in relation to human rights compatibility. The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of pieces of legislation, including the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017.
In relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity Bill) 2017, the committee initially raised concerns about the compatibility of measures in this bill with the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. However, following correspondence with the minister and the provision of further information, the committee has concluded that these measures are likely to be compatible with human rights. This was the basis of the existence of safeguards which appear designed to assist to ensure that the most vulnerable will continue to have access to social security payments to meet basic necessities in a range of circumstances. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work and, with these comments, I commend the committee's report 10 of 2017 to the chamber.
BILLS
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) 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:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because this bill:
(1) cuts university funding by nearly $4 billion;
(2) hits students with higher fees;
(3) saddles students with bigger debts which they will have to pay back at the same time as they are trying to buy a house or start a family;
(4) compromises teaching and learning, and undermines research; and
(5) slashes investment in universities at a time when the Government should be investing in both universities and TAFEs in order to guarantee a strong and productive economy".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:21): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:21): I rise to my feet to speak on this bill with great joy and gusto. I'm so pleased that the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills is here to be part of this debate. I want to welcome the students from Narromine Christian School in the gallery up there. I'm not quite sure about the school behind me, but the young students up there are our future and education is all about them.
They could be—if they've been sitting in here listening to the matter of public importance—forgiven for thinking all sorts of things about where we stand as legislators on this issue. But before I embark on a detailed examination of the bill before us, I think it's important that we also look at a little bit of history. The Turnbull government has taken responsible measures to try to end the rorts of the VET FEE-HELP scheme that saw such a debacle from those opposite when they were in government. Let me just give you a few statistics, Mr Deputy Speaker: between 2009 and 2016 the number of students accessing the VET FEE-HELP jumped 3,600 per cent, from 5,229 to 193,868. Now, you might think, 'Well, is that such a bad thing?' If you look at it overall, average course costs in that time nearly tripled from $4,000 to $11,300. Loans increased by nearly 6,000 per cent, from $25 million to $1.5 billion.
I say to the young students up there from Narromine Christian School that whilst those opposite have an absolute predisposition to ensuring that all young people should go to university I'm going to take a different tack with you right here and right now, because I'm one who'll stand here and actually say that I don't think all students should go to university. I come from a trade background. I did my carpentry and joinery apprenticeship at Holmesglen College of TAFE and I'm proud of it. I worked as a builder for 10 years, and I'm proud of it. I then went back and did a law degree at uni, and some might say it has all been going downhill from there!
Mr Dreyfus: Why aren't you proud of that?
Mr WALLACE: Well, some might say it's all going downhill from there. But, I want to encourage the young people from Narromine Christian School and from all schools across the country. You don't have to go to university if you don't want to. If you want to go to university, great, knock your socks off, but you don't have to go to university. The Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills is doing a fantastic job in trying to promote young people into trades. Whether you want to be a bricklayer or a carpenter or a plasterer or a butcher or a baker, there are plenty of other jobs, meaningful employment, available in Australia. To be quite honest with you, you might earn more money as a carpenter or a plasterer or a brickie than you would if you did a business degree. So, whatever you do, challenge your teachers, your vocational instructors and your guidance counsellors. Find out more about what it's like to be a tradesman or a tradeswoman, because that is an equally important path in our lives. If anybody tells you otherwise, you should challenge them on that.
Back to the bill: this bill is all about making university education in Australia the great system that it is and improving upon the great system that it is. It's more important than ever to protect the future of a system which currently supports 1.4 million students and has 16 Australian universities in the top 300 of world university rankings in 2017 and 2018.
As the member for Fisher, I have one of the newest universities in Australia in my electorate, and that is the University of the Sunshine Coast. It is a fantastic university that's only been going for a little less than 20 years, but in that 20 years it has seen its graduates list almost 20,000 in number. It is a university that I am very proud of because it engages with its local community.
This government is focused on encouraging quality and excellence in Australian higher education and ensuring that students have the support they need to succeed, while also making sure that the system is sustainable for future generations so students yet to come have the sorts of opportunities that this and other generations have had. The Higher Education Reform Package has been developed after substantial consultation and discussion with a broad range of stakeholders and focuses on three key themes: improving the sustainability of higher education, providing more choices for students and increasing transparency and accountability. This government will continue to support the best features of the current higher education system, underpinning a vibrant education export industry, supporting student career aspirations and ensuring that industry has a skilled workforce.
The reforms proposed by the government are fair. They drive quality and excellence and focus on ensuring that Australians who want to study have the right support and the right opportunities. A key challenge is how to make the system sustainable for future generations of students. Since 2009, taxpayer funding for teaching and learning has increased by 71 per cent, twice the growth rate of the economy as a whole. The current funding arrangements are not sustainable, and reform is needed if future generations like those up in the Narromine Christian School are to take advantage of higher education—a world-class higher education—into the future.
A key element of the higher education system is the Higher Education Loan Program, which supports universal, merit based access to higher education in Australia and is one of the most generous student loan schemes in the world. Those opposite would have you believe that the government is attacking that. We are not attacking that at all. We want to ensure that, no matter whether you come from a wealthy family or a non-wealthy family, if you have the ability, the skill, the interest, the talent and the desire to go to university, you have every opportunity, as much as anyone else.
However, the HELP repayments—that is, the Higher Education Loan Program repayments—have not kept pace with the HELP lending growth rate. Due to the income-contingent nature of HELP, debtors do not start making compulsory repayments until their income is above the minimum repayment threshold, currently in 2017-18, set at $55,874. Since 2009, the fair value of student loans has increased from $12.5 billion to $36.8 billion and is expected to increase further to $59.7 billion by 2019-20. The total outstanding student debt underwritten by taxpayers now stands at $50 billion, with a quarter of that not expected to be repaid.
The Commonwealth supported places which provide places for university students are subsidised by the Australian government so that students are only required to pay a student contribution amount for each unit that they're enrolled in. Universities and other higher education providers set their own student contribution amounts within limits set by the Australian government. It's necessary with increasing enrolments and budget pressures to increase the maximum contribution each student can be asked to make. These reforms will rebalance the contributions made by taxpayers and students to the cost of higher education. After the changes have been implemented, the taxpayer will remain the majority funder of higher education by 2021, providing on average 54 per cent of base funding for the costs of teaching and learning.
The Deloitte cost-of-delivery report undertaken in 2016 showed that universities spent 85 per cent of their total funds for bachelor level courses on teaching and learning in 2015, compared to the 2011 base funding review which found that 94 per cent of base funding for bachelor level courses was spent on teaching and learning. These findings suggest it is reasonable to expect some of these efficiencies should be shared with the government. Effectively, costs per student for teaching and learning have increased by 9.5 per cent since 2010, while revenue per student has risen by 15 per cent over that time. This efficiency dividend equates on average to 2.8 per cent of base funding for teaching and research. When last in government, Labor proposed its own efficiency dividend of 3.25 per cent, but you don't hear anything at all about that from the other side. Then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said on 16 April 2013:
… the number of places has grown, but funding has also gone up per student place.
Money to universities is still going to grow. We've got universities on a growth path.
What we are asking them to do is for one year to accept a two per cent efficiency dividend, and in the second year a 1.25 per cent efficiency dividend.
That means their money would still grow, it just wouldn't grow as fast as they'd obviously wanted …
Once again, you don't hear any of that from the other side. In opposition, Labor is playing politics. I'm sure that won't come as a surprise to anybody who's been around this place long enough. And they are using delaying tactics when they well know what we are proposing is fair, reasonable and necessary.
HELP is here to stay. The Australian government remains committed to a system of higher education that is affordable for individuals but it must be affordable for the country. Australia has one of the most generous student loan schemes in the world. The Higher Education Loans Program is one that will see young people go to university and pay no up-front fees. We will keep that loan system in place. There will be no up-front student fees. The system of student loans will be protected. Students will only have to pay their loans back when they are earning a high enough income. No eligible domestic student has to pay up-front fees, because they are able to borrow from the government to meet their share of the cost of study. No real rate of interest is charged on their loan. The government effectively absorbs this cost.
Australia's HELP scheme, which provides assistance for young people and old people to get into university to improve their education, is the envy of the world. It means that anyone who has the ability and motivation to participate in higher education is not prevented from doing so because of the need to pay their tuition fees up-front. We will improve the sustainability of the HELP scheme by introducing new HELP repayment thresholds and rates for all current and future HELP debtors from 1 July 2018. The proposal to index HELP repayment thresholds at CPI will maintain the value of thresholds in real terms, as the thresholds will increase in line with the cost of living, rather than wages. With average weekly earnings typically being higher than CPI, indexation by CPI will slow the growth of repayment thresholds and ensure they remain appropriate when compared to an individual's capacity to repay.
I'll finish off by saying that this government is absolutely 100 per cent committed to providing an effective, world-class higher education university scheme for all Australians, no matter what their socioeconomic background is. (Time expired)
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:36): I rise in support of Labor's position on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. I represent a community of hardworking people. Traditionally, we have been the tradies, the labourers, the administrators and the retail staffers. We now live in a time when those jobs are changing, and as those jobs change so too does the way in which we educate—especially for people in any community.
It's one year ago today since I got to stand here and address the federal parliament with my first speech. One of the things that led me here was a comment made by a Liberal predecessor of mine as member for Lindsay, former MP Jackie Kelly, who famously declared Western Sydney did not need a university, because we were in pram city. So outraged at her comments was I, as a 20-year-old, that I wrote a letter to my local newspaper about my disgust for such comments. I'm pretty sure this was my first interaction on my political activism journey. The future of work is changing: the jobs are changing and our workforce needs to change. I'm so glad that Kelly's comments were not heeded and that, instead, we have Western Sydney University right in my backyard. It is a university whose alumni I belong to, in fact, along with my mum, who was the first in her family to study and studied as a mature single mum of two kids. This provided me with a great desire to go on to university, and I followed there a few years later.
This isn't a unique story across my community. Sixty per cent of the students who attend Western Sydney University are the first in their families to attend university, and that is a staggeringly high figure. Twenty per cent of the students are considered low-socioeconomic status, and 37 per cent of those students speak a language other than English at home. These statistics indicate the transition my community faces from the traditional jobs we have had and the ones we will need to be prepared for in the future. The changes that the government seeks to make in this bill will diabolically affect my community and my university. In fact, the cuts this lousy bloke who calls himself the Prime Minister wants to make are the second-highest in this country. Western Sydney University will lose more than $98 million in funding over the next four years. This is the highest amount of money being taken out of any university in New South Wales.
For 25 years, Western Sydney University has been at the forefront of addressing the educational inequity facing our community. In Western Sydney, 16.5 per cent of under-34-year-olds have a tertiary qualification, while greater Sydney enjoys a level of almost 25 per cent for the same age bracket. These figures are important. They help businesses to decide where to locate, to know whether the population will be able to support their company with adequately qualified and trained staff. Why on earth would Turnbull support anything that jeopardises the access to university for anybody in Western Sydney? Does he think so little of the people that I represent in Western Sydney that he would callously allow these cuts to take place? Does he think so little of our community and that we're all just a bunch of high-vis-vest-wearing workers who are not capable of university-level study? You only need to look at his actions. He skulked into Western Sydney—I know, right? I'm surprised he even knew the way. He didn't come by public transport, though, to give his press conference—which is a shame, after his famous electioneering train-rides not so long ago, because, if he had, he might've learnt that, where he was headed to, there is actually no train. He went to Erskine Park, he got out there, and he said to the press that he promised plenty of jobs for locals and that we should all live where it takes 30 minutes to get from home to work, to education and to recreational facilities. I mean, really! Thirty minutes! Did he drive, from Erskine Park, 30 minutes in any direction? He might've tried, but I can guarantee he wouldn't have got very far. He made this announcement at TNT, a freight and logistics depot. We know that, on average, one of those warehouses has five jobs for every hectare of land, like this warehouse takes up. Again, it exemplifies my point that the Prime Minister thinks Western Sydney is a community of high-vis-vest-wearing jobs. I have no argument or issue with people working in those fields whatsoever.
But back to his catch-cry of the 30-minute city and being within 30 minutes of educational opportunities: how is that going for the Prime Minister? They just cut $23 million from Lindsay's schools, and now they want to come after our university for $98 million. Apprenticeships have dropped 37 per cent in my area. If you gut Western Sydney uni and it has to continue cutting programs and services, where is our next university within 30 minutes, I ask you, Deputy Speaker? I know it sounds old-fashioned, but someone needs to hand this bloke a map. Across Western Sydney we have campuses located in the south, the north and the west. And I say to the Prime Minister: enough is enough. End the war on Western Sydney. Stop treating my community like we don't matter and start valuing the contributions that come from the educated workforce that Western Sydney can and will happily provide.
Fundamental to making Western Sydney strong is supporting its university and addressing the gaps our area suffers from. The measures announced in this bill will do nothing to support this. The cuts this government proposes for Western Sydney uni will hurt the students out there already doing it tough. The cuts mean that funding for the critical outreach programs which support coming into university from various pathways will go. The cuts put a handbrake on the school engagement program encouraging young students to get into higher education. And the cuts mean that industry-led partner programs will be gone. Obviously, this Turnbull government believes that educational equity gaps should remain.
Disturbingly, these cuts affect jobs, job creation and the critical support required for start-ups and for ideas. Western Sydney University supports 150 Sydney start-ups and small-to-medium enterprises, through its Launch Pad incubator. Some I have been lucky enough to meet—like Stephen Brinks, from 3DBrink, a very successful start-up. Stephen was designing and building 3D printers in his Werrington garage. He had the opportunity to move into the Launch Pad and has grown his business. Now he has the opportunity to give back, and he collaborates with students. Why would the Prime Minister want to see this facility cut, after he famously visited there and referred to it as 'essential'? Now it will be cut to the bone and will be unable to support the start-ups and small businesses in Western Sydney.
On top of these cuts, this Turnbull government will put an end to Western Sydney uni's ability to partner with industry and government in proven job-creation programs. Just one example of this co-investment that the university undertook with the former Labor federal government was the $30 million investment in the Werrington business park. This investment saw 400 high-value jobs come into Penrith. It forges vital links between industry, researchers and students. Great opportunities were delivered to people in my community. But now all we see is Mr Turnbull's 'opportunities'. Well, I have news for him: we don't need your opportunities. We have had to look after ourselves because you cannot be trusted. People in Western Sydney have created their own opportunities, and they know that Labor will support them. Labor will support their jobs, support their pay and conditions, and support investment in the services they need, like universities. But those opposite only see a life of privilege and not one of opportunities being shared.
Opportunities come from investment, not trickle-down tax breaks afforded to big businesses. All these tax breaks—to ensure big businesses and millionaires can enjoy the cosy spoils. The government has decided to destroy any opportunities for students and institutions, especially in Western Sydney. And, for the people in my community, it is absolute proof that we have a federal government devoid of any heart. It isn't a cliche. The Turnbull government is hell-bent on handing out degrees in hard knocks.
Imagine for a moment—close your eyes—that we were here discussing investing $65 billion into our education system, not giving $65 billion in tax breaks to big business. Just let that sink in. Let's have a discussion about that. Imagine how that would trickle down through our nation. Imagine that investment trickling down through every single student across Western Sydney. I would love to have and I would absolutely welcome having that discussion, but we are not having it.
The Turnbull government has decided we should not be the clever country anymore and has decided to dumb us down in the most horrible of ways. This government is creating chaos in my community. We need apprenticeships; we need jobs that keep our graduates in the area where they live; and we need to invest in our education system, not take money from it. The government has gutted funding at all levels of education. You name it; it's on the chopping block. The Turnbull government has already ripped off public education and cut $17 billion from schools, $23 million of which came from my electorate alone. Now the Prime Minister wants to deliver more cuts and raid the pockets of students, with nearly $4 billion of cuts to universities, higher fees for students and bigger debts for students that they will have to repay much sooner.
What does all of this add up to? It adds up to a compromise on teaching, learning and research. But, more importantly, it adds up to dumbing down and the taking away of opportunities. The Turnbull government wants the students of Australia to fix its own broken budget promises. And how are students going to fix them? They're going to start paying back their student loans not at $54,000 but at $42,000. And, for good measure, the government is going to ensure your student fees are higher and universities are restricted in investing in infrastructure, as the Turnbull government steals surpluses that were for future building.
What great opportunities and lessons this government is providing to students! Members opposite are providing some genuine life lessons right up-front. Well, I'm voting to keep Australia clever, even though we have a ridiculously stupid government—and the experts out there know, and they agree with me too. Again we see a bunch of ill-informed MPs coming in here, trampling over decades and decades of research and ignoring it in favour of cuts instead. Take the Innovative Research Universities, which said:
The Australian Government investment in Universities is low by international standards while our students are already paying some of the highest fees in the world for public university education …
Universities Australia said:
Students and graduates will be carrying higher levels of debt into an increasingly uncertain future …
And the Group of Eight said:
We have … reached a tipping point. It remains the fact that we receive less than half of our university funding from Government and this has forced us to be heavily reliant on alternative sources of income to fund the nation building research we must undertake.
At a time when we need investment in the jobs of the future and to be competitive in a global jobs market, we find the Turnbull government throwing lead into the saddles of students, who quite frankly were finding it tough to survive already.
Meanwhile, across the road, across the seas, in Asia, right on our doorstep, they're investing in universities. That's right. I know it seems a bit of an anomaly compared to what this parliament wants to do. Their governments are investing in universities. This was highlighted last week by Universities Australia, which said:
Smart nations understand that public funding in universities is an investment—
an investment, Deputy Speaker—
in long-term national prosperity.
It continued:
It's clear that China is becoming a increasingly strong competitor – which the rankings analysts attribute to its 'high and sustained levels of state funding'. Indeed, China is building the equivalent of almost a new university every week.
And that should be a reflection to those opposite about what we're doing to universities in this country right now.
What a morally bankrupt government we have when it comes to education. I'm waiting to hear them all fall over themselves and come in here and support these cuts. The government are pretty lousy because all they could muster up was less than half-a-dozen government members willing to come in here and spruik their cuts to higher education. I don't blame them, because it is a drastically, diabolically terrible decision.
Western Sydney University is a success story. Why is the Turnbull government stripping it back to its bare bones, leaving Western Sydney with the crumbs yet again? The Prime Minister keeps coming up with three-word slogans like 'an ideas boom'. Well, Prime Minister, it is hard to have an ideas boom when you keep having brain explosions like this one. Can you imagine Mr Turnbull sitting on his balcony at Point Piper penning his little quips, the glare of the sun in his eyes and the rays beaming up from the harbour and all of those yachts? Perhaps Mr Turnbull might like to sit in Western Sydney's peak-hour traffic on the M4 and see if he can get from Erskine Park to Penrith in 30 minutes. I can guarantee he can't.
Western Sydney University is important because educational inequity is a real issue happening right now. A $65 billion tax break to big business with no evidence of payback to the community isn't innovation. Tax handouts to wealthy businesses on the backs of every single student cohort across this country are nothing more than trickle-down idiocy. No jobs, no investment; just dividends to the big end of town. And, if you are in Western Sydney and want to get ahead, this government is happy to stand on you, put you down, confine you to a hi-vis vest and tell you that you do not deserve the same access and same equity of access to anything. We have no equity of access to education, transport or jobs. I am happy to come in here day after day and remind this government of how poorly they are treating Western Sydney. When the next election campaign comes along and Mr Abbott or Mr Turnbull—or whoever is the Prime Minister potentially—come into my electorate, sit in my football stadium, say no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no cuts to the ABC and tell this country they have a unity ticket on education, it is the people that I represent who will be the most dudded by this awful, awful government.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:50): There was a time when every galah in the coalition pet shop was talking about the importance of being innovative and nimble. They were talking about the importance of Australia being a clever country and about us projecting ourselves into the economy of the 21st century. Those very same coalition MPs are shortly going to file into this chamber and vote in favour of this bill which does the exact opposite of everything they have been talking about for the last two years. I am, of course, talking about the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, which slashes funding for universities throughout this country to the tune of $3.8 billion. The minister at the table opposite has attempted to tell members of parliament that this is some radical reversal of the Abbott government's fateful 2014 budget, where they attempted to do a complete backflip on the promises they took to the 2013 election. Far from it being a radical reversal of the Abbott policies, this is the Abbott policies in a new guise.
Let's have a look at the cuts that this bill introduces on a state-by-state basis. Here in Canberra, it is $52.5 million. In my home state of New South Wales, it is $617 million. In the Northern Territory, a place that needs us to be supporting their TAFE and their higher education, they are suffering a cut of $15 million. In Queensland, it is over $400 million. In South Australia, it is $150 million. The list goes on and on and on. There are cuts to funding and to universities in each and every state. In my own university, the University of Wollongong—a fine institution which I will talk a bit more about shortly—there are $45.7 million in cuts as a result of this legislation. I'm imploring those members opposite: don't do what your leader is attempting to convince you to do. Vote in favour of the university students you represent in your electorates, and vote in favour of regional universities because they need your support today more than ever.
It's time we had a conversation with the Prime Minister about inequality. Every time we raise this he calls us communists. He thinks there's some sort of socialist plot going on. But we need to have a conversation about it. Where we stand today, the richest 10 per cent of Australians own 45 per cent of all wealth. That is 70 times the wealth of the lowest-income brackets. If you compare the amount of money they make year on year, it is a massive seven times the income they earn each year. We have to have a conversation about inequality. If you're in that top 20 per cent of income earners, the chances are that you live in one of our capital cities. If you're in the bottom 20 per cent, the chances are that you're living in regional or remote Australia. Against this background, why is the government and, certainly, any National Party or regional Liberal member, coming in here and proposing to support this bill?
Did you know that in regional Australia we have 13 per cent fewer school leavers participating in higher education than the Australian average? We all know on this side of the House that higher education is the pathway to a higher income and a successful life. But, if we have 13 per cent fewer people in regional Australia participating in higher education, we are reducing the chances of people in regional Australia closing the inequality gap that is growing between people who live in the regions and people who live in the inner cities of this country.
There may be a reason why the Prime Minister doesn't get it. There may be a reason why the Prime Minister cries 'Communist!' every time we start talking about inequality. The reason he doesn't get it is probably that he lives in one of the wealthiest electorates in the country and he is surrounded at his cabinet table by people who live in some of the wealthiest electorates in the country. I'm talking about the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and I'm talking about the Treasurer.
Just under one in five school leavers in regional Australia participate in higher education, compared to one in two school leavers in the Prime Minister's local area of Waverley. The reason that he doesn't get the fact that we have a massive problem with inequality in this country, the reason that he doesn't understand that this bill is going to exacerbate the problem, not make it better, is that the world that he lives in is a very different world to that which the majority of Australians are living in. He lives in a world surrounded by privilege, while the rest of Australia is living in a world which doesn't enjoy the same sorts of privileges that the Prime Minister enjoys or that his deputy leader and the Treasurer enjoy. Is there any wonder that he cries 'Socialism!' whenever we start to say: 'Excuse me, sir; there are some problems with what you're doing. Excuse me, but not everyone enjoys the same privileges that you do. Excuse me; if you introduce this legislation, real people are going to suffer.'
In fact, if you live in regional Australia, participation rates in secondary school at age 16 are seven to 10 per cent lower than they are in the Prime Minister's electorate. In regional Western Australia and regional Tasmania, they're also considerably lower, around 20 per cent lower. There are other parts of the country, where people live very different lives to those who are recommending this bill before the House today. We should send a very clear message to this government that we understand the circumstances of people who are living in the outer suburbs of capital cities and the circumstances of people who are living in regional Australia. It's a very different world to the one that the decision-makers in this government are living in.
We understand their circumstances. That's why we're not going to vote for these massive cuts to university funding. We are not going to vote for an increase in the rate of repayment for the fees that are being proposed in this bill today. We're not going to support their plans to abolish the Education Investment Fund. If you compare the approach of Labor governments over decades to higher education to that of the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, you see the world through the prism of privilege. They vote accordingly. Others see the world through the prism that higher education is an opportunity to improve your lot in life. We put in place the Education Investment Fund, which improved the facilities of universities right around the country, particularly in regional campuses around the country, where millions and millions of dollars was invested, including in my own campus at Wollongong. Millions and millions of dollars was invested. What is this government attempting to do? Abolish that fund so that those funds aren't available to invest in university facilities around the country.
Not only do we understand the importance of universities as institutions which are educating the workforce and the citizens of a future society; we understand that in regional areas universities are major economic players in their own right. The University of Wollongong in my region contributes around $1.2 billion in total direct and indirect economic contribution to the GDP over the course of a year. More than 5,200 people are directly employed by the University of Wollongong, making it one of the largest employers in the region. For every 1,000 full-time equivalent roles that the University of Wollongong employs, there are probably another 1,000 full-time jobs that are created in the broader Illawarra economy. We can take from that that the 5,000-odd people the University of Wollongong employs are generating a total employment of around 10,000 for the entire Illawarra district. The University of Wollongong is an incredibly important contributor to our workforce, having over 131,000 graduates in its short time in operation across more than 300 different degree strands. It has a significant research arm and is an acknowledged world leader in the areas of engineering and information and communications technology. For every $1 million of value added as a result of the University of Wollongong expenditure, a further $1 million is probably generated in income elsewhere within the economy. This paints the picture of a very important regional economic institution.
A responsible government that understood the circumstances in regional areas—a responsible government that was in tune with regions like my own—would not be cutting $45 million from the funds of this vital economic institution in the Illawarra. We know the result will be staff cuts. We know the result will be increased class sizes. We know the result will be a university struggling to provide the same quality of education it did in the decades before.
If members opposite are going to do something to improve the lot of people living and working in regional Australia, if the coalition parties—the Liberals and the National Party in particular—are going to do something to represent others than those in the privileged classes living in the privileged suburbs of our capital cities, they have to reject this bill. They have to reject this bill because the results of this bill are going to be a disaster for people who are struggling to get themselves a higher education, for people who are struggling to pay off a university debt and for people who are struggling to get a toehold in a university in this country. It is bad legislation. It should be rejected.
I particularly implore members of the Nationals, who are supposed to represent people in regional Australia: do the right thing by your community. Tear yourselves away from your Liberal Party colleagues and reject this bill. You have to do more than beat yourselves on the chest and say, 'We are a tough, independent party.' You have to do more than be lions in your electorate and lambs down here in the parliament when you come and vote on legislation. You have to put those fierce words into action. You have to stand up for your communities. That's why, in a few minutes time, you should march into this chamber and you should sit with Labor members of parliament and stand up for your communities. We're going to do it, and we throw down the gauntlet to you: do the same thing.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (17:03): I rise today to discuss the impact of the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. It's a bill I absolutely will not support. I reject it outright. It is complex legislation, and that is fitting because we in this place all know that higher education is a complex issue to deal with, with a long list of stakeholders and participants, and there is always great community interest in our universities. Primary, secondary and higher education are as important as each other, and negotiating and creating reform that is complementary across sectors can create long-lasting benefits for the whole community. Education reform is challenging. Higher education reform is challenging.
The reforms in this bill purport to tackle the considerable challenge of funding universities while at the same time managing to fundamentally ignore how universities actually work. This bill displays a kind of wilful blindness to the reality of how universities make the most of their funding and the pressure facing this very important sector and export industry.
If this bill is to help the higher education sector, it should be designed to support the students in the institutions it professes to reform, but it does not do that. This is a bill that should be making universities more accessible to students across the nation, but it isn't. This is a bill which should pay attention to the vast range of activities that a university conducts, but it does not. This is a bill that should bring together relevant stakeholders to the table and develop meaningful, long-term policy for the sector. Again, it doesn't and it fails. Certainly, this bill should ensure the future prosperity of a world-class higher educational institution, and it certainly does not do that. Recent comments published in The West Australian and, of course, around the world say it advocates the exact opposite. The West Australian says:
Australia's performance on international university league tables could fall if the Federal Government pushes ahead with planned reforms, the editor of the Times Higher Education global rankings has warned.
In these rankings, six Australian universities were ranked among the top 100 in the world. Unfortunately, none of Western Australia's universities made the top 100, but UWA moved up 14 places, climbing to 111. The West Australian says:
Times Higher Education global rankings editor Phil Baty said Australia's future rankings could suffer if the Government went ahead with plans to cut funding by 2.5 per cent.
"It is good news that Australia's universities have held steady in this year's table but funding cuts proposed by the government could harm the country's institutions in future editions of the rankings," he said.
"The data also shows that Australia's leading institutions are already falling behind peers in mainland China and Hong Kong, which receive high and sustained levels of state funding."
Mr Baty said figures from the first quarter of this year showed a 15 per cent increase in international student numbers in Australia.
He said Australia could benefit from a potential decline in the number of international students applying to universities in Britain and the US because of Brexit and tightened immigration policies.
So we have the capacity already and we have the model and the opportunity.
The Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, has said Australian universities are punching above their weight on the international stage but they should not rest on their laurels in a competitive world. The education minister asked universities not to rest on their laurels, while this government has been doing exactly that in this policy area and others for four years. Mind you, as laurels are symbols of victory and status, one can't really accuse the Liberal government of much of that. It is laziness in application of policy thought. They've failed to consider the complexities of our third-largest export industry. How does cutting the legs out from our universities help maintain our national rankings? How does it help universities improve on their already excellent performance?
I want to talk about the university experience of students across Australia. For those of us who were lucky enough to go to university—and not many people in my electorate have been to university—it's not about just going to your lectures and going home. It's not a factory; students don't just go in one end and get churned out the other end with a piece of paper. We hope they go into positive learning environments, get to engage with peers, pick up life skills, network and build a strong, positive and well-thought-out foundation for life post graduation. We hope that it sets them up. But this bill does not do any of that. Instead of reforming the sector for the good of the students and the vast university communities, this bill has become a cash grab by the Liberal federal government to repair the budget bottom line at the expense of education and the future of our community.
I've worked in the university sector for over 10 years. Before coming to this place, I operated an international relations think tank, the Perth USAsia Centre at the University of Western Australia. Before that I was a lawyer for the University of Western Australia and I was chief of staff to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia. I have had the remarkable experience of working with students, the UWA student guild, educators, lecturers, heads of state, scientists, cleaners, researchers, heads of government, administrators, artists, Nobel laureates, gardeners, curators and carpenters—so many different people doing so many different things to make a remarkable institution what it is: a place of learning, a place of research, a place of effort and application and a place of beauty where all can seek wisdom should they choose to, and most do. In being director of UWA's centenary celebrations a few years ago, I had the chance to spend time helping a vast community celebrate the contribution of the first free university in the British Empire, a university which promoted equal access to tertiary education for all. It enabled the education of Western Australians and the research which enabled the development of that state's agricultural industry—its second-largest export industry—and the state's mining industry, which is WA's largest export industry.
Of course, now, with five universities, education itself is Western Australia's third-largest export industry. A hundred and five years after UWA first commenced in 1911, there are a further four great WA universities—Murdoch University, Curtin University, Edith Cowan University, and the University of Notre Dame Australia—each playing important roles in educating Western Australians of all ages and international students from many nations. These universities conduct research across a broad spectrum of subjects, and, like unis across the country, they contribute to local communities in hosting community events and providing sporting grounds and facilities. They are significant employers and create centres of activity that support hundreds of small businesses across WA.
Universities are complex, and I haven't even touched on what it takes to put together a university budget, but, mostly from my own experience, I know it's extraordinarily hard work. Simplifying the complexity of universities and all that they do in the community and assuming student contributions only get applied to teaching shows an absurd lack of attention to universities, to what they are and to how they work. For the education minister to say that unis are somehow pocketing the extra cash from student contributions that exceed the costs of teaching shows just how mammothly out of touch this government is with this sector. In July, the education minister described the increase in funding to the sector because of the demand-driven system as a 'river of gold'. How out of touch can you get. I can imagine more than a few university administrators shaking their heads at that comment and thinking, 'If only we could keep hold of that extra revenue and not have to apply it to research programs, or IT infrastructure, or maintaining heritage-listed 85-year-old limestone buildings or a collection of art carefully collected or gifted and curated and which the university holds on trust for the benefit of the public and the benefit of future generations.'
Our universities are not cash cows for this or any other aggressive Liberal government to raid for their budget repair, and neither is the foreign aid program, for that matter. But nothing will stand in the way of this government giving $65 billion worth of tax cuts to the most wealthy—not even those institutions which quite literally build the future of this nation's prosperity.
This government has resolutely ignored the reality of universities. It has not managed to grasp the reality of the implicit cross-subsidy where any funds left over from a teaching program go toward funding critical research. It is a failure to listen to universities. It is a failure to understand how they operate. And it is only one more of this government's many failures in this regard.
If I could, I'd like to speak briefly about Murdoch University in Western Australia. I hope the member for Tangney comes and speaks a bit later on this. I know it's in his electorate and it plays an important role in his community as well as in mine. It is the closest university to Brand and has offered a unique and valuable approach to tertiary education for many of my constituents. It's also close to my family's heart, having been named after my husband's great-grandfather, Sir Walter Murdoch, the founding professor of English at UWA and a local author and philosopher. Established in 1973, Murdoch University offers enabling programs for students who did not achieve the ATAR ranking they had hoped, or, in some cases, those who did not achieve an ATAR ranking at all—programs such as OnTrack. That is—or was—a fee-free program which is approved as a full-time study option by Centrelink.
This bill seeks to replace the enabling loading with a student contribution that will have a disproportionately negative impact on students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in the suburbs south of Brand, in the Peel region, across the seat of Canning as well as in my electorate of Brand. In 2016, there were 296 students from the region taking advantage of this program. This year, there are 453. The replacement of the enabling loading will undoubtedly put an immediate halt to this, flying in the face of the very great positive progress Murdoch University has made in opening up the university experience to people who are already at a disadvantage in comparison to many others around Australia. It is estimated that charging fees for enabling programs will affect more than 350 students across Rockingham and Peel. To rip up the opportunities and dreams of these students is, in my opinion, a national disgrace and should be reconsidered by the government.
Among OnTrack students enrolled at Murdoch University between 2008 and 2014, 55 per cent self-identified as being the first in their family to go to a university, and 56 per cent lived in low-SES denominated areas. Furthermore, and very importantly, 69 per cent of all funded enrolments translated into undergraduate degree enrolments at Murdoch University. That's a good thing for the region, it's a good thing for Western Australia and it certainly is a good thing for the people and potential students of Brand in Western Australia.
I will speak for a couple of minutes to a few of the other measures that are in this bill. We know what an efficiency dividend is, of course; it's a cut. The 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend will take out of an already-stressed sector. There will be an increase in student fees. Now, let's be clear, this increase in fees will not go to any kind of pool that's going to improve the student experience or go to funding facilities to support services to help improved infrastructure. No, it's going to go straight to the consolidated revenue and transform into that $65 billion tax cut for big business. This government is increasing the fees for students and is not applying that increase to the sector itself. Students will pay more and they will get less. Not only will the extra fees go elsewhere, but the 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend—cut—and the 7.5 per cent performance management daylight robbery scheme will all add up to taking more money out of universities to fund tax cuts. It's a disgrace, and it's a failure.
I'm going to reflect a bit on that performance based funding pool that we have no detail about. Earlier, the member for McPherson, I think, said that there was going to be some metrics put around it and that they would be related to student achievement. So here we have another 7.5 per cent to be taken off universities, coming out of their Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding, that will be put into some pool to be distributed in some fashion yet to be determined. That's very helpful for universities, some of which have billion-dollar turnovers and have to plan for these things.
The member for McPherson mentioned student achievement as a possible metric. That sometimes translates to attrition. Attrition of students is regularly and most often out of the control of universities, because students at universities, like all of us, have lives that are complicated. Sometimes they have to give up their studies for health reasons, because they become carers, because they've simply changed their mind or because they're not able to cope; there are so many reasons people do not finish their degree. And students that need the enabling courses that the government is now going to charge for are often those who are at most risk of not finishing their degree and going into that attrition lot of students. So if performance funding is going to be linked to attrition, then unis will find themselves being forced not to enrol students at risk of leaving their institutions—those at risk of not finishing their degree in full. And these are the people, as I said, who do the enabling courses. They are the most vulnerable in our community, the people we need to get into universities and to finish their degree. We need to do all we can to help them out so that they can finish their degree and create a better life for their families and for their future. Universities are highly motivated to keep students enrolled. It's part of their funding. The money flows with the students, so there is no need to have any kind of performance based funding managed around attrition, because that's well and truly dealt with.
I'll conclude by saying that I think these reforms are a disgrace. I've worked in this sector for over 10 years and I have been on the council of a university. I'm proud to have worked in the university sector and I'll do all I can to defend it and to improve the funding model for the universities in the future. (Time expired)
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (17:18): This Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 is fundamentally about one thing—that is, the sustainability of the higher education system. There has been a wonderful and very important expansion of the higher education system under the demand-driven system since 2009 but it has never been on a sustainable basis. It is very important that universities, that students and that the whole higher education system have the certainty and stability that only funding sustainability can provide.
Now the mythmakers and the luvvies would have you believe that nothing happened in higher education until 1972 with the election of the 'Sun King', Gough Whitlam, but that's not true. The greatest expansion in higher education occurred under the prime ministership of Sir Robert Menzies.
Sir Robert Menzies' own story is worthwhile recounting in this regard. Menzies was a country boy who grew up in a one-horse town, went to a one-teacher primary school and won scholarships to high school and then scholarships to university. It was those scholarships and that opportunity to go to university which transformed his life. It allowed him to lead his profession, to lead his party and to lead his nation for a record 16 years. He was an extraordinary prime minister and an extraordinary leader in education. He wanted to give other people the same opportunity that he had had in terms of higher education. That's why he sought to expand universities to the extent that he did. In 1957, he said:
It is not yet adequately understood that a university education is not, and certainly should not be, the prerequisite of a privileged few…We must, on a broad basis, become a more and more educated democracy if we are to raise our spiritual, intellectual and material living standards.
Expanding educational opportunity is actually part of the DNA of the Liberal Party. Indeed, the demand driven system which underpins the growth of higher education was originally a Liberal Party idea. It first appeared in the policy framework in 1992 as part of the first Fightback! policy package. As that package said:
Freedom for institutions, academics and students requires a decisive move away from a centrally administered system to one based on a greatly strengthened student market, in which students can choose their university according to their own judgements and institutions have the flexibility to respond to these choices…Institutions will be free to offer places as they chose in any course with limited exceptions.
That was the first appearance of the demand-driven system.
In October 1999, the then education minister David Kemp proposed a reform to cabinet, and part of this reform was the demand-driven system. As his submission said:
… the package delivers a universal entitlement to higher education for all who can meet entry qualifications. Students will have greater choice about where they study, subject only to meeting admissions criteria, and the range of courses available will be wider and more appropriate as institutions are freed up to respond more directly to demand for particular courses and in particular locations.
Menzies realised that any growth in higher education had to be sustainable growth. That's why, in 1965, in response to some calls for further funding by academics, he said:
If I have one complaint that I can make about my academic friends, it is that some of them – not all of them but some of them – appear to think that there is no limit to what can be produced financially. I've even known one or two like that at Canberra. The sky is the limit, they think. The sky isn't the limit. Considerable financial power doesn't mean inexhaustible financial resources and that is not to be forgotten…the task of a Commonwealth Government in economic and financial policy is to preserve a good economic climate in which growth can proceed from a stable foundation…
It's not just Menzies' academic friends that didn't understand that things needed to be paid for; it's Menzies' friends on the other side of the House that don't understand that. Just like the NDIS and just like school funding, it was the Labor Party that expanded the demand driven system, and that's a good thing, but yet again they've started a system and they haven't made it a sustainable system, because they haven't provided an adequate and sustainable funding source for it.
Towards the end of the last Labor government, they realised that they actually needed to provide a sustainable basis for this. That's why, in government at the end of the Labor years, they proposed their own efficiency dividend of 3.25 per cent. The then Prime Minister Gillard, on 16 April 2013, said:
The number of places has grown, but funding has also gone up per student place. Money to universities is still going to grow. We've got universities on a growth path. What we are asking them to do is for one year to accept a two per cent efficiency dividend, and in the second year a 1.25 per cent efficiency dividend. That means their money would still grow, it just wouldn't grow as fast as they'd obviously wanted.
The former Prime Minister Julia Gillard has demonstrated herself to be more economically responsible than those opposite who are opposed to this bill and who do not want to see this particular arrangement, which has provided extraordinary opportunities to students, to be held on a sustainable basis. It's important to remind people that the budget is still in deficit. Every year we're repaying $17 billion of debt. This is despite the fact that we've passed $100 billion worth of budget repair.
What we need to do is to ensure that the opportunity that's provided in the demand-driven system continues, and that people continue to have the opportunity to go to university. Today, 32 per cent of Australians have a bachelor degree or higher, and that is a great result. Our per student funding from all sources is 23 per cent higher than the OECD average, and we should be proud of that. But since 2009, the taxpayer funding for teaching and learning has increased by 71 per cent, that's twice the growth rate of the economy as a whole, and the introduction of the demand-driven system has seen a massive expansion in the number of students going to university, and that's a very good thing. For instance, in 2016 there were 720,970 domestic undergraduate students, and that's compared to 553,083 in 2009. That's a very, very good result. But you can't expand the system if you can't pay for the system. Over time, HELP has also ballooned. The fair value of student loans has increased from $12.5 billion to $36.8 billion, and is expected to increase further to $59.7 billion by 2019-20. The total outstanding student debt underwritten by taxpayers now stands at $50 billion, with a quarter of that—that's 25 per cent—not expected to be repaid. As I said, it's not responsible or fair to establish a system and then not provide for its long-term sustainability.
What this legislation proposes to do is to have an increase in student contributions in relation to their higher education. As we know, students who go to university, who have a higher education experience, are more likely to earn larger salaries and have better jobs over the course of their careers. Over their lifetimes they will earn, on average, between $700,000 and $900,000 more than a person who hasn't gone to university; therefore, it's fair that they should make a bit more of a contribution than they are currently doing. This doesn't mean that they would be contributing more than half—the Commonwealth is still contributing up to half—but that they should contribute a little bit more.
The legislation seeks to increase the maximum student contribution on Commonwealth-supported places, which are otherwise subsidised by the government. The increase in contributions will be phased in from 2018 to 2021, with a 1.8 per cent increase each year from 2018 and culminating to a 7.5 per cent increase in 2021. This will be offset by a reduction in taxpayer funding. These reforms will rebalance the contributions made by taxpayers and students to the cost of their higher education. After the changes have been implemented, taxpayers will remain the majority funder of higher education, providing on average 54 per cent of funding for the costs of teaching and learning.
As I said earlier, we know that one-quarter of the money in the HELP system isn't being repaid, and we need to do something to recoup some of that money. So the legislation is setting the minimum repayment threshold at $42,000, with a repayment rate beginning at one per cent of an individual's repayment income, which is much lower than the current rate of four per cent, which cuts in at a threshold of $54,869. To put this into perspective for a graduate teacher or a graduate nurse, for instance, a graduate teacher on a median full-time salary of $62,900 might currently expect to repay something in the order of $2,830 a year and a graduate nurse earning $58,400 would be expected to repay $2,336 per year. Importantly, from 1 July 2019 the repayment threshold, including the minimum repayment income, will be indexed using the CPI. This will maintain repayment value thresholds in real terms. Indexation by CPI will slow the growth of repayment thresholds and ensure they remain appropriate when compared to an individual's capacity to pay. The other advantage of the HELP reforms is that the proportion of debt not expected to be repaid, as the repayment threshold cuts in lower, reduces from 25 per cent to 18 per cent by 2020-21.
Finally, while eligibility for student loans will be extended to most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand citizens, these students will no longer have access to Commonwealth subsidies, and this preserves a range of special cohorts, including some New Zealand visa holders who arrived in Australia as children, those permanent residents and New Zealanders who have already commenced on a course of study and Australian humanitarian visa holders.
I want to have a look at the efficiency dividend, which the member for Brand spoke about earlier. This legislation will require subsidies provided under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme to be subjected to a 2½ per cent efficiency dividend in both 2018 and 2019. It is to be remembered that, as I said earlier in my remarks, when Labor was in government they proposed their own efficiency dividend of 3.25 per cent. The Deloitte cost recovery report, undertaken in 2016, showed that universities spent approximately 85 per cent of their total funding for bachelor-level courses in 2015 on teaching and learning compared to the 2011 base funding review, which found that 94 per cent of base funding for bachelor-level courses was spent on teaching and learning. These findings suggest that it's actually reasonable to expect that some of these efficiencies should be shared with the government.
Effectively, the cost per student for teaching and learning have increased by 9.5 per cent since 2010, while revenue per student has risen by 15 per cent over that time—so a larger revenue and, while there were rising costs, costs have not risen as much as revenue. This efficiency dividend equates to an average of 2.8 per cent of base funding for teaching and research. It's an essential contribution from the revenue benefits of the demand-driven funding system, which have not just been beneficial to individual students but have also been beneficial to universities and the university system as universities have been able to increase their resources and increase their offerings as a result of the extra funding that's come their way.
Some of the most important measures in the bill actually relate to less advantaged students, whose geography or background might disadvantage them in attending university. I think the most important of these is the legislating of the HEPPP program. The HEPPP program is the major equity program. It has never been legislated, and it has often been a source, on both sides, of funding cuts that have occurred from time to time. This government is securing HEPPP by entrenching it in legislation. It's providing a loading of $985 per low-SES student. That will allow universities to provide them with a consistent level of support. Additionally, with performance funding of over $13 million a year, it will provide universities with incentives to ensure that disadvantaged students actually achieve success at university.
These provisions provide funding certainty to universities so that the benefits to low-SES students of accessing higher education are maximised. It's been a bipartisan goal since the Menzies era to increase the number of low-SES students attending university and the number of low-SES students participating in higher education. Yet, despite all of the expansion, on a per capita basis the greatest period in which low-SES students actually participated in the higher education system was the Menzies era. So it's very important that the HEPPP system is maintained on a legislatively secure basis.
We want to collaborate to provide the most effective education experience for all disadvantaged students. That's why we're creating our national priorities pool to support projects that research and trial innovative ideas for the more effective implementation of HEPPP. This will ensure that universities will engage in the long-term planning needed to guarantee accessibility. Such planning and collaboration is absolutely essential if we are to guarantee disadvantaged students a valuable experience of further education. That is very important.
There will also be supports for regional higher education, improving opportunities for students from rural and regional areas to study in regional hubs, for those who can't get to their local regional university, and also for scholarships, particularly directed at STEM courses, of up to $18,000 a year for programs from certificate IV right the way up to PhD. There are also important elements of the package relating to enabling courses, relating to the expansion of the demand-driven system of Commonwealth supported places in approved sub-bachelor courses. Being a sub-bachelor student is often a great pathway in as part of the second-chance university system into the sector. The expansion is a very good thing and will provide further opportunity to more Australians.
In conclusion, is it very important that the demand-driven system is maintained so that it gives opportunities to so many people, but we need to ensure that it is maintained on a sustainable basis.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (17:34): I am really pleased to rise tonight, following the member for Brand, because I felt that the member for Brand took this debate to a higher level, to an aspirational level. It was fantastic to hear from somebody who understands the university system but who, most importantly, understands the aspirations of higher education.
We say 'higher education' in this place—we say it every day—but what does it mean? The member for Brand asked some really important questions. She asked the critical questions: what is driving this so-called reform? Is improvement in higher education what's driving this reform? Is access to higher education what's driving this reform? Is excellence in higher education what is driving this reform? Sadly, I believe it is none of the above. What is driving this so-called reform are savings and cuts, because whenever you hear this government say 'savings' you can understand clearly what it means is 'a cut'.
You have to ask yourself: what would the great thinkers in our history make of this? The bean counters are in charge of learning in this place. We just heard from a member opposite who has had the value of a higher education, and he can turn bean counting into oratory, supposedly. The value of higher education is about the value of our society. It is about what we aspire to be. It is about what contribution we, as individuals and as a collective, are going to make to the rest of the world. If the bean counters are in charge of the learning then we are going to have what we've got here tonight: dumb policy, dumb legislation and dumb cuts, from a government who understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
As someone who came from education, I have spent my life talking to children, young people and adult learners about lifelong learning. What I see in this legislation is the end of the aspiration for lifelong learning for many of the young people and middle-aged people who live in the electorate that I represent here. As a teacher I spent 27 years in schools, working with students towards building aspiration and motivation from prep through to year 12, telling every student that they can learn if they are given the appropriate levels of support and the appropriate levels of challenge. The primary tenet of teaching is a belief that everybody can learn if given the appropriate levels of support and challenge.
Since coming and joining this parliament I find myself in schools telling children very clearly: 'I'm in the federal Parliament of Australia, and I can tell you that you can do anything,' because when I look around this chamber I can see many of us here who wouldn't have thought that this is where we'd end up. But it does not happen by accident. The people who find themselves in this chamber as members of the House of Representatives in the federal parliament have had aspiration and they have had motivation. They have had supports put into their lives to assist them to reach for the stars. So we here are examples for the young people that we're talking about.
Tonight we're talking about a piece of legislation that is going to rip away that aspiration and stomp on that motivation that I know is being built in schools in my electorate as we speak. As a former educator, I believe in the transformative nature of education and the transformative nature of higher education in particular. I represent a community where 47 per cent of people are not born in Australia, where 72 per cent of people have at least one parent born overseas and where 56 per cent of people have both parents born overseas. All parents in my electorate want to see their children do well, whether they are from families where no-one has gone to university or whether they are from families with the first person going to university or whether they are from families for whom there's a long tradition of tertiary education. Everybody wants to see their children do well. This is particularly the case in my community. People have come to this country to make the most of our story and to join us here. A lot of what drives them is a relentless drive for their children to get that tertiary education. They are motivated. They are encouraged to achieve as much as possible because in this country, while we have some way to go, there are fewer barriers to a person realising their potential than in a lot of other parts of the world.
People in my electorate work hard so that their children can achieve academic success. Whenever I meet with people at graduation ceremonies, they are hopeful that their kids will be able to access the skills they need to make a better life for themselves. In my electorate, as recently as this weekend I was at a local festival, where I often seek out the mums and the kids to talk to them about what their aspirations are and what schools they're attending. I'm always thrilled to hear from parents that they think that our school system is doing a great job. They think that their child is having that aspiration instilled in them in their classroom and that they're getting appropriately challenged.
I want to talk specifically about the kids in my electorate. I made a call today to friends at Werribee Secondary College. Last year, 2016, of a cohort of 205 students completing year 12, 124 students went on to higher tertiary education, 60 went on to TAFE, 12 are completing an apprenticeship and 16 are in full employment. Of those that went to university, 27 went to Melbourne and Monash, 68 went to Swinburne, RMIT, Deakin and La Trobe, and 23 went on to Vic uni, ACU and other tertiary institutions. That was unheard of 15 years ago in my electorate. I congratulate the teachers involved in those journeys, and the parents with them, to build that aspiration and expectation and to build an understanding that lifelong learning will change lives. But, if this bill passes and this government gets its way, students will be faced with 7.5 per cent higher HELP fees and the threshold for when they begin to pay them back will be lowered—that is right: lowered. The loan repayments currently kick in at around $55K and will be reduced to $42,000. That's just a few thousand dollars more than the minimum wage. Changes to the indexation from average weekly earnings to CPI will also increase the burden on students.
We have to know—I do after four years in this place—that, where there's a change like that, there's a calculated save, so that means a cost to the students. One could be cruelly ironic and suggest that, after the penalty rate cuts, the government is lowering the repayment threshold to account for reduced wages, but surely that would be too cruel. The justifications come back to bean counters looking at education as a cost rather than as an investment—rather than from the point of view of what we as a country should aspire to be: a highly educated population of people committed to lifelong learning so that we can continue to change and shape this nation, change and shape our economy, change and shape our industry and change and shape our science. The bill's practical application risks entrenching poverty and enshrining privilege. It risks locking out our best and brightest because of the family income or the travel costs and the time. All manner of things go into motivating young people to pursue and fulfil their potential. The measures in this bill will make that harder.
Another objectionable measure is the changes for permanent residents and New Zealander students living in Australia. They will be moved from Commonwealth supported places to full-fee places with access to FEE-HELP loans. This is an injustice and I cannot speak too passionately about this. I spent Saturday morning in my electorate at the Rugby Union junior finals. As you can imagine, there were a few Kiwis there—a few taxpaying, hardworking New Zealanders who've spent their lives in this country and are raising their children in this country—and they are furious about this measure. How dare a government in this country determine that their children don't deserve the same chance as the kids they're sitting next to in the classroom? What manner of government cannot foresee what this means? Let me take it from a simple perspective. It means that those families will have to think about sending their child back to live with relatives in New Zealand so that they can access higher education or take on enormous debt by paying full fees. This is unfair and it is cruel.
Let's think about the other ramifications. I know, as a classroom teacher, a senior English teacher and someone who taught years 11 and 12 for years and years, that, if you set up this double class system and say, 'You can go to university, and you can't because of cost,' you've just destroyed my senior classroom, because I've got children I can't motivate. I've got children whose aspiration has been killed before they walk through the door. This is crazy—absolutely crazy. To do this to these people is beyond belief. The impacts will be felt throughout the country. It's just the cruelty of it that I do not understand. I really do feel for those New Zealanders who I know who live and work in my electorate, who work hard every day and whose children go to our schools. They are going to be cut off from the contribution that they might make to this great country.
This legislation is all about cuts. I want to go to one of the areas where we're not sure yet what the ramifications are, but we should have known that this minister, once he had finished gutting schools, would move next to universities. We should have known that, although they couldn't get the last tranche of their changes to higher education through, they would be back with a different version, a slightly adjusted version, but a version with mostly bad news. One of those things is the lack of modelling and the unknown implications of the legislation that's before us. One of those things is, of course, the extension of the demand-driven sector to sub-bachelor for universities. We don't know what impact this will have on our public TAFE sector, which states around this country are desperately trying to rebuild. We don't know what the impact will be on that TAFE sector, and that is a crying shame. This government should have modelled that, and this government should make sure that, whatever it's doing in higher education, it's not doing anything that will stop TAFE being re-established and back in public hands where it belongs.
The other area that I'm really concerned about—I'll go back to the notion of lifelong learning—is that they are going to now charge people for what has been called an enabling course. In my neck of the woods, we call it a bridging course. They're courses that I have worked on in schools with students who have gone off and got a job and perhaps lost the job. Then they reconnect with the school, and careers counsellors sit with them and say: 'You always had the potential. You just never made the commitment. How about you do one of these bridging courses and pursue the dream you had when you were in year 10 of going to university? Why don't you do that?' These aren't kids from families who can just splash out $3,000. If they've left school, had a job, taken on debts—probably a car loan—and lost their job then their parents are already helping out, and now we're going to put a charge on their bridge to tertiary education.
It's not just young people. The figures will reflect the number of mums, the number of women with children, who decide to establish themselves in a bridging program with the hope of pursuing tertiary qualifications and being able to cut themselves free from any kind of government support and raise their children on a decent salary.
There are so many elements of this bill that are not good news for Australia. There are elements of this bill that reflect poorly on this government. They reflect poorly because in a time when we should be investing in our young people, in our adults, in our future and in our training, and in a time when we should be aspiring to be the best in the world and we are in a highly globalised and competitive market, it is the time to invest in our people. It is not a time to let the bean counters loose so they can find money for a $65 billion tax cut for multimillionaires and corporations. This is not that time.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:49): I rise to speak against the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. I do so because if this legislation is carried by this parliament it will undermine tertiary education in Australia as we know it. This bill represents a $3.8 billion cut to higher education in this country. It is a cut that's across the board and a cut that will damage the nature of educational opportunity in this country.
This is a cut, of course, that overwhelmingly will have an impact on young Australians. It is an increase to the average student contribution towards the cost of a degree from 42 per cent up to 46 per cent. It represents a $12,000 decrease to the amount that a graduate is allowed to earn—a decrease to $42,000—before the mandatory repayment of HECS-HELP fees begins. Furthermore, access to Commonwealth supported places for permanent residents and New Zealand citizens studying in Australia will be removed indefinitely. It is ironic, given the debate that has taken place over the citizenship of the Deputy Prime Minister in this country, that they're undermining the ability and capacity of New Zealand citizens to fully participate in Australian society.
It is a concern that across the board this represents an attack on opportunity. Whilst student contributions are increased and repayment thresholds are lowered for all tertiary institutions, including TAFE and vocational education and training students, those worst hit in this latest round of cuts are our universities. Australian universities are about to be subjected to a 2.5 per cent funding cut that Malcolm Turnbull's coalition, in its finest example of doublespeak yet, calls an efficiency dividend. Not to mention the 7.5 per cent hike in student fees over the next four years and the removal of Commonwealth supported places for postgraduate students.
This, of course, is about government priorities—whether a government priority is corporate tax cuts for the top end of town or whether it is providing support for the higher education needs of our country. If Australia is going to prosper in the Asian century, we need to prosper on the basis of how smart we are and how innovative we are, and on the capacity of our human capital to compete in this region. We shouldn't try to compete by lowering wages and conditions and we shouldn't try to compete by undermining the capacity of our population—particularly our young population—but this is what the government would do. This is what this legislation represents.
It also represents, I believe, a fundamental, philosophical divide across this chamber. Those in the Liberal Party seem to believe that education is just about benefitting the individual—that an individual benefits and gets a higher income, and that they should therefore contribute more to that educational opportunity. The problem with that is twofold. Firstly, it doesn't understand or take into account the fact that increasing educational opportunity and increasing the capacity of our population—particularly our younger generations—to make the most of themselves and to educate themselves in ways which both contribute commercially to the economy and contribute to their capacity to make a difference in society, is a benefit for that society as a whole. It's not just about the individual and the benefit to them.
That is a fundamental difference in what Labor has always understood about education: that education is the great enabler. That is why the Hawke government and the Keating government were very proud of the fact that in 1983 some three out of 10 Australian young people completed their Higher School Certificate and, at the end of that period in 1996, that figure was above eight out of 10. That was a great legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments. That followed the great Whitlam government reforms that opened up tertiary education to working-class people.
Many of us who sit in this chamber would be the first people in their families to complete a university degree. I was the first person in my family to complete schooling, let alone a university degree. That means that we maximise the benefit for the individual, but we also maximise the benefit to the economy and to society as a whole by maximising the collective potential of those people who make up our local communities.
Federal Labor came into office in 2007—something that we will be celebrating in coming months. We increased funding for universities from $8 billion to $14 billion over our six years in office, a $6 billion increase in contributions to universities. During that period, we saw again a massive increase in the number of people who were able to go to university. That changed the composition of the people who were going to universities. People from lower and middle incomes who had been missing out then got that opportunity.
Labor also has a plan for TAFE and the vocational education and training sector. The last Labor government contributed over $19 billion in Commonwealth funding towards the VET and TAFE sector, including investment in infrastructure and technology upgrades. There is legislation before this parliament to abolish funds that Labor established—the Building Australia Fund, to build transport infrastructure, which was approved by Infrastructure Australia; and the Education Investment Fund, which was for building education infrastructure around the country. They just want to abolish those.
The reinvigoration of TAFE and VET courses is of particular importance to me. The Design Centre Enmore, one of the most notable TAFEs in New South Wales, resides in the inner west. This centre specialises in industrial design, fashion design and visual design, and has flourished in spite of the cuts to services imposed by the coalition and reinforced by the state government, which has also undermined TAFE. Just down the road, Petersham TAFE in West Street has been forced to close its doors. It specialised in communications. How extraordinary is it that a TAFE centre in a global city like Sydney specialising in communications, giving young people that opportunity, has shut its doors because of cuts by the New South Wales coalition government, reinforced by the attitude of the federal government?
It is because of Labor's proven track record and our belief in higher education that we will oppose the measures in this bill that increase student fees and lower the HECS, HELP, TAFE and VET repayment thresholds. We oppose these changes, just as we opposed and successfully defeated the proposal from Tony Abbott in the last term of government to have $100,000 degrees. We know that the changes proposed in this legislation come at a time when Australians are paying the sixth-highest level of university fees in the OECD. The memory of university fee deregulation is still fresh in the minds of most. Had this plan been accepted, we would have had a two-tiered higher education system—the privileged, who could afford it, and the underprivileged, who could not. One of the great distinctions and divides in Australian politics is between Labor, who believe in creating opportunity, and our conservative opponents, who believe in entrenching privilege. And that is why we see education as the great enabler.
I am concerned with this legislation and the impact that it has on universities. Universities support more than 130,000 jobs across Australia. If you cut an amount of funding from an institution, somewhere down the line a job is lost. If you cut $3.8 billion from the institutions, you could be certain that the jobs lost will be in the thousands. That's important in local institutions like the University of Sydney and the University of Technology Sydney, which service my electorate even though they're just outside my boundaries. But it is also critically important for universities like the University of New England, in Armidale, the University of Newcastle and the University of Wollongong. All of these campuses have had a critical role to play in those local regional economies.
One of the things Australia has been very good at over the years is developing new technology and innovation—whether it be solar technology at the Australian National University or the University of New South Wales or wi-fi and information technology down at the University of Wollongong. Across the board our universities have been world class in innovation, research, ideas and breakthroughs. What we haven't always been good at it commercialising those opportunities and value-adding so that we create the jobs here in Australia. And the real debate should be how we do that, how we maximise the intellectual capacity that we have here into job creation down the line.
This government really isn't interested in that, though. A university campus, a TAFE campus or a school they just see as a target for cuts. Australian electrical engineer Dr John O'Sullivan invented an integral component of wi-fi while looking for a way to measure the mass of a black hole. Dr O'Sullivan undertook his undergraduate degree in engineering at Sydney uni. Australian writer Garth Nix penned the Old Kingdom trilogy, an internationally successful series that raised the bar for science fiction and fantasy writers worldwide. He was a graduate of the University of Canberra. Across the board, there is enormous success that we should be proud of.
This legislation would provide a loss of over $600 million in my home state of New South Wales alone. This legislation is not worthy of support in this parliament. This legislation will undermine our capacity as an economy. It will hurt individuals and their capacity to make the most of themselves in life and provide support to their family. It will undermine our standing on the global stage, where we've been very proud of the high ranking that our universities have reached over recent years. Nelson Mandela said that education is the most powerful weapon with which you can change the world. Nelson Mandela was right. This legislation is wrong.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:04): From 1996 to 1999, Prime Minister John Howard and his education ministers consistently and systematically attacked the Australian higher education system. Two billion dollars was taken from the university system in that period alone. Clearly, cutting university funding is in the Liberals' DNA. The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 would bring about almost double those cuts, $3.8 billion, and, on top of that, $4 billion to go from the education infrastructure fund. The Group of Eight, representing Australia's top universities, describes it as 'the most brutal cuts by a federal government in more than 20 years'. And this comes at a time when the need for post-school education has never been as high.
Right from the start, I want to make clear that the TAFE and university sectors both require fair funding. Both have a vital and complementary role in skilling up the workforce for employment opportunities that lie ahead of us in the 21st century. Let's talk, though, about the impact of these government cuts to university education on students. When Labor were last in government, we lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013—$1 billion a year, every year, of improvement. What was even more significant than that money was that we opened the door to universities to an additional 190,000 Australians. Many of them were the first in their family to go to university.
But this government's decision to increase student fees delivers a blow to aspiring students just like them. In my electorate of Macquarie, students attend universities all over Sydney and beyond—Wollongong, Charles Sturt, Newcastle—but a large number, around 2,000 of them at any one time, attend Western Sydney University, and more than half of them are the first in their family to go to university. This university, Western Sydney University, is the uni that will lose the biggest amount of any university in New South Wales.
I just want you to imagine what it's like to be the first in your family to consider going to university. The current university fees are daunting enough, but this bill means that if you're thinking about university they're going to get worse. I have noticed in my time here that those opposite seem to lack a bit of imagination. It might be hard to imagine, if they were lucky enough to have a whole family of tertiary people around them and have an expectation that university was their path. I was lucky enough to have that expectation, but I see so many kids where that is not the case. So I'm going to ask you to imagine, just for once, Deputy Speaker, what it's like. I'd ask those on the other side to imagine what it's like.
It isn't easy being the first in your family, especially when people quiz you on just what job you'll do when you've got your arts degree or even your master's. And trying to explain what a master's is—that's a whole other conversation. It's hard to explain that the skills you learn, which I know these kids learn, are sometimes as much about the journey of processing huge amounts of information, researching things, taking on new ideas and turning them into a coherent argument. It's as much about that as the actual subject itself. Until you've done your degree, you don't even realise what you've learnt or where it might help you contribute to the world of work. So it can be hard trying to explain to your family that you're just not sure what your major will be, let alone what job you might ultimately do. I see the uncertainty of young people, really capable young people, who are not sure if university is for them, because no-one in their family has ever done it before. It doesn't take much to discourage or dampen that ambition, to deter them from pursuing it and to destroy their confidence in themselves. It's a really intimidating situation.
This government might think you can keep making it harder and harder for people to lift their educational standards, but future employers and our economy will pay a heavy price for this failure to invest in higher education. One of the most short-sighted and mean parts of this bill is around funding for enabling courses. The crushing of confidence is nowhere more apparent than in the decision to introduce fees for enabling courses. Enabling courses help students prepare for university study. These students are overwhelmingly from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, until now, these courses have been free. Even then it's daunting. It's a taste of what might come, and that in itself is intimidating. It's a pathway for students to test and see whether they could thrive in a university environment and whether they're ready for a degree course.
Now the government is trying to make students pay $3,200 for these courses. The member for Dobell and I did some quick calculations, and we worked out a way that this might be able to be removed from this legislation. The cost of the marriage equality survey—that's $122 million—would pay for around 38,000 enabling courses. We think that would be a much better use of money. As it is, these young kids and older people who haven't been to university but who think that it might be a way forward for them to improve their professional standing and to give them a broader job opportunity are now facing a $3,200 bill.
The danger of the change, which will affect in my electorate, on average, about two dozen people who go to Western Sydney University at any one time, is that these people will simply be deterred from even considering entering university. Right now we should be encouraging people, young and older, to be exploring their education options so that they're equipped for the workforce. All this measure will do is marginalise a group of people, stifle their hope and stifle their opportunity. That may well be the aim of those opposite, although I hope not—to keep people in their place and not give them access to ambition.
I also want you to imagine what impact this bill has on people paying back their HELP debt. After years of subsistence as a student, followed by the time it takes to get a full-time job even with a degree, it can feel good to have a half-decent income, not just a mishmash of casual hospitality jobs that so many students use to support themselves through that study. But, before you've even had a chance to build your savings and get ahead, the repayment kicks in. At $54,869, as it stands now, there is a bit of a buffer, but under this bill you have to start paying back the loan you've accrued when you're earning $42,000. That's only $6,000 above the minimum wage. In Sydney, and in my electorate in particular, that doesn't go very far. When you do the numbers, an income of $51,000 with tax taken out and repayments made means you actually leave someone with $32,000 in disposable income. So, if you adjust those figures down, you are making life really, really difficult. It's another disincentive to people who look to university education to lift their job prospects and earning power that it will become an even longer slog to get your head above water financially.
As the National Union of Students says, these changes leave young Australians far worse off than generations before them. They point out:
This generation is already faced with a severely insecure job market, low wages and a housing market that is in crisis.
Already they face the sixth-highest university fees in the OECD countries. Their fear is of a lifetime of serious debt. And let's not assume that the students are only interested in the impact on themselves. As the NUS says, higher education is Australia's third-largest export, and expenditure of 0.7 per cent of GDP returns around eight per cent in GDP. So it is a small investment for a big return, and that's just one part of the equation.
One of the other impacts of this bill, inevitably, is that it will likely dent the quality that Australian universities are able to provide, which puts at risk that international reputation. Just this month, eight Australian universities were listed in the top 100 for their ability to produce employable students, something we would all welcome. But the global rankings editorial director, Phil Baty, has said that these cuts to government funding could actually result in Australia's standing falling. He said:
It is good news that Australia's universities have held steady in this year's table but funding cuts proposed by the government could seriously harm the country's institutions in future editions of the rankings.
Mr Baty points out that the data shows Australia's leading institutions are already starting to fall behind peers in mainland China and Hong Kong, who, of course, not only are sources of students for our export dollars but also will compete for those export dollars. So really this bill is not great for the economy.
Another short-sighted decision in this bill is to cut the Education Infrastructure Fund—the extra $4 billion cut. This fund, established under Labor, has helped create innovative and modern learning and research spaces around the country. I know a bit about three of them. The Australian Centre for Indigenous Knowledges & Education in Darwin—ACIKE—is a collaboration between the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and Charles Darwin University. This fund allowed a building to be created, a space where Indigenous learning could happen. ACIKE aspires to international renown for excellence in teaching programs, community engagement and research endeavours all through this state-of-the-art learning hub. It is a real asset for Darwin and for higher education in Darwin.
Another facility funded by the EIF is the nanoscience lab—one of the most advanced research and teaching facilities globally in the field of nanoscience—at the University of Sydney. I know very little about nanoscience, but what I know is that to do the research you need an incredibly stable building. It can't move when the wind blows outside or when the trains run underneath. This centre houses high-level research in one of the most advanced buildings on this planet. It looks into areas of battery technology and the growing field of photonics, where you have laser lights directly interacting with traditional semiconductors, and all this cutting edge technology.
The third building that has been funded under the EIF that I know of and have familiarity with is what was originally called the Centre for Climate Change and Energy Research—now called the UWS Institute for the Environment—in Richmond on the Hawkesbury campus of Western Sydney University. Again, this is a place doing world-leading research. In fact, researchers from all over the world move to my electorate to do their research here. I had the privilege of taking the climate change shadow minister, Mark Butler, to this site just a few weeks ago to look at some of the incredible work they're doing on soil biology, genomics and plant and animal interactions.
One of the projects that they're doing is the 'eucalyptus free air CO2 enrichment experiment', otherwise known as EucFACE. This is a series of six metal structures in the Cumberland Plain. They surround patches of bush. They are nine storeys high, with 43-metre cranes hanging above them. In this open structure, which looks a bit like a cylinder with metal prongs sticking up, is native bush, and CO2 is pumped into it. It's pumped in at an elevated concentration similar to that which is predicted to occur in the next 35 years. It is billed as the most complex climate change experiment in the world, and the data that is constantly generated in the soil, in the canopy and everywhere in between is made available to researchers globally. None of this would have been possible without the Education Investment Fund. I can only imagine what new innovations we are going to miss out on because this government has effectively suffocated opportunities for universities to build these incredible spaces. Those are some of the immediate impacts.
When I look at my local university, Western Sydney University, I see we are going to lose jobs. Those jobs will be based on all the campuses—Penrith, Hawkesbury, Werrington, Parramatta. We're also going to potentially lose the opportunity to nurture SMEs, start-ups and entrepreneurs. This is something the university does out of its surplus funding—a whole $10 million surplus, not very much in the big scheme of things, but that surplus is going to disappear. I worry about the jobs we will lose, the innovation we will miss out on, the opportunities that the students at that university will not have—but, even more than that, the opportunities that will be lost to students who make the decision that they can't face a debt of the size that this bill will land on them. That's actually our economic future we are talking about. We are making a choice in this parliament. If those on the opposite side support this bill, it is an active decision to reduce the opportunity for higher education that students around this country have, and that is shameful.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member and I'm sure she was aided by 'the member for Port Adelaide' and not 'Mr Butler'. I just remind members to refer to other members by their correct titles. I give the call to the honourable member for Kingsford Smith.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:19): I'm speaking in opposition to most of the elements of the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 and in support of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Sydney. Pensioners, families, small businesses and school students have all been attacked by this government, and now, with this bill, we can add to that group university students. These are the groups of Australians whose lot in life has been made much harder by this Turnbull government. We've seen skyrocketing electricity prices make life more difficult for families, pensioners, and small businesses. We've seen cuts to school budgets through changes to the Gonski principles and that model of funding introduced by this government. We've seen cuts to health care and Medicare and an ideological attack on universal health care in Australia by this government. We've seen low-paid workers have their incomes attacked through changes to the Fair Work Act and, of course, through cuts to penalty rates that have been cheered on by this Turnbull government. And now we have an ideological attack on the university students of Australia through this bill.
At a time when our economy is stop-start—two steps forward, one step back—when the economy has been spluttering over recent years and when we need to improve our nation's productivity if we're going to boost growth and employment in our community, the worst thing a government can do is underinvest in education, make life harder for students and increase fees for university students. That is exactly what this bill does and it is why Labor opposes it. At a time when we should be investing in education for our young people and ensuring that they have the skills necessary to compete in a much-changed and more competitive marketplace, this government prefers to cut funding for universities and make life harder for students across Australia.
As part of this bill, the maximum student contributions will rise by 1.8 per cent for four years from 2018, resulting in a total 7.5 per cent increase from 2021. The first increase will take effect on 1 January 2018 and will apply to all students, including those who are currently enrolled, and Commonwealth contribution amounts will be similarly adjusted each year from 2018 through to 2021 to reflect increased student contribution amounts in those years. An efficiency dividend of 2.5 per cent per annum will apply to grants made under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme in 2018 and 2019. The efficiency dividend is a contribution from the revenue benefits of the demand-driven funding system. Medical students' loading will be extended to include veterinary science and dentistry units under study in 2018 to improve the funding arrangements for these courses. Currently our students pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. The fee hikes in this bill will make that situation even worse, and our rankings will once again fall in terms of affordability.
In the community that I represent, in Kingsford Smith, we're quite fortunate to have a world-class university in the University of New South Wales at Kensington. I was fortunate to be a student at this university and it's what all kids in the community that I represent aspire to. They dream of being able to get the marks in their HSC to attend the University of New South Wales and get a world-class tertiary education. This bill makes it harder for those kids in our community, particularly those kids that come from a low-socioeconomic background or are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, because, quite simply, some of them will not be able to afford the fee increases proposed in these bills. Unfortunately, the coalition has made life more difficult for younger people to participate in our society and to get a good job.
Kingsford Smith has the sixth-highest rates of mortgage repayments in the country and the eighth-highest rents. The cost of housing in our community is bringing many young people to their knees. Many times when I walk down the street, I'm approached by young people and their parents saying they simply will not be able to afford to buy a house or to rent in the community where they grew up and where their family networks are, and go to universities in their community, like the University of New South Wales. Joe Hockey's solution to this was just, 'Get a better job,' and the Prime Minister's solution to this is, 'If you've got rich parents, they can chip in and help you buy a house.' We all know that that is not the reality for most Australian families in this country.
In contrast, Labor knows and understands just how difficult it is for people to get an education, but we want to support them. We want to make sure that there is a clear pathway for kids to undertake a decent education in Australia, from early childhood development right through to emeritus professor at university—a pathway such that education and access to education are based on your talents and on your commitment, not on your parents' bank balance. But, unfortunately, this type of reform reintroduces that sort of system into this country.
Now, when Labor was last in government, we increased our investment in universities. We lifted the investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. It was the largest commitment and investment in university education from an Australian government at the time when we left office. We opened the doors to universities for an additional 190,000 Australians, many of whom were the first in their families to get access to a university education. And why did we lift participation in universities? Because it's good for the individual and it's good for the Australian economy. Every single study, every single bit of research, indicates that the more you educate a person then the more productive they become not only in terms of their own personal contribution to the economy but for the nation's income growth and productivity.
Labor is also supportive of the wonderful research that is undertaken at our universities. At the University of New South Wales, we have world-leading research facilities in photovoltaic and solar research and in quantum computing, where Professor Michelle Simmons and her team are leading the world in developing a silicon based quantum computer. The research world is in awe of some of the results that they have received so far.
One of the world's greatest medical teaching resources is at the University of New South Wales, working in collaboration with the Prince of Wales Hospital. This is world-class leading research that has changed the world. It has definitely changed the world. The fact that the University of New South Wales PV and solar research facility has the world record for conversion of sunlight into energy is something that we all should be very, very proud of. And they are housed in a building that was funded by the Labor government through the Education Investment Fund—the Tyree Energy Technologies Building. It has a six-star energy rating, I might add; it is one of the world's most energy-efficient buildings. When you walk into that building you see many, many students undertaking research. They are doing their PhDs and working with some of the best researchers in photovoltaic and solar research anywhere in the world.
When I was there recently—and the member for Port Adelaide joined me there over the last 12 months to have a look at the research that's going on there—one of the researchers who is working there described that facility perfectly to me. He said: 'If you want to work in space research, you want to go to NASA. If you want to work in solar and photovoltaics, you want to work at the University of New South Wales.' You want to work in that Tyree building, funded by the Education Investment Fund that this government is seeking to cut through its cuts to that particular fund and its cuts to university research.
In his 2014 budget reply, Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Labor Party, set an aspiration for Australia to devote three per cent of our GDP to research and development by 2030. Achieving this will require governments, universities and research organisations to work with industry to boost the development and the resources that go into research in this country. And what we're doing here with this bill is the complete antithesis of that; it's the complete opposite of that. Labor believes that every university in Australia should be doing great research, and we've pledged to help our regional outer metropolitan and smaller universities to get a fair go through the Collaborative Research Networks program. As well as working together, Labor wants universities to work better with industry and other end users to spread the benefits of their research and, of course, to encourage entrepreneurialism in students.
We aim to boost the Industrial Transformation Research Program introduced by the previous Labor government, which would have enabled at least four additional research hubs to be funded in each of the five rounds that were coming up. This would have facilitated more industries in transition to have access to excellent research, to improve their productivity and to create the jobs of the future. The bill before us is the complete antithesis of that.
This bill before us is also quite lacking in detail. There is very, very little detail about how the bill will work. The government's new voucher system for postgraduate places is simply a thought bubble. It's an idea without substance. It's a solution without a problem. There are approximately 35,000 postgraduate CSP students in Australia, and the government is proposing to hand over the funding allocation to the minister or some new private body to distribute it. The unis think that this is a poorly thought out idea, and so does Labor. In fact, according to a poll conducted recently by JWS Research for Universities Australia, almost two-thirds of Australians are opposed to what this government is doing when it comes to universities: increasing fees for students, cutting grants for research, cutting funding and making fees rise. Up to 62 per cent of voters are opposed to the changes, compared with 16 per cent who support what the government is doing through this bill.
As quoted by The Guardian today, Universities Australia chief executive Belinda Robertson said the poll showed that cuts contained in the bill were 'way out of kilter with community sentiment'. She said:
Voters don't want to see cuts to universities, which are key drivers of economic growth because they create new jobs, re-skill Australians and secure $24bn a year in export income.
Universities and their students have already contributed almost $4bn to repair the budget over the last six years. Clearly, the Australian community is saying enough is enough: no more uni cuts.
I couldn't have put it better myself. That's exactly what the Australian people are thinking. They're sick and tired of this government attacking pensioners, attacking young families, attacking workers, attacking school students and now attacking university and TAFE students through initiatives such as this. They want to see a government that is fair dinkum about education and fair dinkum about universities and their research, investing in universities and investing in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote down those particular provisions in this bill.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (18:32): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. What can one say about a government that is hell-bent on deliberately cutting funding to university education? It is hard to believe that the Abbott and Turnbull governments have done and are doing to Australian universities and university students.
When the Turnbull government announced they were going to cut university funding by $3.8 billion over four years and lower the payment threshold for students, I thought the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, was Prime Minister again. This is the same outrageously unfair university package that the Abbott government tried to sell in 2014. All the Turnbull government has done is wrap up the same unfair package in glossy paper and put a fancy tinsel bow on top. No-one is fooled. Everyone can smell this bill for what it really is: an attack on the less fortunate in our community because it promotes elitist education.
Time and time again, coalition governments want to attack universities and university students. For the life of me, I simply cannot understand why, especially when the majority of the Turnbull government front bench have benefitted from a free university education thanks to the Whitlam Labor government. The majority of coalition frontbenchers attended university between 1974 and 1988, when students did not pay any fees. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and front bench members such as Attorney-General George Brandis, Minister for Defence Marise Payne and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott are among those who attended university when a university education was free. In total, eight Turnbull government ministers were at university when students were not charged fees, while another eight would have had at least one year of free university education. Why is this noteworthy? It points to the absolute hypocrisy of the Turnbull government frontbenchers who have benefitted from a free education at university but who want to make savage cuts to universities and students by raising the costs of their degrees and lowering the income threshold.
The Turnbull government will not allow anyone else to reap the same benefits from a university education as they have done. Their degrees have given them greater earning capacity and career opportunities than those people who have not had the opportunity to gain a university qualification. Universities Australia's chief executive, Belinda Robinson, said:
… the Australian community could see it made no sense to cut university funding at a time of rapid and dramatic economic change.
Ms Robinson also said that the government's plan to cut funding to universities is 'way out of kilter with community sentiment'. She went on to say:
Voters don’t want to see cuts to universities – which are key drivers of economic growth – because they create new jobs, reskill Australians and secure $24 billion a year in export income.
Universities and their students have already contributed almost $4 billion to repair the Budget over the last six years. Clearly, the Australian community is saying enough is enough: no more uni cuts.
According to a 2012 report by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, based at the University of Canberra, people with university qualifications are likely to earn more than $1 million more than those without degrees. The irony of this is that a number of the Turnbull government's members started their careers in politics at university. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott enrolled in a combined economics/law degree at the University of Sydney in 1976 and became president of the student representative council in 1978. Nine years later, former treasurer Joe Hockey also became student representative council president at the University of Sydney. Minister for Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg was President of the Monash Law Student Society. Most politicians have had access to a quality university education that has delivered them myriad benefits, and it is time the Turnbull government put all of today's students at the heart of their policies.
The Group of Eight comprises Australia's top eight universities. A number of the Turnbull government members have attended a Go8 university, so one would think that they would take recommendations made by the Go8 very seriously. Recently, the Group of Eight made a number of recommendations as a result of the independent review into regional, rural and remote education. Not surprisingly, the No. 1 recommendation was
That the Senate block the current Higher Education Reform Bill as this puts at risk a broad range of university capacity-building, including highly successful equity programs.
The same university that Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull attended is recommending that the Senate block his own legislation—recommendations wisely given but, sadly, falling on deaf ears.
The Group of Eight have also recommended that the federal government ensures that policies to support higher education outcomes for regional students are well designed and adequately and consistently funded. The federal government continues to invest in equity programs over the long term to support regional and remote students, including by increasing the value of the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program to $205.1 million per year as was forecast in Labor's 2012-13 budget for the 2015-16 year. They recommended that the federal government review eligibility criteria for youth allowance and other linked student income support programs to ensure that they provide an appropriate level of support for students from regional areas. There is absolutely no mention of cuts to university funding and no mention of drug testing for those people on Newstart or youth allowance. The members of the Turnbull government have received a big fail on their policy, a fail on their cuts and a fail on their plans for university, which were handed down by the universities that they attended.
The Turnbull government is cutting $401.8 million from Queensland universities. James Cook University in North Queensland will receive a cut of $37.1 million over four years. Teaching, student programs and university facilities will suffer as a result of these cuts. These cuts will damage Australia's research effort. There is an implicit cross-subsidy to research, accepted throughout the higher education sector, through the Commonwealth grants scheme and this comes on top of the government's attempts to abolish the $3.7 billion nation-building Education Investment Fund. Australia has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD. These cuts will only make our record worse.
Our students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. The fee hikes in this bill will only make that record worse as well. Students will be put under pressure with higher fees and paying off larger debts sooner. Students will have to start paying back their loan when they are earning $42,000 instead of $54,869. The Higher Education Loan Program repayments will hit students at a time when they are trying to save for a house or start a family. Forty-two thousand dollars is approximately $6,000 more than the minimum wage.
Lowering the HELP repayment threshold, in combination with tax and transfer measures included in the 2017 budget, will mean that some graduates will face an effective marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent. Graduates caught between these policies will experience considerable fiscal and financial stress. Graduates earning $51,000, most of whom are likely to be women, will have less disposable income than someone earning $32,000.
The Turnbull government's disastrous policies go beyond attacking university students. They are also attacking TAFE students. As a TAFE teacher in a previous life, I know just how unfair that truly is. But the government doesn't like to talk about this. The lower repayment threshold for HELP debt will also apply to TAFE and vocational students who took out VET FEE-HELP or VET student loans. This means that some of the hardest working but most modestly paid people in the country will be affected—for example, people with a diploma or advanced diploma qualification, such as early childhood educators, enrolled nurses and technicians.
What is even worse is the move by the Turnbull government to introduce fees for enabling courses, which provide essential skills and confidence to prepare students for university. Students who finish these courses have gone on to become nurses, accountants, doctors and lawyers. These students are overwhelmingly from disadvantaged and under-represented backgrounds. These courses have been free, as they do not lead to a formal qualification. However, this government is trying to make these students pay $3,200 to sit in an enabling course. This shift is mean and unfair because we know that, for a majority of these students, fees and debt are a barrier to study.
And what impact will these cuts have on jobs? Universities support more than 130,000 jobs across Australia. Cuts to universities will put jobs at risk, especially in regional areas—like in James Cook University and Central Queensland University in Townsville. No-one, absolutely no-one, is in favour of the Turnbull government's university cuts. The peak body for universities, Universities Australia, said that an overwhelming majority of vice-chancellors could not recommend that the crossbench support this bill. The NTEU, the sector's union, is opposed to the bill because of the impact that the cuts and fee hikes will have on students. TAFEs are deeply concerned about the impact that changes will have on their ability to offer certain enabling and pathway courses. Student groups are fiercely opposed to increases in fees and changes to loan repayments.
It seems as though the only plan that the Turnbull government has for universities is to cut, cut, cut. It's simply in its DNA to cut education funding—for example, $17 billion in cuts to schools; $2.8 billion in cuts to TAFE, with a further cut of $637,000 in this year's budget; a $3.8 billion cut to Australian universities; and increases in fees and debts for students. The question is: why is this government so hell-bent on these cuts? It is because it wants to give a $65 billion tax cut to big business.
Labor governments are the only governments that will ever fight for a fair and properly funded education system. It is only Labor that has a history of delivering accessible and affordable education for all. Labor understands that governments are supposed to support universities to support students to support the jobs of the future. When Labor were last in government, we lifted investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. Labor also opened the doors to our universities for an additional 190,000 Australians, many of whom were the first in their family to attend university. Why did Labor lift participation in universities? It was because Labor understands that education is the cornerstone to innovation and our economic future. We know that many of the jobs of the future will require a postschool qualification. That's why cutting funding to TAFE and universities is one of the worst decisions a government can make.
Many parents across Australia see a university education as a necessary opportunity to give their children the best career options. Tertiary education is not only the right of a privileged few. If we are to be a nation that is ready for the challenges, innovations and jobs of the future, we must invest in education. The Turnbull government is out of touch in creating a situation where students are required to pay even more for their education while the government gives corporations making millions of dollars a tax cut. The Parliamentary Budget Office is predicting that student fees will soar by 40 per cent as universities recover the costs as a result of the Turnbull government's planned 20 per cent government funding cut.
The Turnbull government must stop recycling former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's policies. Nobody wants the zombified Abbott policies—they were scary enough the first time! Education is a human right. It is not for the few who can afford it. Education is for everyone. In particular, aspiration and access should not be based on your earning capacity or your parents' credit card. In the words chanted by some of the many passionate university students, 'BS, come off it. Our education is not for profit.'
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:46): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. Higher education is very important. I know people of my ilk and many others benefited from the reforms that Gough Whitlam introduced, and many members who have contributed from this side of the House in this debate would have been the first from their families, as I was, to go to university.
The electorate I represent is very multicultural, as everybody knows, but it is not a rich electorate. Mums and dads there work pretty damn hard to make sure their kids get a good education. Education is one of the biggest things that ring true to those people in my community aspiring to create a better life for their families and their children.
The minister, in her second reading speech, boasted of the reforms as being fair, driving equality and excellence, and ensuring students have choice and opportunity. Maybe that was the speaking point she was given, because how does the government think they are convincing anyone that that can be possibly true? This bill aims to cut university funding by nearly $4 billion, hitting students with higher fees and saddling students with bigger debts that they have to pay back at a time they are probably trying to start a family and service a mortgage. The cuts will compromise teaching and learning, undermine research, and slash investment in universities at a time when the government should be investing in both universities and TAFE to guarantee that we as a country have a strong and productive future. Therefore, we on this side oppose the bill and we oppose it on good grounds.
This is an unfair piece of legislation. It does nothing but undermine the integral value of our tertiary education system, and it will act as an impediment for students and their respective futures. To put these cuts in some perspective, New South Wales institutions alone will lose $617.8 million over the next four years according to Universities Australia. That is $617 million out of various economies. New South Wales is fortunate to have a number of regionally based universities, so this will clearly impact on them. A good colleague, Professor Barney Glover, Vice-Chancellor and President of Western Sydney University, summed up the ramifications of these measures when he stated that these changes the government is proposing constitute a significant risk to the sustainability, quality and competitiveness of Australian universities.
These cuts will be delivered by the same people opposite who cut $17 billion from our schools and $637 million from our TAFE colleges, and now they want to do something very similar to our universities. Bear in mind—you only have to go back to 2013—this is the same group of people that said, 'Trust us; we will not cut education.' They also went on to say they would not cut a raft of other things, all of which they have done.
The government seek to justify this because they are committed to handing out $65 billion of tax cuts to millionaires and big business in this country. Just a piece of simple advice: if you can't cut your coat according to your cloth, don't start taking it off universities and don't start taking it off TAFE colleges, because we actually do need them for our future. We need them to develop our human resources for the future prosperity of this nation. So this cut is nothing other than bad, because what it will do is to enshrine a backward-looking approach to tertiary education in this country. As Professor Colin Stirling, Innovative Research Universities Chair and Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University, said, 'How can we ask students to contribute more to get less in return?' That's a pretty good question, and it raises another.
When the minister said they consulted widely in bringing forward this piece of legislation, she didn't actually go on to say what the universities said. I would've thought that they were critical stakeholders, and these universities certainly aren't running to champion the minister's view. The government keeps proving that it can't be trusted when it comes to some of the most important investments in this country. Investing in our people must be paramount when it comes to determining the priorities of our investment strategies. As I said, the minister said that the government consulted widely, but she failed to say what anyone in the university sector said. But I don't have to advise you; I think everyone in this room knows that the overwhelming majority of vice-chancellors from Australian universities are opposed to this piece of legislation. Vicki Thomson, the chief executive of the Group of Eight universities, believes that the universities have now reached a 'tipping point', a view which she sums up in the following way:
… on top of the $3.9 billion in cuts we have suffered since 2011, our sector has surely done our fair share of the heavy lifting for Budget repair.
That's the issue with the $65 billion tax cut to big business. If you can't afford to give a tax cut to big business of that magnitude, don't. It's as simple as that. But don't think that you can pay for that tax cut by taking it off the future welfare and development of this country, by taking it off our students and those who produce our quality higher education sector.
When these cuts take place, don't forget: there are going to be many, many casualties out there, particularly in electorates like mine—people who just cannot afford to make the changes necessary to accommodate the financial impost that the government are imposing on people. This bill introduces a funding cut for universities through an efficiency dividend of 2.5 per cent on the university grants for 2018-19. Combined with that efficiency dividend, in the bill there is an increase in the student contribution amount of 7.5 per cent over four years. While 7.5 per cent of Commonwealth grants will be reserved for performance funding—and I have got to say that is a principle which our side actually supports—the approach of this government is nothing but punitive. Unlike what we were told by the minister, it doesn't seem that these could be in any way described as 'modest adjustments'. They are clearly an attempt by the government to shift the responsibility of the cost of higher education primarily to the institutions and students. This government is taking away 7.5 per cent of university funding, in addition to a 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend, which will effectively amount to a 10 per cent structural cut to higher education over the next two years. While Mr Turnbull might like to proclaim that he is all about fairness, a $3.8 billion cut to tertiary education, as proposed in this bill, certainly demonstrates that his priorities lie elsewhere. Universities Australia Chair Professor Margaret Gardner sums it up this way:
If 7.5% of each student's funding will not follow the student, but will flow depending on the minister's assessment of whether a university has met benchmarks determined on a changing set of education indicators, then this money cannot prudently be included in the budget.
In other words, there are no specific parameters which form the guidelines, so how could you actually include that as part of a budget scenario? It's clear that the government has gone about implementing the principle of performance based funding the wrong way. It's a policy that amounts to performance funding simply at ministerial discretion.
At the core of this bill is the extension of demand-driven funding to sub-bachelor places. This is a principle that the university sector and Labor in the past have also advocated, following the recommendation of the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education. The bill introduces, in three parts, demand-driven sub-bachelor places: students accessing sub-bachelor places must not hold a degree, the courses must meet industry needs, and the courses must articulate into undergraduate programs. While the concept of a sub-bachelor course is great for those looking for qualifications that fit outside traditional TAFE and university offerings, there is certainly a big concern in the TAFE sector that the sub-bachelor places could give universities an unfair advantage over the normal offerings of TAFE colleges. The government's proposed restrictions are not sufficient to protect TAFE or to support the integrated tertiary education system.
The bill also introduces measures that seek to introduce fees for enabling courses, lower repayment thresholds for HELP, shift New Zealanders and permanent residents from Commonwealth supported places to full-fee-paying places, and introduce a new allocation system for postgraduate Commonwealth supported places.
These measures will no doubt have a significant impact in electorates like mine. They will affect those who are most disadvantaged in our society. Unlike what the name of this bill suggests, these measures do not support a sustainable, world-class higher education system that remains affordable and accessible to all who are eligible, regardless of background or circumstance. For instance, in my electorate of Fowler, which I have already described as not a wealthy electorate, Professor Barney Glover said this bill 'may have an unintended impost on, for example, mature aged students, Indigenous students, individuals with interrupted career paths or reduced employment due to child raising or other life events'.
A very interesting scenario was brought to my attention by a police officer in my local area command, which gives a law enforcement perspective to this. Crime Manager Detective Chief Inspector Darren Newman, from Cabramatta police area command, said he believes that this bill would have a devastating impact on my local community—that's the community that he serves. He believes this would be a massive blow to the aspirations of many young people, undermining the extensive work that police have put in communities such as mine. One of the issues that Darren Newman related to me, which is particularly relevant to those newer communities in the country—particularly those from either African or Islander nations who come here—is that the police work very hard with them. The whole idea is not to wait until a crime is committed but to work with the community, show them that there is opportunity and try to make young people more engaged not only with law enforcement but with the community generally. What Darren Newman said to me was that, where you can show a person who comes from another nation where education may not be valued to the same extent that it is in this country that they can achieve a university qualification and they can graduate with a degree, they can go on to do a range of different things. Where you can show that to their peers, there's a very strong argument that it's almost me-tooism for them: 'If they can do this, I can do this too'. And the police who serve my community say this is very significant, to be able to show all of these young people that they can justifiably have the expectation and aspiration to go to university. To simply make that more difficult, to simply take that away and make it less possible for them, creates a significant problem, as the police see it, in a community such as mine.
There's got to be a better way than doing this. On the one hand, they're simply trying to be the economic rationalists out there and trying to actually justify all this, while on the other hand they're trying to give away $65 billion to big business. If you can't afford to make such a donation to big business, don't do it. Maybe you'd do it at a time when you could afford to, but what they are doing here cuts across all those in a community such as mine. It's necessary for their aspirations, for their expectations of what they can actually do to grow in a country such as Australia. We need these young people. We need these people developing. This is the Whitlam strategy played out large.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (19:01): It's an exciting time for the University of Newcastle.
Mr Butler: There has never been a more exciting time.
Mr CONROY: Absolutely. The new inner-city campus, NeW Space, has recently opened. The previous Labor government provided $30 million for the new campus, along with contributions from the state government and the university. The building is not only visually stunning; it's a tremendous enhancement to Newcastle's CBD and a proud legacy of the last Labor government and our commitment to the Hunter region. This significant funding commitment from the Labor Party is in stark contrast to the Liberal's approach to tertiary education. Indeed, the University of Newcastle will have its funding cut by a staggering $100 million if the government is able to pass its proposals contained in this legislation we are debating right now.
For the past four years, the government has been trying to shift our universities to a user-pays system that excludes poor and middle-class kids. Labor believes in tertiary education as a great enabler. The economic and social benefits of tertiary education speak for themselves. Access to tertiary education should not depend on the wealth of your parents or young people taking out very significant amounts of debt, and so at a time when the University of Newcastle is celebrating an important milestone, it is very disappointing to see the coalition renewing its attacks on this vital sector.
Before outlining what this bill proposes, I briefly want to draw to the attention of the House some shocking statistics about tertiary education in Australia. Of the world's richest countries, Australia has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities. This is a damning statistic. A nation whose economy has grown every year for over a quarter of a century should be leading with investment in universities and research. The government's proposals will only make our record worse. In relation to fees, Australian students already pay the sixth-highest fees amongst developed countries and, again, the government's proposal will make fees even higher.
The government is proposing the following in this bill: a 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend on university grants; increasing student fees by 7.5 per cent; making radical changes to HELP repayments; reducing the threshold when repayments start from $54,800 to $42,000—this is very serious at a time when wages growth is actually shrinking; making significant changes to enabling programs, which are so important for my Hunter region; and attacking New Zealand permanent residents and citizens, some of whom have lived nearly all their lives in Australia. In speaking on this legislation, I also want to bring to the attention of the House the powerful impact enabling programs have had in the Hunter and the fact that the government is cutting these programs.
The statement released from Universities Australia is a damning indictment on the government's proposal. It states:
There was unanimous opposition to the proposals to cut university funding and lift student fees.
It went on:
An overwhelming majority of Vice-Chancellors agreed they could not recommend that the Senate crossbench pass the legislative package.
This is clearly identifying what the government is doing: cutting funding and increasing fees. They are trying to make our education system further restricted to only the very well-off, just as they are trying to restrict our healthcare system to the wealthy in this country. In Australia, access to university should be based on ability, not on a student's ability or their parents' ability to pay for a degree.
I want to talk about the significant impact this bill will have on the University of Newcastle, my local university. The university, as I said, will be worse off to the tune of $100 million because of these cuts. These aren't Labor's figures. The vice-chancellor of the University of Newcastle has confirmed this on the front page of the Newcastle Herald and has recently told a Senate inquiry:
This is really, really tough on universities … We've already contributed to the fiscal efficiencies of the government. You can't continue on that basis.
The University of Newcastle is an icon and a much-respected institution in the Hunter, Central Coast and northern New South Wales. It is a great promoter of economic and social justice. One quarter of students at the University of Newcastle are from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, and almost half are mature-aged students and students who are the first member of their family to attend university. It also has a very significant Indigenous student population—indeed, it ranks first out of Australia's 39 universities for Indigenous enrolments, and we are rightly proud of this. We trained the first Indigenous doctor in this country and we trained the first Indigenous surgeon in this country. Half of all Indigenous medical graduates in this country are produced by the University of Newcastle each year. We've got a great record in that particular area and we are rightly proud of it.
The university is also the largest and oldest provider of enabling programs in Australia, and so it will be particularly impacted by the brutal changes the government is proposing to enabling programs. The government is directly and intentionally limiting the ability of potential mature-aged students and young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to access tertiary education. Again, this isn't just Labor rhetoric. It has been confirmed by the vice-chancellor, who recently told a Senate inquiry that changes to enabling programs could make it harder for Indigenous students and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds to access higher education. Twenty per cent of enrolments at the university had previously completed enabling courses. Intelligent and keen people who want to go to university and to make a contribution to our society should not be denied the opportunity to access a tertiary education.
My Labor colleagues and I will not tolerate this assault on enabling courses. Labor believes that people from modest backgrounds and people who have lost their jobs and are determined to get further education and training in order to re-enter workforce should be encouraged to seek a university qualification, not discouraged. Our belief is in stark contrast to that of the Liberals. The outcome of these proposed changes will make it harder to get into university, particularly for the many thousands of older Australians who are desperate to get a job, so Labor strongly opposes the changes to enabling courses. The proposal contained in this bill would introduce a fee on some of the most disadvantaged people in the higher education system.
A little more than 40 years ago, the University of Newcastle introduced a groundbreaking program. In 1974, Open Foundation was one of the first university enabling programs implemented specifically to allow people who missed out on matriculation for a variety of reasons a second chance to qualify academically for a place at university to study for a degree. The stories of Open Foundation's alumni are compelling. There are classics scholars like Leanne Glass, who was once a retail worker and who hadn't completed Year 12, and is now in the final stages of writing her PhD thesis. Daniel Frost suffered from a rare, debilitating bone disease that prevented him from completing his HSC, and he has recently graduated with a Bachelor of Business thanks to Open Foundation. Rhea Barnett entered the Open Foundation program as a 24-year-old with no more than a year 10 school certificate, and has recently spent time in Antarctica researching her science and physics honours thesis.
Very famously, Murray Lee, who is now a professor of criminology at the University of Sydney, when he left Belmont High School at age 15 was told he could be a boilermaker or a sign writer. Those were the options he was restricted to under that system, but after working as an electrical tradesman, he completed the Open Foundation course and was able to complete a degree. Professor Lee is of the view that these reforms will fundamentally harm the enabling program and has stated:
Giving people the chance at a career by keeping enabling courses free has got to be a win/win for the individual, and the community.
Labor could not agree more.
Taylah Gray is in the second year of her law degree. She's angry at the government's proposals, which will affect the University of Newcastle's Yapug program, along with Open Foundation and Newstep. Taylah has said:
These programs are free to give people who might have struggled in school or in their lives a chance to try. What is proposed will put up obstacles for people whose lives have been about obstacles.
This is a very sharp and eloquent analysis of the government's plans. Taylah believes people should be given a chance. Labor believes this as well. This proud tradition, and similar programs such as Newstep for younger students at the University of Newcastle, is under very real threat because of the proposals of the Turnbull government.
I want to be very clear on this proposal. The government is targeting enabling courses, which some of the most disadvantaged students in the sector access. This will have an enormously negative impact in the region that I represent and will result in fewer people in the Hunter region having a tertiary education. The change is socially unjust and economically irresponsible, and Labor condemns the government for deliberately targeting people who are trying to get a tertiary education to allow them a better chance of getting a job and making an important contribution to our community and the country.
I now want to discuss the government's changes to HELP repayments. The philosophy behind HELP is that those who finish a degree should only be required to start paying back the loan once they are earning a decent wage. Australians are proud that we are the land of the fair go, and the HELP system is a fundamentally fair system. However, the Liberals want to reduce the HELP repayment threshold from $54,869 to $42,000. This is a very significant reduction, particularly in an economic environment where wages growth is actually negative. The latest HILDA report showed that wages have stopped growing and that since 2012 they have actually declined. Another key fact is that university graduates are getting paid less than in previous years. It is not appropriate, given the current wage environment, to be making these unfair changes and further deterring young and old alike from university. In fact, lowering the threshold to $42,000 means that a university graduate who is unable to find employment in their chosen profession and is instead continuing a full-time job, say, as a baker at Coles or Woolies would actually have to start paying back the cost of their degree. In fact, when you combine it with the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge, which, disgracefully, this government is applying to everyone who earns more than $19,000, it means that people who earn more than $42,000, up to $54,000 in certain scenarios, actually have an effective marginal tax rate of over 100 per cent. Let me repeat that: because of these regressive changes, workers below the average income—some of them below the median income—will have an effective marginal tax rate of over 100 per cent. They will pay more in tax for each dollar spent than they receive. That is a disgrace, it is deeply regressive and it needs to be opposed.
The British Poet Laureate John Masefield once said: 'There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university.' While this sentiment is lovely, universities are far more than this. They are fundamentally important for our economy and our society. The role of the federal government in supporting and investing in tertiary education is essential. There are two clear distinctions between the major parties on this issue. The Liberals want to cut funding to universities and make tertiary education the domain of the privileged. Labor, the party of education, will always support our tertiary sector and ensure widespread and equitable access to universities. The statistics prove this. International studies have shown that mature aged students and those who are entering through a non-conventional pathway are most easily deterred by higher debt levels and greater repayments. They often have fewer years in the workplace to repay that debt. So anything that increases the debt on them or makes them pay that debt back faster is a deterrent to mature aged students retraining and to those who haven't been able to finish year 12. This is a deeply regressive move. When you combine it with the attacks on the enabling courses, I can only conclude that this government is intent on closing the door to tertiary education for working-class and middle-class families—and that's a disgrace. Not only is it an attack on those people, on those Australians, and limiting their potential, but it is actually a deeply illogical move economically because we need every Australian to fulfil their potential. We need every Australian to fulfil their productive potential, to get the best training possible, so that they can make an active contribution to this economy. The policy contained in this bill counteracts that and closes the door on those people.
When you think about the fabric of this society, with income inequality at a 75-year high, why are we preventing working-class people from getting a good education? Why would we be saying to them, 'You can't fulfil both your potential to contribute to a great society and to earn a wage'? Why are we doing this in a period of high inequality when wages are going backwards? This is a sign, yet again, of a government that is out of touch, a government that has no concern for the vast majority of Australians and a government that says: 'Well, I made it. I might have had wealthy parents, but I made it, so everyone else can.' This is a deeply regressive move. It is a move symbolic of a party stuck not in the 20th century but in the 19th century, where, unless you are part of the squattocracy or you happen to be born into a wealthy family, we don't care about you and we don't care about your future. The vast majority of Australians disagree with that. The vast majority of Australians support a well-resourced and fair tertiary sector. History will condemn this as yet another regressive move from a regressive and reactionary government that, quite frankly, does not care about the vast majority of Australians.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (19:16): Labor is rightly opposing this bill. We oppose this bill because it is profoundly unfair to young people, especially those from disadvantaged or middle-class backgrounds. This bill will make it even harder for young people from everyday backgrounds to climb the ladder of opportunity through education.
When I doorknocked over 13,000 houses in the lead-up to the election, people told me that education was the single most important thing. Everyone said it: young people, parents and grandparents but most especially migrants, who come to this country to seek a better life with a laser-like focus on education being the key to a better life for their kids. But, rather than helping young people to fulfil their potential to climb that ladder of life and opportunity and secure a better future, unless they are lucky enough to be from a very wealthy family, this bill will weigh young people down with a lifetime of debt accrued through higher fees as they struggle to climb just a rung or two while being expected to repay these higher debts even earlier.
As has been said, Australian students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. This bill jacks them up by another 7½ per cent. Repaying debts when you earn $42,000 will make it harder—for many people, impossible—to buy a house or provide for a family. I've heard those opposite prattle on with, 'Oh, it's only 10 bucks a week here and 20 bucks there,' and, 'What's another 50 bucks?' The point is that it's in the wrong direction. It makes it more unfair and more unequal, and it is the wrong way to go, especially with stagnating wages, poor graduate employment outcomes and spiralling house prices fuelled by regressive tax concessions.
We oppose this bill because it will worsen inequality in this country—although the Treasurer says that's not a real thing. LOL! The Bill's Digest states clearly that, when compared to the existing arrangements, the new proposal has a disproportionate impact on lower-income earners. It's a particular problem when you consider it against the backdrop of the broader Liberal budget as a whole. Lower repayment thresholds plus tax rises like the Medicare levy and changes to other transfer payments will mean that some Australians will face effective marginal tax rates of 100 per cent. Using one example, Australians with a HELP debt who earn $51,000—most of whom are women—will have less disposable income than someone earning $32,000 when you take it all into account. This may sound fanciful for out-of-touch Liberal members, but the average graduate salary in Australia is under $55,000. Good luck with saving for a house, repaying a uni debt, saving for or paying off a car, paying rent, paying utilities, paying for food and paying for electricity. God help you if you start a family on that income, and you better hope you don't get sick. What on earth have young people done to deserve this?
If we as a nation want to ensure that Australia really is the land of the fair go, we need to do more to address all forms of inequality, especially those that are entrenched or intergenerational in nature. Education is the best tool governments have to encourage social mobility. People in my electorate get this. We oppose this bill because it sells out our country's future and takes us in the wrong direction.
In considering these proposals, everyone in this House must have it fixed in their mind just how critical higher education is to Australia's future successes. This is not the kind of thing we're supposed to say, but Australia's best years are not necessarily in front of us. I'm optimistic that they can be, but it's not certain they will be. We are at risk now—and the signs are not good—of being the first generation in modern Australia to leave a worse standard of living for the next generation. That is shameful. It doesn't have to be that way, but it depends on the choices we make today. That is why I and other Labor members feel so strongly that this bill takes our country and our society in the wrong direction. It doesn't just hit student fees; it also locks in large and ongoing cuts to universities.
Education, as has been said, is a critical enabler of our future economic prosperity and security. Modelling by Deloitte shows that university education added an estimated $140 billion to Australia's GDP in 2014 alone. Our region of the world is the fastest growing. This century holds enormous opportunities, but the world does not owe us a living. We can choose to innovate and compete, or we will get left behind. Australia now has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities of any country in the OECD. While our neighbours and competitors and partners in Asia are investing more in education research and creating wealth from that knowledge, our government spends time thinking up new ways to cut school funding, cut universities, threaten research funding, raise fees, burden young people with a lifetime of debt and slug disadvantaged Australians a fee of $3,223 for bridging courses that don't even give them a qualification. That's a real little gem. Nice one, government; well done! These enabling courses are run by some universities to help some of the most disadvantaged students in the country just to have a crack at getting into uni. There are currently no fees. Yet this bill proposes to charge fees, which is particularly harsh for students from a disadvantaged background. They don't get a formal qualification. There is no stakeholder support. It is a brain fart of the minister.
Australia needs an equitable higher education system if our best future is to be realised. Our smartest and brightest minds get the same access to learning opportunities. That's the goal, and we don't deter or punish young people from poor families. This access must not be conditional on the postcode you were born in, the school you went to or your parents' capacity to pay for a house.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! Member for Bruce, will you withdraw that.
Mr HILL: I withdraw 'brain fart'. Is that the bit you meant?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr HILL: Sorry, I wasn't sure if that is what you meant.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw it without qualification.
Mr HILL: I withdraw it without qualification. That is why we oppose this bill and hope it dies in the Senate or wherever in the parliament the government sends this kind of rubbish to rot.
I want to make a few remarks about HELP debt levels and repayment. The government is concerned about growth in unpaid student debt. Overall, student debts are increasing significantly due to the growth of higher education, the government's own higher fees, extension of HELP to non-Commonwealth-supported places and so on. Over four years, we now have 2.5 million students—up from 1.7 million students—holding a debt. The amount of debt has gone up from $25 billion to about $49 billion. On current estimates, 23 per cent of those students are not expected to repay anything at all. Unpaid debt is largely with people who haven't earned above the income threshold long enough, and the debt is written off at their death.
On pages 8 to 10 of the Bills Digest is an interesting discussion on the options around this issue. One option is to just accept that this is part of the scheme—an equity measure, if you like—and a percentage won't be repaid. You can take the government's premise that we need to recoup more of this debt—fair enough, that's an argument. But there are two broad arguments. You can do what the government wants to do—lower repayment thresholds to, in effect, push young people into a poverty trap, which is the option the government has chosen—or you could take the interesting but politically much more difficult option of exploring requirements to recoup debts from certain estates.
The Bills Digest notes that many people who die without repaying debts are actually from very wealthy households with wealthy estates. The family arrangements are such that they have never declared enough income to repay their full debt, but they may pass away with significant wealth, whether through superannuation, housing or other assets. This is politically difficult because, if anyone suggests that, the other side may say, 'Oh, it's a death tax, it's a death tax!' which is clearly nonsense. There is a case to look more closely at this. The Bills Digest notes analysis that requiring HELP debts to be repaid, just like tax or social security debts, from estates over $100,000 in value would save $2.83 billion over three years.
Obviously, you'd need to craft such a policy carefully. I think most people would think a higher threshold would be reasonable, as well as appropriate exemptions or delayed payment provisions to protect people like families where a parent dies young or for people with surviving partners and cash flow issues. I understand this is not my party's policy and it's not the government's policy. It was in the discussion paper, to their credit, but there does seem to be a policy case to look at this option further. If difficult choices have to be made, that kind of approach is far less regressive and far less unfair to young people than the government's policy.
In terms of the impact on universities: at a time when Australia should be investing in our universities, this bill would enshrine $3.8 billion of bottom-line cuts. Teaching, student programs, research and university facilities will suffer. You have to admit that the minister is doing his best to earn himself an honorary degree from university in media manipulation and spin. He's all over the shop suggesting to people, 'Oh, this is just a temporary efficiency dividend. There's nothing to worry about. It's just a couple of years. It's just the universities doing their bit for fiscal consolidation and a bit of budget savings. Nothing to see here. Oh, look over there, let's pick on some migrants. Let's have a quiz about other people's relationships. Let's beat up on vulnerable people who rely on welfare to eat and live—that's a good idea. That'll distract everyone while we hack away at education, won't it?'
There are two main measures that comprise the cut when you stop being distracted and look at this bill. Firstly, the efficiency dividend is 2½ per cent in 2018 and again in 2019. From that the universities suffer a direct cut of $384 million in just two years. Monash University, on the border of my electorate—my old university—suffers the largest cut of any Australian university of $104 million over the forward estimates. I don't see the member for Chisholm listed to speak on this. I would suspect she is far too ashamed, given that it's technically in her electorate.
The minister pretends this is a one-off, but it is effectively a great, big, locked-in permanent cut, because when funding eventually gets reindexed it's from the level after the cut. You can't pretend this won't have an effect on teaching quality, and the resultant cuts will damage Australia's research effort. Higher education in Australia is a little bit weird by the world's standards. It's an accepted part of our system that there is a cross subsidy and that you make a bit of a profit off teaching students to fund your research, which is what keeps you in the rankings. That's bad enough, but a further 7.5 per cent is then taken out for performance funding.
We support the principle of performance funding, indeed, we proposed it, but the government is going about it the wrong way. Ripping another 7.5 per cent off universities for a yet-to-be-determined performance-based funding pool is, in prudent budgeting terms, a further cut because there is no detail in the legislation or from the government about how this scheme will operate.
I will quote Monash University Vice-Chancellor Professor, Margaret Gardner, who said:
A university budgets principally on the basis of the number of students enrolled and the average amount of money each student will bring…If 7.5% of each student's funding will not follow the student, but will flow depending on the minister's assessment of whether a university has met benchmarks determined on a changing set of education indicators, then this money cannot prudently be included in the budget.
Universities Australia has said the policy amounted to performance funding at ministerial discretion without any clarity as to the problem to be solved. All this means is that in prudent budgeting terms universities will have to plan for a 10 per cent cut in 2018 and a 10 per cent cut in 2019. We will not write a blank cheque which will force this 10 per cent cut and so future ministers can do what they want or cut that funding completely.
Finally, with regard to the extension of CSP to sub-bachelor courses: I understand this has been supported in principle for years, since the Bradley review in 2008, but that is almost 10 years ago. I have serious concerns about this measure and its impact on TAFE. There's no detail from the government. The landscape has changed a lot in this area. TAFE is under enormous pressure. You've got changes to the VET FEE-HELP loans, which have capped loans and fees. This measure has the potential to seriously erode TAFE revenues further, to make the provision of critical, high-quality TAFE unviable in more areas and to confuse students.
I note that while universities would be given access to CSPs for sub-bachelor places, TAFE does not have access to CSPs for higher education. Personally, I think this move is premature and that it's dangerous to support it at this time. Time doesn't permit me to go into the plans to sneak in massive changes to how postgraduate places are allocated, or the wedge for privatisation, the little gem in there that some other body may allocate these scholarships or the anti-New Zealander, anti-migrant measures. But suffice it to say that there are a lot of very good reasons for why this bill should be opposed. There are a few sensible things in there, and the government could well pull them out and put them in another bit of legislation that we would support and wave through tomorrow, while these other things go to die, as zombies, as they should.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (19:30): It being 7.30, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
South-West Sydney
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (19:30): Australia has always been known for its egalitarian society, something that goes back to the decision of Captain Arthur Phillip to distribute food equally amongst the convicts, the soldiers and the freemen. Australia has been known as the land of a fair go, but this concept of an equal society is rapidly disappearing. It is clear that the Australia of 2017 has two tiers. There are two tiers of education, two tiers of health care, two tiers of infrastructure and two tiers of transport. These two tiers are abundantly clear when you look at Sydney, especially at the differential treatment in funding allocations for Western Sydney, including my electorate of Macarthur in south-west Sydney, in comparison to the eastern suburbs, the North Shore and the northern beaches.
Western Sydney is home to over 2.2 million Sydneysiders and is growing rapidly. The Macarthur region of south-west Sydney has a current population of close to 310,000 residents, but it's predicted that by 2036 this region, which takes in my electorate, will have a population of 600,000. This is a huge growth that will put significant pressure on our already underfunded services and our inadequate infrastructure. We hear a lot of promises from this federal government and the New South Wales Liberal government, but we see very little action. The state and federal Liberal governments are more than happy for our area to house a significant proportion of Sydney's population, but they will not provide the funding to ensure equal services are offered.
Infrastructure is a word that slips nicely off the tongue, but it's something that governments have struggled to provide in south-west Sydney for decades. I spent 40 years working in the public hospital system, and I know the pressure that is put on staff because of increasing demands and poor resources. Over the last few years we have seen rapidly increasing population in the Macarthur region, and we are now seeing developments that continue to add to the pressure on our health system at a rapid rate, yet the resources to cope are just not present. Campbelltown hospital has recently been offered by the state government a $600 million package for redevelopment over the next few years, yet Royal North Shore Hospital, in an area already well served for public and private hospitals and healthcare resources, has cost $1.2 billion to be redeveloped. How is that fair? Macarthur has a rapidly developing and enlarging population and very poor health statistics for just about all public health data, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, developmental problems, low birth weight, diabetes et cetera. We have large pockets of disadvantage and we have very poor health infrastructure, yet the amounts offered to redevelop are far below those offered in more conservative and high-income areas. The same argument is true for Nepean Hospital.
On transport, the south-west has continued to suffer from very poor public transport, including a reduction in express trains to the city and to Parramatta, poor parking at railway stations, lack of air conditioned trains and peak-hour overcrowding. The redevelopment of our roads is fragmented and piecemeal and is not adequate to cope even now. Appin Road has been the scene of many fatalities over the last 20 years, yet continued calls to make the roads safe have fallen on deaf ears. Access to the city is hampered by the poor traffic flows along the M5, and the only two-lane tunnel each way is far too small. The recent widening of The Northern Road to Penrith is already too narrow; the road should be at least six lanes, not four.
We of course really need rail infrastructure, yet we still have no commitment from the federal government about the Western Sydney Airport rail link and the state Liberal minister for transport is denying the need for an airport rail link at all. Neither the state government nor the federal government will commit even to setting aside land for the north-south rail from Campbelltown to St Marys.
Western Sydney University faces one of the largest of the proposed efficiency cuts in funding, yet we have much lower tertiary qualification rates—16 per cent in south-west Sydney compared to 24 per cent for greater Sydney—than we should have. With our rapid development we are also seeing lack of support for our native flora and fauna. We have the only disease-free koala colony in the country. Yet the government does nothing. Our public schools are very poorly resourced, and physically the buildings need to be completely redeveloped. It's quite clear that on every measure south-west Sydney has been deprived of infrastructure funding. Yet government policy has increased the disparity. Until this government understands the issues involved, we will continue to see increased inequality and poorer outcomes in health, education and the environment.
Calare Electorate: Rugby League
Mr GEE (Calare) (19:35): The Calare electorate is alive with football finals fever. On Sunday, huge numbers of Rugby League fans walked through the gates at Wade Park in Orange for the Group 10 grand finals. Kicking off the day was the women's League Tag grand final between minor premiers Orange Hawks and Bathurst St Pats. Hawks were courageous, but Bathurst St Pats took home their third premiership title with a 16-12 win. I would like to recognise each of the Bathurst players, including Captain Karah Armstrong and players Sarah Watterson; Meredith Jones; Candice Boggs; Elise Woods; Jess Scadding; Mish Somers, who was awarded Player of the Game; Nicole Schneider; Riane Barton; Amy Copping; Emily Rhynehart; Maddy Boyce; Bronte Emanuel; Caitlin Reeves; Kate Allen; Jakiya Whitfield, who is one of our great local sporting champions; and Emma Dilon. Behind the successful Bathurst St Pats League Tag side are also President David Chapman, Vice President Mick Single, Treasurer Shane Ward, Secretary Gary Goldsmith, League Tag Coach Mick Armstrong, trainers Rhys Frame and Richie Farrar, and Manager Lauren Dean.
Following the League Tag grand final was the gripping game between Orange CYMS and Bathurst St Pats in the under-18s division. At half time it was 12-all, and, with just 15 minutes to go, Bathurst were leading 18-12. But in the last quarter of the game, CYMS scored four tries to secure their first grand final win in 10 years. I would like to recognise the team, including Captain Craig Tarr and players Nathan Swain; Lincoln Monk; Ethan Kennedy; Lindsay Thurgate; Mitch Collins; Josh Board; Hudson Spicer; Sam Warner; Tyrone Harrison, who was named Man of the Match; Hugh Gibson; Jack West; under-18s Group 10 Player of the Year Ethan Monk; Mitch Leonard; Craig Simpson; Jack Braithwaite; Lachlan Salisbury; Jett Clark; Josh Piper and Will Cusack. I'd also like to recognise Coach Scott Sullivan, Manager Rod Moore and trainers James Muller and Brendan Jones. Our commiserations to the mighty St Pats.
In the reserve grade final, the Lithgow Workies took home the premiership following a 24-10 win over another valiant St Pats side. I would like to recognise the players in the winning Lithgow side, including Nick Miller, Pauli Kunawave, Liam Walsh, Greg Alderson, Michael Rennie, Josh Jones, Man of the Match, Eli Felton, Darcy Allan, Connor Lege, Sam Rushworth, Riley Allen, Jack Kable, Andrew Bain, Byron Wilson, Steve Hughes, Paceli Vayavanku, Trevor Wilson and Steven McMurtrie. Special mention also goes to Lithgow Workies President Corey Osborne, Vice President Graeme Osborne and also Mark Warren, Treasurer Anthony Boza, Secretary Kyle Egan, Coach Joe Inzitari, Manager Wally Glasson and trainers Brodie Casey and Evan Hughes.
The day ended with a nailbiting performance from Orange CYMS and the Oberon Tigers in the premier league division. The Oberon Tigers hadn't won a grand final since '75 and were very determined to break the 42-year drought. They led from the very first two minutes of the game. At half time it was 18-8, and, with just 20 minutes left on the clock, the score was set at 22-8 to Oberon. The crowd was convinced Oberon would secure the 2017 title, but four quick tries by CYMS put the score at 22-all, and, with just three minutes to go, CYMS Captain Mick Sullivan lined up and kicked the winning field goal from 20 metres out. This led Orange CYMS to claim their fifth premiership title in eight years. Our commiserations to the Tigers. They will be back. But it was a terrific comeback.
I would like to mention the Orange CYMS players, including five-time premiership-winning Captain Michael Sullivan; Ben McAlpine; Tom Satterthwaite, who was awarded Man of the Match; Joe Lasagavibau, who goes by the nickname 'Joe Lamborghini' because of his blinding speed; Lachlan Munroe; Semisi Katoa; Luke Petrie; Cameron Jones; Ryan Griffin; Chris Bamford, who was named the Group 10 Player of the Year for the premier division; Joe Duffy; Brendan Cousins; Robbie Mortimer; Sam Hill; Brock McGarity; Tim Mortimer and Dom Maley. Special mention also goes to Orange CYMS President Dave Penny, Vice President Anton Logan, Treasurer Trevor Woods, Secretary Mandy Moore, Premier League Manager Steve Maguire, and trainers James Muller and Brendan Jones.
Well done to all of Calare's 2017 grand finalists. You're all part of the tremendous sporting tradition of central western New South Wales, and we wish you all the best for the 2018 season. We'll be watching it with interest. And Deputy Speaker Vasta, I know that you personally are a big League fan, and I will have great pleasure in reporting to you the details of the 2018 Group 10 season in the central west.
Small Amount Credit Contracts
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (19:39): The payday lending industry in Australia is causing significant harm to Australians on low incomes. A typical payday loan can have a 20 per cent establishment fee plus a four per cent monthly fee. The cost is often increased by exorbitant late payment fees and default fees which are levied on customers already struggling to make repayments. These are very expensive loans and they can have a pernicious effect upon people who are already financially vulnerable.
A particularly worrying trend is in the increasing number of women accessing this high-cost credit. According to a 2016 report by Digital Finance Analytics, called Women and payday lending, there has been a 110 per cent increase in women accessing high-cost credit between 2005 and 2015. This is compared to an overall industry growth of 80 per cent for the same period.
Advertisements for such loans such as Nimble It and Move On make them seem easily affordable. Many are particularly promoted, I believe, to young people. Further, consumer leases, often known as rent to buy, also have grown over the last decade. These leases lock people on low incomes into multi-year contracts and then charge them three to four times the value of the products they are renting. In fact, the ASIC recently found that one contract required a customer to pay over $3,000 for a washing machine that was worth around $489. Both payday lending and consumer lease industries target Australians on low incomes and those people who can least afford to pay a premium for credit.
Some years ago, when I was an adviser in state parliament, I assisted an elderly pensioner who had been locked into a rent-to-buy small television. In the end, from memory, it cost him more than five times the retail price of the television set. This constituent could never get enough money for that one-off last payment and so continued to make $10-a-week payments for a television that was more than five years old.
The final report into the federal government's independent review on small amount credit contract laws, released in March last year, made 24 recommendations, most of which the minister subsequently accepted in November 2016. I echo the calls in this parliament for the government to present legislation that would enact the recommendations as soon as possible. I would like to acknowledge the advocacy of the member of Perth and what he has done in this place on this particular issue. Ideally, new consumer protections in these industries would also be complemented by investment in appropriate alternatives that can help the most vulnerable avoid entering into debt arrangements that they cannot fulfil.
In short, we need to do more to help vulnerable people avoid falling into the inescapable spiral of debt and the profound material and emotional suffering that it brings. I therefore encourage the federal government to increase investment in and promotion of the No Interest Loan Scheme, also known as NILS, as facilitated by organisations such as Good Shepherd Microfinance, Anglicare, The Salvation Army and the St Vincent de Paul Society. Loans between $300 and $1,200 are available from 178 community organisations at 628 locations across Australia. NILS offers low-income people safe, fair and affordable loans for all manner of indispensable goods and services, including washing machines, refrigerators, computers, car registration, and educational and medical expenses.
NILS, I believe, is a great alternative to the high-cost credit providers like payday lenders and consumer lease providers. This particularly affects young people. When I worked in the sector, this was one of the No. 1 reasons why young people were homeless. Trying to make these payments and then the late fees out of their youth allowance while they were looking for work was just impossible. With NILS, a client will only ever repay what they borrow, allowing people with limited financial means to access essential goods and services without facing the added burden of interest. With 98 per cent of NILS clients receiving some level of income support, the program is well set up to support people who would otherwise become vulnerable clientele of payday lenders and consumer lease providers.
These are simple measures that will make a huge difference to our most vulnerable Australians, so I would urge the government to do everything within its power to make them available and expand the NILS, because this would make a profound difference to Australians who are struggling.
Moore Electorate: ReFood
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (19:44): Edith Cowan University in my electorate is addressing the environmental issue of food wastage in our society, through an innovative program called ReFood: the Food Sharing Network. The program utilises information technology to aid the distribution of surplus food to the needy via relief agencies, minimising wastage.
With over four million tonnes of food ending up in landfill each year, food waste is a national problem that costs Australia an estimated $8 billion per annum. Australian households discard up to 20 per cent of the food they purchase each year, weighing on average 345 kilograms per family. The average Australian household discards $1,036 worth of food every year. Across our nation, the volume of food waste is enough to fill 450,000 garbage trucks each year.
Studies investigating food waste in Australia suggest the preconsumer stage of the food production chain generates the greatest amount of food waste. This includes food manufacturers, processing sectors and retailers. Between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of fresh fruit and vegetables are rejected even before they reach the shops, because they don't meet consumers' and supermarkets' high cosmetic standards. Furthermore, the competitive requirement for food-and-beverage outlets to stock a wide range of product lines and offer extensive menu options results in surplus inventory.
Commercial food outlets are faced with perishable foods with relatively short shelf-lives, unsold stock, leftovers and products exceeding their best-before dates. The environmental impact of producing food which ultimately goes to waste without being consumed initially occurs at the agricultural production stage and is further compounded by the effects of disposal in landfill. When food decomposes with other organics in landfill, it produces methane, which is a greenhouse gas that retains 25 times more heat than carbon dioxide.
Concurrently many community groups and charities find it difficult to access donations of food. The ECU ReFood project is a not-for-profit initiative that provides a network for small businesses such as restaurants, cafes and supermarkets to easily donate excess food to community relief organisations. A number of local organisations can participate, including the Salvation Army, Spiers Centre, Foodbank, Margaret Court Community Outreach, i60 community services and other charities providing food relief services.
ReFood uses a mobile phone application which allows businesses to automatically notify community groups in the area that surplus food is available for collection. It also allows business operators to track their food donations for tax deductibility purposes. Information technology is being applied to meet the need within our community by connecting aid agencies with providers with an oversupply of food on a timely basis.
The ReFood project, led by ECU PhD student Eleonora Stojanoska was recently awarded a grant by the Waste Authority WA, and a pilot is scheduled to run in the City of Swan later this year with the aim to reduce food waste, increase food relief available and improve the sense of community within groups involved. The ReFood sharing network project is a great example of the organisational culture and ethos of innovation at Edith Cowan University which has the potential to provide both environmental and social benefits to businesses and community groups and, if successful, will spread to other local government areas, including the cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo.
It is commendable to see how our local university engages with the community in delivering practical solutions to real-world problems. This gives rise to the old adage, 'Waste not, want not'.
Automotive Industry
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:49): We cannot forget in this place the vision of Australia's Treasurer Joe Hockey, in a moment of hubris and spite, daring Holden to leave Australia. This government petulantly sent a message, 'Here's your hat; what's your hurry?' They can cite a high dollar and blame the configuration of the Australian car market but the reality is that this government has seen the demise of our car industry. Holden's leaving killed an ecosystem.
Close to my electorate is the Toyota plant. At the time, Toyota expressed a desire to stay in Australia. For the most part, the company had a profitable export market to the Middle East, plans to stay in the country and a sense of connectedness to Australia. Australia was the first country outside of Japan—in the English-speaking world—where Toyota chose to manufacture vehicles. The key for Toyota was a viable supply chain. So, when this government flippantly laughed at Holden's cry for help, it doomed Toyota as well. As the auto industry leaves, we are facing an estimated negative annual shock of $29 billion or two per cent of GDP.
The Toyota plant in Altona is set to close on 3 October. In order to minimise the impact and to protect the conditions and jobs of many very skilled workers, we had to act quickly on an effective transition strategy. The closure is imminent. The effect on families, individuals and communities, including mine, is imminent. When we return to this parliament after a four-week break, the proof of the pudding of the planned transition and support will be known. But we do know some things already. We know that the federal government's response has not been what we would have wanted it to be. Reporting on the effectiveness of the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund—the fund established by the Gillard government in 2013 and taken over by the coalition after the September 2013 election—reveals a sad reality: that the coalition has butchered the project implementation. For instance, in July of this year, AusIndustry, a division of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, reported that the GRIIF grant recipients were allowed to report their own job creation figures. Only 71 per cent of the supposed 890 jobs have been audited to ensure they are real. To make matters worse, AusIndustry reported there was no data kept on the number of full-time, part-time or casual jobs, which makes it very difficult to assess its effectiveness.
The Automotive Transformation Scheme has been underfunded. Figures obtained by Senator Xenophon from the Parliamentary Budget Office clearly showed that $1.24 million of the money allocated to support the transition of car manufacturing simply has not been spent. The government's response to a recommendation from the Senate Economics References Committee report on the future of Australia's automotive industry speaks to their apathy regarding the plight of affected workers. The report recommendation simply reads:
The committee recommends redefining the Automotive Transformation Scheme (ATS) into a broader, automotive-related advanced manufacturing, engineering and design program that is intended to maintain skills and industrial capabilities and mitigate the loss of jobs by supporting supply chain diversification, new manufacturing investment and investment throughout the whole of the automotive industry.
The government flat-out rejected this recommendation, suggesting it had a range of programs designed to facilitate the transitions for particular industries. In the same response, this federal government suggested that, if the allocated funding were not spent, they would not roll over that funding to increase the pool of investment money. This government made it clear that, in its eyes, the money is only to be spent where there is what it deems to be eligible activity, and it would not ensure that the money would be set aside for eligible activity in future. It took the government two years to respond. That is how much they care about auto workers who will soon be out of a job in my community. This apathy and neglect are already having an impact. People are disheartened.
In contrast, the Victorian government's response has been speedy and direct. It is leading the way. While their Local Industry Fund for Transition, LIFT, is being done in cooperation with the federal government, the way they are using that money on the ground is very different. Unlike their federal counterparts, they are committed to placing former automotive workers into any newly created jobs. They are also taking a proactive approach to reaching out to affected businesses in the supply chain and assisting them to transition with their $5 million Automotive Supply Chain Transition Program.
To affected workers: Labor stands by you. Please make sure you are registered at Sunshine polytechnic, where you will be given information on opportunities to upskill, and please contact my office if you need help clarifying information or accessing support.
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (19:54): I rise to provide an update on the parliamentary inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence. I am chairing this bipartisan inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, considering how the family law system can be improved to support and protect those affected by family violence. The inquiry is underpinned by the very strong principle that your voice matters. To date we've received over 120 submissions, and some 5,200 people, many of whom have been affected by family violence, have responded to a questionnaire, telling of their personal experience with the family law system.
Family violence is a scourge across Australia. One in four Australian women experiences intimate partner violence. One woman on average is killed in Australia every week by a partner or former partner. Three women are hospitalised every week in Australia with a traumatic brain injury caused by their partner or former partner, and Indigenous women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised by family violence than other women.
Let me say that I don't think most Australians comprehend the seriousness of this issue in Indigenous communities. I certainly didn't. In a recent public hearing in Alice Springs, the committee heard how most women are falling through the gaps, trapped in a vortex of family violence fuelled by alcohol, poverty and disadvantage. The situation is so serious that the Alice Springs Women's Shelter is in reality a homicide prevention centre. Women are locked up to keep them safe, to prevent them from being murdered. It is absolutely frightening.
I'm very proud of the work our government has done to date, committing $200 million in new funding under the Women's Safety Package and the third action plan to address family violence. This includes $18.5 million for integrated duty lawyer and family violence support services. There's more than $10 million to hire family consultants and $12.7 million to establish parenting management hearing trials to give better access to justice for self-represented litigants, and we are acting to stop perpetrators cross-examining victims of family violence.
I cannot, of course, pre-empt any recommendations that the committee might make, but to date we've received some compelling evidence that urgent reform of the family law system is required. This includes evidence that allegations of family violence should be determined early in proceedings to ensure that the right parenting orders are made and that the safety of children is put first. This, we heard, is also critical for people against whom false allegations of family violence are made. This can be absolutely soul destroying, as we all know.
There are concerns that too many people are falling through the cracks. Some witnesses have proposed that magistrates courts should have powers of referral to the family courts and better support to exercise the family law jurisdiction and deal with all parenting and family violence matters in the one court.
There are concerns about family report writers, including their training, the quality of work and their charges, which can run up to $9,000 a day.
We've heard that the family law system should support mediation for families affected by family violence. At the moment, through a 60I certificate, those families are often excluded from mediation and then left to cope in the wilderness, trying to commence proceedings in the courts and access justice.
The cost of justice is a very significant issue, as are the challenges facing culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
Some witnesses have told us that our adversarial system can lead to systems abuse and horrific systems abuse. We've heard of cases where some people have incurred costs of $300,000 or $400,000, and this, of course, also leads to greater hostility between parties. The concern is that the adversarial system is just not fit for purpose when it comes to matters concerning parenting and family violence.
This is a very important inquiry. I'm so grateful to the many thousands of men and women who've told their story. Their voices really do matter.
House adjourned at 19 : 59
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Keenan to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to the criminal law, and for related purposes.
Mr Keenan to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales and the prosecution of offences on Norfolk Island, and for related purposes.
Mr Keenan to present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code, and for related purposes.
Mr Dutton to present a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes.
Mr DJ Chester to present a bill for an act to amend the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012, and for related purposes.
Mr CAS Laundy to present a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) took the chair at 16:01.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Richmond Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:01): I'd like to mention today some of the wonderful projects being undertaken by locals in my electorate of Richmond. It was with great pride that I officially opened the Tyalgum youth precinct on Saturday, 2 September. I was very pleased to have delivered $20,000 in federal funding from the second round of the Richmond Stronger Communities Program towards this outstanding local project. Our local Stronger Communities Program has delivered funding right across the electorate for small capital grants, supporting projects that contribute to the vibrancy and viability of our wonderful region. For this project, Tweed Shire Council, in partnership with the community, identified the need for better facilities in Tyalgum for young people. These improvements have created an important social hub for younger people and indeed other Tyalgum residents. At the official opening, so many locals and visitors attended this wonderful celebration. The skateboarding workshops and demonstrations were the main attractions of the upgraded Tyalgum Memorial Park, alongside circus performance activities, a free barbecue and stalls. Many parents commented to me that the park was such a great asset, because it catered for children of all age groups. In total the $200,000 upgrade was a joint project of Tweed Council and the Tyalgum Community Consultative Group. At the opening I acknowledged their vision and commitment to the design of these wonderful facilities. The Tyalgum community are to be commended for their dedication to their village, with all the work they do alongside the Tweed Shire Council, for this wonderful project. It shows how much we can achieve when we work together.
I'd also like to emphasise the success of the Stronger Communities Program in regional areas such as my electorate of Richmond. The new third round of funding has seen many applications received by the Richmond community consultation committee. I thank everyone on the committee, which is made up of dedicated members of organisations such as the Ballina Shire Council, Byron Shire Council, Tweed Shire Council and local Rotary and VIEW clubs, for their wonderful work and look forward to working with them and the successful applicants. Their task was made very difficult by the very high quality of applications received, yet again. Exciting projects, such as upgrades to tennis, cricket, croquet, outrigger and rowing clubs will provide a much-needed boost to local sporting organisations in the area. Other examples of wonderful projects are upgrades to children's centres, community showgrounds, local arts halls, veterans memorials, and charity organisations, all of which play a pivotal role in providing essential services in our region.
It's important to recognise the vital role of community organisations in building social goodwill and adding vibrancy to our regions. A wonderful amount of work is being done at a local level by these volunteers, who work tirelessly, particularly to raise that 50 per cent cash or in-kind contribution required for the Stronger Communities Program. In closing, I would like to urge the government to support the continuation of programs like the Stronger Communities Program so that not-for-profit organisations are able to access much-needed financial assistance.
Lifeline
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:04): September is the time of year when Australians place a greater focus on suicide prevention. I regard suicide prevention as one of the key issues that I want to work on during my time in this place. One of the organisations I have interacted with repeatedly has been Lifeline. Founded by Sir Alan Walker in 1963, Lifeline is Australia's major crisis-counselling service, saving countless lives every year. Nine years ago, through my friend Patricia Barnett, I became a volunteer at the Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury book fairs. I quietly joined the volunteers, stacking and sorting books, helping customers and packing down furniture. Some people were bereaved by suicide; others just wanted to lend a hand to support this great cause.
My wife, Joanna, whose best friend, a gifted anaesthetist, took her own life several years ago, has been a dedicated Lifeline counsellor for seven years. Recently, with the member for North Sydney and a number of our state and local government colleagues, we worked with Lifeline to undertake a safeTALK program, to ensure that community leaders are better able to recognise the signs and know what to do if someone in our community is contemplating suicide. Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury is run by the outstanding Wendy Carver.
On Saturday night I was pleased to attend Lifeline's gala ball, which raised well over $200,000. The keynote speaker was the remarkable Kathy Kelly, who told the tragic story of her eldest son, Thomas, who was murdered when king-hit in King's Cross. His younger brother, Stuart, had been particularly affected by Thomas's death and we heard Stuart's speech at a tribute function for Thomas. Sadly, Stuart took his own life a couple of years later. Kathy, like me and others bereaved by suicide, believes in the work of Lifeline and the need to reach out to those who are struggling and ask the difficult questions 'Are you okay?' and, more directly, 'Are you contemplating suicide?' because, if we ask those difficult questions, we have the best chance of saving lives.
Lifeline's national chief executive, Peter Shmigel, recently announced he was stepping down from his role, and I want to put on record my very deep gratitude to Peter. Peter has a deep humanity and provided extraordinary support to me and my office in ensuring not only that I was using appropriate language in my maiden speech but also that the office was properly supported to deal with queries which came after that speech about mental health and suicide prevention. Peter's been a constant source of advice and good counsel as I have been navigating this policy space.
Not only has Peter been a successful CEO and thought leader who's helped expand and modernise the services at Lifeline but he remains himself a volunteer telephone counsellor and a great advocate for suicide prevention. On the many occasions in which I practised my maiden speech I managed to never dissolve into tears, except on one occasion when Peter himself was present. There is something about the humanity that Peter brings to this space. In 2017, during world suicide prevention month, it's appropriate to acknowledge Lifeline and Peter Shmigel's very significant work in this policy space.
Project Sea Dragon
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:07): Earlier this month the Northern Territory government reached a key project agreement with Seafarms to develop one of the world's largest aquaculture projects. Project Sea Dragon is a $1.45 billion prawn aquaculture project and will see the development of up to 10,000 hectares of land for black tiger prawn production facilities. It's the largest of its kind in Australia and one of the largest in the world. When fully operational it will create 1,500 jobs. Seafarms Group Ltd is an Australian agri-food company which operates, builds and invests in sustainable aquaculture production platforms producing high-quality seafood. Seafarms is currently Australia's largest producer of farmed prawns. The company is one of Australia's largest aquaculture enterprises.
The project's success also depends on the welcome collaboration and support of the Northern Territory, Western Australian and Commonwealth governments. However, the outcome could only have been achieved with the support of Aboriginal people in the region through the signing of an Indigenous land use agreement, an ILUA, between the traditional owners and Seafarms for the development of the project at the remote Lagoon cattle station in the Northern Territory, in the VRD region, very close to the Western Australia border. The support of native title holders is a foundation on which the successful project can be established and is a sign of what can be achieved when parties negotiate in good faith.
This project provides benefits and support for native title holders to manage country while developing major economic activity in the region, providing jobs, training and, importantly, protection of sites and the environment. This project has the potential to transform the Ord region of northern Australia, which straddles the Western Australian-Northern Territory border. The finalisation of the project with the Northern Territory government sees Seafarms Group Ltd commit to establishing a headquarters for Project Sea Dragon in Darwin and the relocation of the ASX registered office to Darwin. Agribusiness is identified as a growth sector for the Northern Territory economy and is estimated to contribute over $600 million to the economy annually.
This project has the potential to provide a huge boost. At full scale the project has the potential to create a $19 billion uplift to the Territory's gross state product over the first 15 years of operation. The project will create local business and job opportunities with Seafarms as partners with industry capability networks in the Northern Territory to ensure all contract opportunities will be made publicly available and give locals a real go. Pending a successful financial close and the regulatory obligations being met, the Northern Territory government has committed to infrastructure expenditure of $40 million to upgrade Gunn Point Road, $15 million for road access to Point Ceylon on Bynoe Harbour and $17.5 million to upgrade the Keep River Plains Road. The federal government has committed $40 million and the Western Australian government $16.7 million.
This project at full-scale has the potential to create 1,500 ongoing jobs—1,000 located in the Northern Territory, with 700 at Legune and 300 at the Darwin-based hatchery and breeding facilities, along with the main office in Darwin.
Grey Electorate: Roads
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:10): I was extremely disappointed last week with the unilateral declaration of the South Australian government to cut speed limits on eight roads throughout regional South Australia—council roads in the main. Three of them are in my electorate. I can see very little reason for this, apart from the fact that the state government seems intent on starving these roads of funds for upgrading, and then because the roads become too dangerous, because they are too rough, they downgrade the speed rating. They use crash statistics to justify these speed reductions, but there was a very similar announcement back in 2011. I went back and checked some of the figures from before and after that period.
Figures are scant and difficult to come by. The South Australian government certainly do not supply them. I have found on the South Australia Police site figures that might shed some light on what happened in 2011. Those reductions happened in the Yorke and Mid-North area—on the Yorke Peninsula, within 100 kilometres of Adelaide, and some roads beyond into the Mid-North. There are five or six main regions in South Australia. Eyre Western haven't had any speed reductions until now. In fact, the crash data has gone down in Eyre Western. In the Limestone Coast, it's gone down. In the Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu, it's gone down. In the Far North, it's gone down. In the Murray and Mallee region, it's gone down. In fact, the only one that hasn't gone down is where they put the 100 kilometres speed restrictions in, and that's gone up. Yet they say this decision is based on crash statistics.
What I'm really appalled about is they seem to have done no consultation at all. I drive 80,000 or 90,000 kilometres a year on these roads and they didn't come and ask me for advice. Two members of the South Australian government live in regional South Australia. One, the member for Giles, lives in Whyalla. He normally flies to Adelaide, and if he drives he drives on a national highway, which still has a 110 kilometres speed limit. The other one, Minister Geoff Brock, lives in Port Pirie. Guess what? He's got a chauffeured car, a ministerial car, to take him to Adelaide so he's not going to be worried about the speed restrictions. The minister who makes these decisions, Peter Malinauskas in the Legislative Council, has a chauffeured car as well. They know nothing about getting around country and regional South Australia. They inflict their damage on the people who live there without actually asking them for advice. Come to us, get advice, and then you might get the right answer.
Community Development Grants
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (16:13): When you look past the empty promises and buzzwords of the failing Liberal government's election campaign, there are some dodgy numbers to be found. Somewhere not far under the surface a fair go for Australians has turned into a Turnbull-Joyce government taxpayer funded pork barrelling rampage to try to hold onto the Prime Minister's job. While the Turnbull government spent $132 million on community development grants in New South Wales seats, only $3.5 million was spent in Labor electorates—a 37 to one ratio, which puts the government's desperation into numbers. The Prime Minister's seat of Wentworth got $12 million in community grants under the Point Piper pork barrel program—nine per cent of the state total—while the under siege Deputy Prime Minister's seat of new England raked in 13 per cent of New South Wales's entire community grant income. It just goes to show how low this government will stoop to buy their way to electoral victory at the expense of communities genuinely in need.
The government also spent $138 million on community development grants in their own Queensland electorates. What did they give to the rest? They gave just over $1 million. Something doesn't add up. Why did North Sydney get $9.5 million in grants when it's the electorate with the highest socioeconomic advantage in the entire country? I'm not sure how this government justifies giving Parramatta, one of the most disadvantaged areas, a pathetic $11,000. Are they punishing Australians for voting Labor? Are they punishing Australians for choosing a party that is devoted to putting people first?
But what is phenomenal is that the government has ignored Victoria so much that we don't even have figures. It's abysmal that the Liberal candidate for McEwen came to the last election with one promise—$150,000 to upgrade Sunbury Memorial Hall. That's all he could manage. And guess what? That one commitment in the fastest growing region in Australia hasn't been delivered. Surprise, surprise! It hasn't been found because this government has snubbed Victoria. While they pump $6.5 million into their seat of La Trobe, they've done nothing to address the roads in McEwen. Our population continues to rise while the Liberal government pork-barrels stagnant populations.
The government have been warned by Infrastructure Australia that, unless they act now, traffic congestion will cost us $53 billion a year in lost productivity by 2031, yet we're left to deal with single-lane roads and dangerous intersections, and neither the Abbott nor Turnbull government invested one single cent into roads in McEwen. Somehow, all this government focuses on is fighting for their own jobs rather than actually taking steps to address real issues. We on this side are committed to delivering the much-needed railway line and roads for our communities. That's why the Shorten Labor government committed to a full duplication of Bridge Inn Road and Craigieburn Road. We are committed to addressing traffic congestion in McEwen to ensure better productivity and better quality of life for all members of our communities.
Bayside Christian College
Mornington Bowling Club Inc.
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:16): Recently, on Saturday, 2 September, I had the pleasure of attending two noteworthy anniversaries in my electorate of Dunkley. Firstly, the Bayside Christian College community in Langwarrin South are, this year, celebrating the 35th anniversary of their school. The association of Christian parents own, govern and set out the strategy and direction for the school, which caters for just under 600 students. The college has been at its site in Langwarrin South for 33 years, and the school and facilities continue to expand to provide an array of opportunities for the students and the wider college community.
Last year I had the opportunity to inspect the site of the new buildings and car park for the school, for which the federal government has provided funding to the tune of $350,000. Next week I will also be representing Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, at the opening of the skills trade centre, which the federal government has also put over $1.5 million into, bringing our total recent contribution to the school to over $3.55 million. I commend Bayside Christian College's Principal, Dr Christopher Prior, and the college's staff on the growth of their school both in numbers and in values over the years, and I look forward to having continued involvement with Bayside Christian College for the years to come.
That same evening, I joined with the committee and members of the Mornington Bowling Club to mark the 100th anniversary. My wife, Grace, and I attended a gala dinner at their clubhouse overlooking Port Phillip, hosted by the club's board of management and the bowls committee. In the beautifully set-out room in the patriotic club colours of green and gold, we were treated to a dinner with representatives from the surrounding district and regional bowls organisations to acknowledge past members and the current 188 members of the club.
The club began on 1 June 1917, and a four-rink green was opened that November. The club has faced some difficulties over the years, particularly with watering and maintaining the green in its infancy. However, as demonstrated by the busy room that night, I am thrilled that the club has successfully fought to overcome any initial difficulties, has grown and has been a very successful club over the past century. I was delighted to speak on this occasion and was also honoured to receive a gift of a pair of glasses commemorating the club's anniversary, which I noted would be about the only matching pair left in our household with a two-year-old. A toast to Her Majesty the Queen rounded off a very enjoyable night. We have an extensive sporting community in Dunkley, as well as a very strong community sector, and I'm thrilled that Mornington Bowling Club is able to be a steady part of it.
Water Safety
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:19): Today Royal Life Saving Australia once again launched its National drowning report and unfortunately, again, it makes for sober reading. This year 291 people drowned on Australia's waterways. That's a three per cent increase on the number from the previous year and six per cent on the year before. In fact, for the past five years in Australia the number of people who drown in our waterways has been increasing. There were also 685 non-fatal drowning incidents requiring hospitalisation. Interestingly, most Australians don't drown at our beaches; they drown in our rivers, creeks and streams, with 23 per cent of the drownings occurring in those circumstances. And 74 per cent of those who drowned were male. We've had an increase, unfortunately, in the number of people aged zero to four years who drowned in Australia and a large increase in the number of people aged over 65 years. The lowest levels of drowning are in the five- to 14-year age bracket, which clearly demonstrates that swimming lessons for kids work, because this is the group that has the highest incidence of swimming lessons in their age group.
Australians live by the water. It's part of our culture. It's what we all do every summer. And we need to learn to be safe around water. Unfortunately in Australia safety around water is getting worse, not better. We need further swimming and water safety education in this country if we're going to arrest those numbers of drownings each year and see them decline. Unfortunately the swimming and water safety education that Australians get at the moment depends on their parents' income and where they live, but that should not be the case in a country like Australia. We can do better. Every child should get access to water safety and swimming training consistent with level 4 of the national water safety strategy by the time they complete primary school. That's the recommendation of the national Water Safety Council, which includes organisations like Royal Life Saving, Surf Life Saving Australia, AUSTSWIM and other accredited organisations, but that's not happening in this country at the moment. If you're from a non-English-speaking background, if you're not born in Australia or if you're an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander kid, the chances are that you don't get access to swimming lessons and you don't learn to be safe around water. Too many kids are missing out.
On 13 February this year I moved a motion in the parliament calling on the Turnbull government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into why more of us are drowning and what we need to do to bring about a decline in the number of Australian drownings . I again call on the Turnbull government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into this important issue.
Gilmore Electorate: Shoalhaven Youth Volunteering Initiative
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:22): In Gilmore we have a unique federally funded training opportunity for our young people. It's been happening for many years, and I'm hoping it continues for many years to come. This Shoalhaven Youth Volunteering Initiative, called SYVI, provides year 10 students from public and private schools with the opportunity to undertake accredited training with the Rural Fire Service whilst contributing to their local community through participation with a volunteer emergency agency. I'm constantly told by employers and community members about the skills they expect from our young people when they leave school. Schools provide students with reading, writing and maths—hopefully—whereas the SYVI project covers many more areas of value, particularly communication and teamwork. This project allows students to attend accredited training at a local RFS facility and over five full days learn to work as a team, learn to use their initiative, be mentored by experienced RFS personnel and volunteers, and experience the value of their volunteering in their local community.
Following the successful completion of their training, students are presented with two certificates—their accredited bushfire certificate from the RFS and a certificate from the RDA—recognising their participation in a volunteer project. These two documents become part of the student's CV and are very prized by local employers. The training is provided at no cost to these students, many of whom go on to become full-time volunteers with their local RFS brigades, and some go further in working in local emergencies. For many years the project has consistently met its KPIs and been delivered with the RDA on time and within budget. It's unfortunate that many students have to be turned away from this successful initiative, as it's always oversubscribed.
Many local schools, such as Nowra High and Ulladulla High, encourage their students to participate in this program, which I'm truly proud of. Students from these two schools will soon be getting their certificates. Congratulations to the RFS teams and also the students from Nowra: Annalise Young, Zane Wilson, Sean Tunks, Gemma Thompson, Nathan Simpson, Amy Selby, Hayden Robert Goodwin, Coby La Faber, Tilla Kennedy, Mitchell Kanhapaa, Cara Haupt, Lucy Freeman-Sear, Zaid Forrester, Ethan Fisher, Lachlan Dixon, Adele Crossland-Webb, Blake Croker, Emelia Collison-Gates, Alicia Collison-Gates, Jazmin Braid, Stewart Bowe, Jared Baraguin and Alex Adams.
Congratulations also to Ulladulla High School students Tayla Aderson-Phillips, James Andriske, Vanessa Bellingham, Antonia Benley, Jan Boone, Meg Buchanan, Melanie Clare, Jed Collis, Lachlan Congram, Ruby Craig, Shannon Craig, Matisse Cross, Angel Dale, Nikki Dark, Brie Ebsworth, Lachlan Emslie, Georgia Evan, Claudia Floyd, Thalia Fowler, Mia Garrick, Jess Henderson, Siena Jackson, Megan Jeffers, Ruby Kenny, Ave Lewand-Parsons, Imogene Lewis, Cooper McCarthy, Katie McLaren, Shannon Meredith, Georgia Nugent, Ashlee O'Callaghan, Harry Pascoe, Meirah Patterson, Brittany Peters, Zali Pullinger, Olivia Reed, Liam Sansom, Jonah Smith, Parvinder Singh, Chelsea Stephens, Grace Thomson, Jack Walsh, Noah Toghill, Hannah Webb, Jasmine Whitburn, Scott Wilford, Lane Wilson, Serena Wong and Tyler Woods. (Time expired)
Scullin Electorate: Asylum Seekers
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:25): 'I feel like a spectator in my own life'—a young woman said this to me and to a room full of strangers in Mill Park a couple of weeks ago. She's from Iran and living in Melbourne's north as a member of a group of people who are referred to, unhelpfully and unfairly, as the legacy caseload. I've previously spoken about the circumstances of these people in this place, and I note that we are approaching a time of particular anxiety for more than 24,000 people who are waiting for the opportunity to have their claim for protection made and assessed.
At the Mill Park community centre on 23 August, this young woman was among people who were her neighbours but who I suspect she'd never met. I hope that she took heart from the warmth and concern and the support and empathy in the room—our best side in Melbourne and as Australians as well. I continue to think about what a terrible thing it would be to feel like a spectator in your own life, to feel that you have no agency, no capacity to make plans for the future and no ability to do the things all of us take for granted—to study, to think about getting married and to think about having a family or expanding your family. Also, I continue to think about what a terrible thing it is that there are thousands just like this woman in similar circumstances. We should think about them more and listen to them more.
I'm very grateful for the people who organised this forum in my electorate, the Scullin Volunteer Action Network, in particular Alex, Sally, Jenny and Trish, and the dozens of community members who attended on a wet and pretty unpleasant Melbourne night. I would like to acknowledge the fantastic people of Whittlesea Community Connections, who provide settlement services to this young women and others like her, including Alex Haynes, the CEO, who spoke movingly and effectively. I'd like to also acknowledge the work—not just on that occasion but always—of Kon Karapanagiotidis, founder and CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and his colleague Jana Favero, and for their contribution in thinking about how we think about those who have asked for our help, and also how we talk about them, because how we talk about people matters.
All the attendees at this meeting recognised that there are policy challenges facing Australia when it comes to how we treat those who ask us for help, who seek our protection when they are forced to flee their homes. But I think that what they are calling for in this place is leadership—leadership in the form of acknowledging that there are serious matters here that require debate; they require the empathy and warmth that was shown in the room in Mill Park the other day, and, ultimately, they require all of us here to recognise what a terrible thing it is and what an unacceptable thing it is to feel like a spectator in your own life.
Deakin Electorate: Crime
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:28): As I travel around the Deakin electorate one of the things that I'm hearing about more and more from local residents is the growing fear they have in their own community. Whether they are out and about or at home, they simply don't feel as safe as they used to. Unfortunately, they're right to feel that way. More and more evidence has been continuing to come to light confirming that Victoria is in the grip of a crime epidemic that is rapidly spinning out of control.
Earlier this year, the ABS released data showing that, while crime rates are trending downwards in other parts of Australia, double digit increases are occurring across all categories in Victoria. These figures also confirm that they coincide with the election of the Andrews Labor government in 2014. Since the election of that government, the rate of crime in Victoria has increased by 18.2 per cent, while the rate of violent crimes has surged. Murder is up 19 per cent, common assault is up 34 per cent, rape is up 14 per cent and aggravated robbery is up 33 per cent. Even Daniel Andrews's own police minister recently admitted that Victorians no longer feel safe in their own homes. At a local level, we've seen police and police station numbers cut back under Labor, with the Nunawading police station in my electorate being forced to close its doors to the public altogether.
I want to assure all residents of Deakin that this government and I will continue to work with police, local traders and the local Maroondah and Whitehorse city councils to continue improving safety in our area. As part of the federally funded Safer Streets Program, we're rolling out important crime-fighting initiatives like CCTV and better lighting in key crime hotspots. This year, we saw $200,000 put towards CCTV in Ringwood East, and that was recently switched on, and a further $435,000 is also being made available to upgrade existing cameras and to install new cameras in the Croydon town centre, two areas that have seen their fair share of violent crime, as local residents will attest. South Croydon's Cheong Park also recently had CCTV installed to deter the ongoing vandalism that had been occurring to those clubrooms. Finally, cameras are being funded in Central Ringwood, to the tune of $200,000, again to deter crime in that very busy area. So we've made huge investments into crime deterrence in Deakin, but we need the state government to step up. We need them to start properly manning our police stations. We need them to ensure that there are tougher sanctions for violent criminals in our courts and through our parole system. Until that happens, sadly, Victorians will still feel unsafe in their homes and in the community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
Rockingham Rams Football Club
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:32): I rise today to speak again about an amazing group of people I've watched over the course of the year with a mixture of awe and pride. I've stood in this parliament and spoken about the great bunch of girls, parents and volunteers at the Rockingham Rams Football Club a number of times already—and it's going to go on for a long time, I can assure you. I'm continually in a state of awe, pride and excitement as I watch these young women smash stereotypes and smash out some great football in excellent competitions in games that many of us here, many of us older women, wish we could have played when we were younger.
Last Friday I went down to watch the Rams girls play in their grand final at the Warnbro recreation centre against tough competition from the Mandurah Mustangs. The Warnbro rec centre is where I played hockey as a girl, with old friends Nat Harker and Kim Thompson, and it's fabulous to see young women getting to play footy on those same fields. It was an exciting grand final, but it wasn't to be for the Rockingham Rams. After a great contest, the Rams went down by 10 points to the opposition, the Mandurah Mustangs—another strong group of young women playing a great game and enjoying the support of the wonderful Mandurah community, which made the effort to do the short road trip up to Warnbro to check out the game.
I've had the privilege of watching these girls grow, compete and, most of all, have fun. The support they've received from their parents, their coaching staff and the community has been phenomenal. Their support and guidance has been recognised, with their coach, Glen Millar, being awarded Coach of the Year from the Peel district for his many hours coaching this team of young women and also the junior boys team. I was speaking to my brother John Morris the other day, who went to school with Glen, and when I mentioned Glen Millar's name, the first thing John said was, 'Glen is an absolute legend of the football game.' Clearly Glen's guidance has paid off, with the girls reaching the grand final in their first year together, and for many of them it was the first time they'd played football. Team captain, Dakota Dal Bello, received the Best and Fairest award for the whole year, also from the Peel district, as well as the Most Courageous on the day of the grand final. You were all courageous, girls.
I want to thank Female Football WA for the medal presentation and for continuing to encourage women of all ages to pick up a footy and have a kick with their mates. I would like to acknowledge the whole team here today: Dakota Dal Bello, Katie Millar, Brianna Pink, Lily Foggin, Shanice Hayden, Aimee Mathieson, Teagan Grant, Holly Burton, Sienna Warwick, Lauren Touhy, Aiesha Ugle-Woods, Abby McCorriston, Teka Schneider, Eloise Powell, Erin Klopper, Kala Taylor and Lucie Thompson.
I'd also like to mention Rita Mae, Siobhan Hall and Ella Tvredeic and wish them a speedy recovery from their injuries. They missed out on the grand final but they were there supporting their teammates, and the world of football—well, it's full of injuries. I'd like to thank the team manager, Bec Dal Bello, and the president of the Rockingham Rams footy club, Michael Holland, who have been so welcoming in my first year of sponsoring the team. I can't wait to see you next season. I wish you all success and I'd just like to say: Go Rams, you little legends! Good on you girls!
Banks Electorate: Community Events
Bangladesh: Floods
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:35): Last Sunday, 9 September, I attended the presentation day of the Hurstville City Minotaurs at Kingsgrove RSL Club. Kingsgrove RSL has supported the Minotaurs for many years now, and it was great to be there at the presentation day. The parents were able to make use of the club facilities, with a park next door where the kids could run around and enjoy themselves. The Minotaurs are a great club. They've been around for more than 30 years and they have, it's fair to say, an inspirational leader in Peter Sarikakis, who has been involved in the club for many years and who, along with his wife, puts an enormous amount of energy into the club, as do all the other members of the committee. It was great to see so many kids acknowledged on the day and it was terrific to present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards. I look forward to continuing to support the Minotaurs in the future.
On 8 September Oatley Public School held its centenary dinner at Doltone House. It was a very special occasion: 100 years of quality education at Oatley Public School. I'd like to thank Debbie Hunter, the Principal of Oatley Public School, for the leadership that she provides. It was good on the night to hear from Rodger Robertson, of the Oatley Heritage & Historical Society, about the history of the school, its very humble origins back in 1917 and what it has grown to today. The Oatley historical society does tremendous work in preserving the history of our area. I'd also like to congratulate the P&C president, Sandy Grekas, on her work in organising what was a very large and successful function. Congratulations to Oatley Public School.
I want to take a moment in the House to express my support for the people of Bangladesh who have been affected by the devastating floods over the past month. In Bangladesh alone around eight million people have been affected by the floods, as indeed have livestock and businesses in that country. Well over 1,000 people have been killed by the floods and, sadly, there are a significant number of people still unaccounted for. In my electorate of Banks we have a growing and vibrant Bangladeshi community, who make a great contribution to our area. Now, as the floodwaters have receded and the clean-up continues, the focus moves to repairing what has been lost and preventing the spread of disease. To the Australian Bangladeshi community, in particular the Bangladeshi community in the electorate of Banks, I pass on my best wishes and support at this time. (Time expired)
Braddon Electorate: Marriage
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (16:38): I will be saying yes—yes for equality—in the upcoming marriage equality survey and I encourage Braddon electors to do the same. It is important to respect both sides of the debate, which is certainly what I, and I hope others, will do. It is not respectful and it is wrong to conflate marriage equality with other issues and place them on signs, as we have recently seen in the city of Burnie. These signs make wrong and misleading claims and can be hurtful to people in our community. This survey has nothing to do with gender confusion in schools or political correctness. This is a question about marriage and equality—that is it.
But what is also disturbing is that these signs have been illegally placed on public property and power poles, which is an offence in Tasmania that attracts an $8,000 fine for individuals. Those responsible should be ashamed not only of making misleading claims and offending and hurting people but of breaking the law in doing so. I congratulate the Burnie City Council for taking decisive action to remove the illegally placed signs from council land, and I encourage residents who know who illegally placed the signs on Transend power poles to come forward. I encourage both sides to campaign on this survey, but to do so truthfully, respectfully and lawfully.
Talking about signs, I've been amused in recent months by the blue signs in office windows—'Liberals for Regional Australia'—that have popped up around this place. The Liberals are not for regional Australia. Perhaps what they have sniffed is an opportunity to get under the guard of their National Party colleagues. If the National Party was truly a representative for regional Australia, we would've heard from it as one government service after another and one government job after another has been cut from the regions. That has been the case in Tasmania.
Let's look at how Tasmania has been let down. We don't need to look any further than the 2017 budget—not one cent for new infrastructure in regional Tasmania; nothing for the top two infrastructure projects in my region that will grow the economy and grow jobs; nothing for the Cradle Mountain Master Plan, which is the No. 1 infrastructure project for my region and for Tasmania's tourism industry; nothing for the No. 2 priority, which is a shared network of coastal pathways to support small businesses—an active and healthy lifestyle that connects regional towns; and nothing for roads like the Bass Highway, which is a priority for local communities and for road safety in my electorate. This Liberal-National Party coalition government does not stand up for regional Australia. But, then again, no-one knows what it does stand for.
Capricornia Electorate: Rockhampton Hospital
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:41): It is a great relief for the people of my electorate in Capricornia that the Rockhampton Hospital car park is underway. I promised at the 2016 election that we would put $7 million on the table to get it started, and, just as we promised, this has now been delivered. I am so pleased that the deed of agreement has been signed off for delivery and construction can now begin. This news will be a huge relief for patients, hospital staff and residents around The Range and Wandal Heights, who have endured a parking nightmare for years now. Anybody living in Central Queensland who has had to visit the hospital knows the frustration of having to allow 30 minutes to find a park.
Hospital car parks are usually the responsibility of the state government, but lack of action and ongoing frustration spurred me to take matters into federal Liberal-National hands. We shamed the state government into action because we know what a difference vital infrastructure makes to lives and business operations. State Labor, disgracefully, had been sitting on its hands about a hospital car park for many years. Only a week before my federal pledge, Queensland's state Labor health minister, Cameron Dick, was at the Rockhampton Hospital stating he would not fund a car park. It took my lobbying in Canberra, a $7 million Commonwealth pledge and a push by the editor of TheMorning Bulletin newspaper to shake state Labor into any sort of action. The project will construct a 524-space multistorey car park facility, an additional 44-space at-grade car park, ancillary works including roadworks, a temporary car-parking solution during construction, barriers and ticketing. From here on, construction and management is in the hands of the state government, and I certainly hope they deliver this on time. According to the contract, it is scheduled for completion in January 2019.
I am both relieved and proud to have delivered this for every person who has had the displeasure of trying to find a park at the hospital and for the residents who for years have had their streets looking like game night at the Gabba on a daily basis. My fight to convince federal ministers to sign off on the funding is going to make a significant contribution to the local community, making access to the hospital safer and more accessible for elderly patients and families. This is a great outcome for Rockhampton. People have been crying out for a decent hospital car park in Rockhampton for years, and I'm proud to have led the charge to fix the issue once and for all.
Darwin City Council
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:49): I rise to congratulate Mr Kon Vatskalis on his election as Lord Mayor of the wonderful city of Darwin. Kon migrated to Australia 34 years ago and pursued a career in environmental health before serving 13 years as a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, including time as the Minister for Health during that period. He is the first Greek-born mayor of multicultural Darwin and succeeds Katrina Fong Lim, the third Chinese Australian—or Australian Chinese—to hold the office after Harry Chan and her own father, Alec Fong Lim. I have no doubt that the Fong Lim family will continue its outstanding record of service to the Darwin community and I thank Katrina for the great work that she did during her time at the helm of the Darwin City Council.
I'd also like to congratulate the successful aldermen from our recent election, and in particular the new aldermen: Andrew John Arthur, Jimmy Bouhoris, Sherry Cullen and Peter Pangquee. I'll tell a little story about Peter Pangquee. He's a bit of a legend up in the Territory. He was awarded the Bravery Medal 25 years ago for rescuing his mother, Lena, from the jaws of a saltwater crocodile. Peter jumped on the saltwater crocodile that had bitten his mum and started gouging its eyes out. It let his mum go and they both survived. He's very brave fella—a true Territorian. Only in the Territory!
I look forward to working with Kon and Peter and their fellow aldermen to promote the City of Darwin to the rest of Australia and the world. That's what we'll be doing tomorrow night in the Mural Hall with our event Facing North, promoting Darwin and the territory to the world. As I have done a couple of times now, I invite honourable members to join us there between 6 pm and 8 pm.
There are a couple of challenges facing Kon and his aldermen on the Darwin City Council. First among those is convincing the Commonwealth to bring forward the funding and to make sure it's a substantial amount of funding for the City Deal for Darwin. It's really important for our northern capital and it will help us shine even brighter and become a real beacon in that northern part of our country that is really in Asia. Ali Mills, who is an amazing singer-songwriter in Darwin, talks about Darwin, our city, as a multiracial beauty. It is just that, and I welcome, as I always do, people to join us in the far north.
Fadden Electorate: Coomera Regional Dredged Sediment Management Facility
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (16:47): It's great to report to the House that once again this government is continuing to work on behalf of the Gold Coast marine industry to ensure that industry grows, thrives and develops. A key part of that is ensuring we can get large boats to access the Gold Coast Marine Precinct, so it's great to see that the dredging of the Coomera River will commence in a few months time, after a multimillion dollar contract has been awarded to a Gold Coast based company, Synergy Resource Management, to build a new management facility, the Coomera Regional Dredged Sediment Management Facility, right in the heart of the thriving electorate of Fadden.
This $3 million facility is a significant project, the first of its kind for the Gold Coast multimillion dollar marine industry. It's situated on the Coomera River, where the Gold Coast Marine Precinct also sits. This precinct is one of the major marine industrial areas on the Gold Coast. It's dedicated to manufacturing, servicing and refits of recreational boats of all sizes and has lifts that can move boats of hundreds of tonnes. It's about 15 kilometres from Surfers Paradise, with direct water access to Moreton Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The M1 is only about a kilometre from the precinct and provides direct access to Brisbane. There are over 60 businesses there employing about 2,500 people.
As well as being a great provider of jobs on the northern Gold Coast, this new facility will help minimise potential environmental impacts by managing the fine, silty mud sediment found in the upper sections of the Coomera River which is not suitable for river bank or beach replenishment. All going well, it will be up and running by the end of the year. Once completed, it will dredge the Coomera River to a depth of 3.5 metres from Sanctuary Cove, the entrance to the estuary, through to the Gold Coast City Marina. This will help improve navigational access and make the place safer to navigate, and, importantly, it opens the area up for major yachts and vessels to get to the marine precinct, not just for victualing, but, more importantly, for refitting. Remember: a 240-foot superyacht spends as much money in any community where it arrives as a 200-person cruise ship. That is the economic impact from large vessels coming through, and we need to do everything we can to attract those large-spending vessels into Australia. The Kiwis are currently attracting them and that is not good enough; we can't let our friends in New Zealand have this sort of spending power. We need to encourage large vessels, especially to the Gold Coast, the area with the highest number of boat registrations in the country.
This builds on what this government has done in opening a customs facility at Southport, which will be trialled for 12 months. It will be great to see more and more of our waterways opened up to allow not just large vessels from overseas but everyday mums and dads in tinnies and pleasure cruisers alike to navigate and use the wonderful waterways of the northern Gold Coast. I look forward to the dredging of the Coomera River, I look forward to further dredging of the Broadwater and I look forward to working further with the citizens of Fadden.
Fitzgerald, Ms Sue
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (16:50): It is impossible to exaggerate how invaluable those who dedicate their lives to the care, education, growth and joy of our youngest children are to our community. My local community of Fairfield has been blessed over many years with one such individual, who has now announced her plan to retire. Known to most people as Miss Sue, Ms Sue Fitzgerald, the director of Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten in my electorate, is planning to hang up her hat at the end of this year. During her 30 years of service, Miss Sue has seen approximately 1,500 children enter her doors, first as the director of the Wonthaggi Kindergarten for two years before joining the Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten in 1988.
I had the honour of visiting Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten earlier this year, and during my visit Miss Sue was generous enough to share her expertise and her views on a range of issues with me—issues ranging from unsafe pedestrian crossings near her kinder to the long waiting lists for child health services, and from the challenges the kinder faces in implementing the national quality framework to the need for securing ongoing funding for early childcare centres. Every issue Miss Sue raised comes from her three decades of experience as a frontline childhood educator.
It goes without saying that Miss Sue cares a lot about children, but she has the interests of her staff and all early childcare workers at heart too. During my visit I was advised by Miss Sue that, as a result of the fragmentation of kindergarten management in Victoria, it has become significantly difficult for early childcare workers to access their workplace entitlements. Miss Sue believes it is simply unfair that an individual who has worked for three different kindergartens across the management spectrum would need to pursue each employer to access entitlements such as long service leave. There should be portability for those entitlements. In the case of smaller kindergartens, Miss Sue informs me, a former employee may find themselves in a situation where an individual employer simply does not have the funds to pay them out.
I suspect that, on the cusp of her retirement, Miss Sue wanted to do as much as possible to make Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten a better place for the children and a better place for the educators. Here is an early childhood educator who is fully embracing not only the joy but also the challenges of her work. As the father of a three-year-old boy, I believe I can say on behalf of all parents that we remain eternally grateful to those who love and care for our children at times when we're unable to do so. This Sunday afternoon Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten will hold an event to commemorate, reflect on and acknowledge Miss Sue for her tremendous contribution to her kindergarten and her local community. This is an opportunity to show the affection our community feel for both Miss Sue and the centre she has run for nearly 30 years. I join the Alfred Nuttall Memorial Kindergarten and the Fairfield community in thanking Miss Sue and wishing her all the best.
Goldstein Electorate: Towards Home Program
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:53): Goldstein is a community built on responsibility and mutual respect. That's one of the reasons I'm so proud to represent it. It's a community that is founded on exactly the ideals we should want—it aspires to the betterment of community and our country. But respect also goes both ways, and, unfortunately, we're not seeing that at the moment from the Victorian state government in working with the community to deal with some of the social challenges we face within our community.
The proposed Towards Home program being advanced by the Andrews government in Victoria is yet another example of how not to consult, and of a government failing to engage with the community to address challenges around homelessness. In response to a concerning rise in homelessness in inner Melbourne, the Towards Home program intends to deliver 30 modular and relocatable homes to five sites across the great state of Victoria. That's an admirable project and admirable aim, but the challenge is, importantly, around taking the community with you as part of this process and engaging with local communities affected in a respectful way.
Six local residents of Brighton East were recently shocked by the arrival of a letter on 16 August that abruptly told them that some of these six temporary units would be going to vacant land on 226 South Road as part of that project. Considering there were other discussions within the community about how that land could be used to support people with, for instance, disabilities, I was shocked as well. Russell McDonald, who lives opposite and fully supports public housing, has said in the media:
There has been a complete lack of transparency and honesty by the Andrews Government. I can only assume it was to limit backlash or response to the proposal.
Gayle Doyle, who is also a local resident, notes:
We aren't against those who need more refuge, but we've had no communication from the government which makes me wonder what—
it is—
they are trying to hide.
This has been the reflection of many constituents in the Goldstein area.
Bayside does have a challenge around homelessness. We do have to make sure that we chip in and provide support, but it also has to be up-front and straight. That is what the Liberal candidate for Brighton, James Newbury, has been doing in the process of dealing with this issue. James has written directly to the responsible minister, Martin Foley, and requested guarantees that some residents will actually be engaged as part of any concerns to make sure there's a guarantee of amenity and safety as requested by local residents. He's also asked the minister to actually attend the meetings that have been held about this issue to make sure that, instead of hiding away in Spring Street and issuing statements saying that the state government makes no apology for dealing with the issue, he actually respects the residents' concerns and engages with them. I really praise James for his leadership. He's a great candidate who is already doing fantastic things for the Brighton community ahead of the 2018 election. I want to lend my support to his effort to make sure that the whole Brighton community is respected.
Shipping
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:56): I rise today to speak in support of Australian seafarers and a strong shipping fleet that supports our Australian seafarers, who do such great work. Our seafarers are some of the most highly-trained and highly-qualified seafarers in the world. That's the way we need to keep it, and that's the way I want to keep it and those on this side want to keep it. They're highly trained, they know our waters, they care for the environment and they navigate our waters with care for all of those things.
In the western suburbs of Adelaide, we see many, many communities that were built upon strong manufacturing and shipping jobs since its establishment. As I said, many worked in manufacturing and shipping. Shipping jobs were always some of the most sought-after lifetime careers available. They were sought-after jobs. Sadly, this government has again walked away from some of these workers as we see flag-of-convenience ships crewed by some of the world's most exploited labour, which are replacing local workers. We've heard many horror stories about where labour hasn't been paid on some of the foreign ships that come in and a whole range of horrific things. Regularly, the MUA intervenes to ensure the rights of those foreign workers.
Let me say that this isn't about protectionism in a globalised market. This is about national security, energy security and local jobs that give back to the community. This is also about the protection of the environment from inexperienced crews from overseas. For example, the seat of Hindmarsh has some of the most pristine coastlines in the world. My border is the Gulf St Vincent with lots of industries—fishing, aquaculture and a whole range of other things—and some of the best beaches in the world. I've got to say: I don't trust some of the overseas operations that are exploiting inexperienced workers, potentially endangering not only my electorate but also seas, beaches and environmental-pristine areas all around Australia.
Why do we have to wait for a shipping disaster for this government to act? Why do we have to not act and not do anything? A recent Senate inquiry found that flag-of-convenience shipping poses serious security risks, while participants engage in large-scale tax avoidance and exploitation. This was in the last Senate inquiry around FOCs, or flag-of-convenience ships. Australia has the fourth largest shipping task in the world, and Australian seafarers, as I said, are the most highly qualified in the world. This government should be cracking down on this and doing everything in their power to revitalise the Australian industry. I'd like to thank those constituents in my electorate for getting in touch with me regarding this important matter, and, as their local member, I will support them.
R U OK? Day
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:59): On Thursday 14 September we will commemorate R U OK? Day. This morning I filled in for the member for Berowra at the R U OK? Day breakfast, which saw many of our parliamentary colleagues and those from the mental health profession come and share breakfast. We had some great presentations made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Health and the shadow minister for mental health, Julie Collins, among others. We here in this place spend most of our lives fighting one another about this, that and the other. But, on something as important as mental health and suicide prevention, I think it is safe to say that we speak as one.
Yesterday, today and tomorrow, eight Australians have killed and will kill themselves. They will take their own lives. That is eight yesterday, eight today, eight tomorrow and eight the next day after that. And, for every person who commits suicide, there are 30 people who unsuccessfully attempt it. That is around 240 people who attempt suicide each and every day. They are very scary statistics. They are someone's brother, someone's sister, someone's work colleague, someone's mum or someone's dad. There would not be a person in this place who would not have been personally impacted by someone they know committing suicide. It is a gut-wrenching event that impacts on many families all too often.
What we in this place need to do is encourage Australians to simply ask the question: are you okay? Is there anything I can do to help you? It doesn't take a lot of effort. They say that it takes a village to raise a child, but it's much more than that. It takes a village to raise people. It takes a village to look after people. In our very, very busy world, with social media, when we are all so supposedly well connected, this is a day when we should stop, put our arms around our friends and colleagues and ask, 'Are you okay?'
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (17:03): It's an absolute pleasure to rise and speak on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources consideration of Social issues relating to land-based automated vehicles in Australia. It has been a fascinating inquiry into a future that will encompass all of us and all of our communities. Ours is a generation, I think, wherein many of our parents used horse-driven or drawn modes of transport in their work in their younger years and later in their lives. Like so many in this House, for example, my father rode a horse to school in his younger years. He certainly worked with my grandfather on the family farm with Clydesdale horses as their main source of power on the farm. Our generation will also see and is already seeing the advent of automated vehicles. For our children, I predict that will be their main form of transport and source of power in the workplace in the years to come. In just three generations there will be that transition, and we are right in the middle of it.
So this has been a particularly important and relevant inquiry, and I believe that this report from our committee lays a firm foundation for future considerations of not just the federal government and federal regulators but also our state and local government counterparts. And whilst I for one have had my imagination extended in considering such futures, alongside my committee colleagues, the advice of some witnesses was particularly pragmatic and relevant. Just as marketing myopia blinded those who said that railways would never take over from stagecoaches or that motor vehicles would never replace the horse, so we must now not be blinded in considering these new futures. That particular witness suggested that we can still use the horse and carriage, especially for tourist and special event purposes, but not on freeways, which are designed for the modern motor car. Therefore it is feasible that the driven motor car that we know now can still be used in the decades ahead, but probably not on roads and infrastructure designed and developed specifically for the automated vehicles of the future.
Our report addresses a wide range of social impacts—as it should, given the title of our investigation. There are therefore a number of key considerations in our recommendations, which I'll refer to in just a few moments. We make special mention of issues that present potential benefits for some sectors of the community and challenges for others. Imagine the mobility benefits for the elderly, who can be confident in automated forms of transport that allow them to continue to engage in their communities, their social activities, and normal aspects of life such as shopping that nowadays are not possible for them. Many of them no longer hold a driver's licence, in a society that's currently designed around the driven motor car as we know it today.
Similarly, what are the benefits for the disabled, as well as the specific requirements for them in terms of continued access and facilitation of activities in totally automated vehicle systems of the decades in the future? What are the challenges for those living in regional and remote communities, where automated vehicle infrastructure, such as lane marking, road signs and other common features in urban areas that we'll notice emerging in the coming years, may not be available or even affordable in regional locations? For example, do they remain dependent on traditional motor vehicles only? Or can they expect a hybrid between automated and drivable vehicles so that they can traverse both worlds? Should they expect the same technology as their urban counterparts, perhaps? Our inquiry has considered many such issues with industry and academic experts from right around the country. Our recommendations are therefore very much couched in terms of providing direction for further consideration of these emerging issues at a federal, state and local government level.
I'd also like to address, while I'm discussing this report, the issue of changing job markets. There is significant evidence that, with the advent of automated vehicles, traditional driving jobs in the transport industry—couriers and taxi drivers, for example—may be significantly reduced or perhaps will even disappear in the long term. That future impact on our communities, on our economies, around the country must be investigated in more detail as our knowledge about the impact of automated vehicles improves.
We have during the course of the inquiry heard from a range of motor vehicle manufacturers, both Australian and foreign. While we're all conscious of the transition away from the domestic manufacture of Australian vehicles, it is instructive to consider the future directions our automotive industry is already taking in response. I'm particularly excited that Ford Australia, for example, oversees the 100 per cent design and development of the Ranger-Everest platform of vehicles here in Australia for manufacture in Thailand and distribution around the globe. That's an example of an automotive industry focused on its future in Australia, and it's pleasing indeed to know that these Australian based companies that we know so well, and other global companies that are setting up operations in Australia, will be extending their innovation into automated vehicle systems and technologies for use around the world, as we heard through evidence in this inquiry. I think this is testament to the ingenuity of our current and future local designers and engineers, who can participate and lead these innovations.
Other social issues considered included changes to urban design, particularly parking lots, which we won't need in the long-term, it is suggested; road design; and, of course, resulting changes to town planning. There are also consumer behaviour considerations—those used to public transport and, therefore, not concerned about privacy, while others not as used to that may be, particularly in regional areas. There is the issue of acceptance of other technologies that seem to accompany automated vehicle development, including, in particular, electric vehicles. There is the issue of change in vehicle ownership and the fact that significant private equity may be freed up in the years to come. Will we as individual consumers still own vehicles if there is an automated fleet available to us? Are we responsible for registering them? Will we be responsible for maintaining them? Will we, therefore, need to insure them; and, if not us as individual consumers from a property and personal insurance perspective, who might take up that responsibility?
So our recommendations include a working party with industry and academia to identify specific industry needs, covering: consideration of people with a disability, older Australians and regional Australians; trials of automated vehicles; consistency and regulation across the states, standardisation of road infrastructure in the future across the states to accommodate automated vehicles; the need to work with software and motor vehicle manufacturers; proper public engagement about what this means to all of us; and consideration, as I said, of employment ramifications as well as data security, legal liability and insurance implications in the future.
I thank most sincerely our secretariat for the fascinating program they arranged for this inquiry so that we could truly understand the social issues associated with automated vehicles of the future and the necessary areas for future research and development. I also appreciate the truly bipartisan approach that this committee took to this important area that will impact on all of us in the future and most definitely on all of the communities that we represent in this place.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:12): This is an excellent report. I must at the outset commend the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources for putting this report together. It is exactly the type of report that is required in a place like this, giving us the opportunity to lift ourselves from day-to-day skirmishes and think about things that will affect our communities across the country, be they city or region based, in the longer term and how we manage that change. So I wanted to commend the committee itself and echo the complimentary remarks made about the secretariat. In particular, I wanted to thank my opposition colleagues who were on that committee. I thank the member for Solomon, the member for Lyons and also the member for Wills for their contribution.
The reality is that driverless vehicles are coming. They are around the corner. In the next few years, it is more and more likely that you are going to be driving alongside a vehicle that is autonomous. For some people, it will be novel and different. For others, it will be a time saver and a stress saver. But it will also pose a challenge. Not only will it pose a challenge to the 250,000 Australians that earn their living from driving—the truck driver, the bus driver, the taxidriver—but it could also have an impact in ways we haven't considered. These vehicles are likely to actually make an impact on those terrible accident statistics that we see—for example, the human factor believed to be the cause or an influence in 90 per cent of accidents, and the 1,200 Australians who die from car accidents each year. If autonomous or driverless vehicles improve safety then that is a great thing. What impact will that have, for example, on police, who may not necessarily have to be called out so often to accidents, or on emergency departments, who might no longer be required to staff in a particular way as a result of the tragic accidents that occur on our roads?
It goes right down to salespeople when you consider that these days we are more and more prepared to buy a vehicle or other things online without seeing the product. Look at the extraordinary demand for Tesla vehicles—they didn't necessarily need a salesperson to explain to people why these vehicles were necessary. This will change the way in which vehicles are purchased. This is going to have a big impact.
Are we ready? Are we thinking about this change? The answer is no. We can see a future where cars can drive themselves, but we have in this country no direction. No-one—in particular, this government—is plotting how the country will manage the impact of automation. This change is coming. Automation, we know, will affect a large number of jobs. About 13 out of 19 Australian industry sectors are going to be affected by technological change in some shape or form, and there is absolutely no evidence that we are preparing for this. This is a great report, but the threat to this report is that it will gather dust like other reports before it that have talked about the need to prepare. Those who wrote the report have given a lot of thought to this and have talked to a lot of people. They have come up with some excellent conclusions. The worst thing that can happen to this report is that its recommendations are ignored. We should be very concerned about that.
I have been to Palo Alto and I have sat in driverless vehicles in two forms—there are the ones where someone is behind the wheel, ready to take over, but there are other vehicles that have absolutely no dashboard whatsoever and can drive completely on their own. These are being developed by tech giants like Google. Uber is investing a lot in this in the United States. A lot of firms are thinking about driverless vehicles. It will change the model of car ownership. For example, with ridesharing you can potentially foresee a future where people will be using someone else's vehicle, an autonomous or driverless vehicle, and the cost of using that vehicle will already be sorted out through ridesharing apps that are already in existence right now. What is the impact of that on cities, on the way that we roll out our infrastructure, the way that we move people on our roads and the way we invest to deal with that? You can see that cities will change shape, and it will challenge urban planning as well in the longer term. How are we prepared for that type of event?
All this will prompt a huge data challenge. Ford, as the report points out, is going to spend $200 million converting an assembly plant into a data processing facility. The CEO of Intel figures that for every eight hours that an autonomous vehicle is operating it is going to generate 40 terabytes of data. This is huge. How will that data be used, and what are the protections in place to prevent people hacking into cars? What's the safety impact of that? There was an instance where a Fiat Chrysler Jeep was deliberately hacked to test the vulnerabilities of the system. It drove off by itself, and then it had the brakes slammed on by another person with a laptop sitting some distance away. They were able to demonstrate that, despite the manufacturer's claims that the vehicle was safe, it could be hacked. People are going to be concerned about the vulnerability of these vehicles.
We have other concerns about what standards will be enforced and what leadership role government will have. The report traverses legal liability, safety issues, even things like the future of drivers licences and how prevalent drivers licences will be in a future where autonomous vehicles can make their own decisions about how they operate. We've heard already the benefits for mobility, for people who are not able to drive—particularly older people, who will lose their licences due to advancing age. This may open up mobility to people in that type of circumstance. Public transport applications are also important.
The report devotes a significant amount of time to the employment impacts that these developments might bring. I touched on some of these earlier. There are two things, involving what the government isn't doing and what the government is doing, that will have an impact on employment. While the committee was bipartisan on this, and I respect that, the government do need to be held to account for this. First, they aren't providing any further thought on the impact of automation on work. The employment minister last year released a report that had been authored by the CSIRO—Tomorrow's digitally enabled workforce. I know for a fact that this report is just gathering dust in the Department of Employment. This is not good for the nation in the longer term. What the government are doing that will have an impact is currently cutting $20 billion from support for schools. They already cut $600 million from TAFEs. We are now considering legislation that will cut investment in universities. Automation is going to demand a higher level of skills to be possessed by Australians. At a time when automation will demand a higher level of skills, to deny investment in this area is not only economically irresponsible; it is socially irresponsible as well. The government have to be held to account for that.
I will end on this quote. When you look at technology—
Government members interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: They have a lot of time to interject but no time to think and no time to act—that's what happens from those opposite. The critical quote that was contained in this report was from Dr Matt Wenham of the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, who said that when you look at new technologies, social licence is the key. He said:
Pick your technology; the issue is rarely with the technological aspects—that will be resolved with research that is going on in markets and that sort of work—it is around social acceptance and social licence. If the conversation is not structured properly with the community and people do not understand the issues around this and are not able to feel that they can have a say in how these technologies are deployed, you will have the sort of problems that you had with other technologies. We should not underestimate that social licence.
He is absolutely right. This is a conversation we need to have more with the public. We need to focus more on this issue, but more than anything else we need to prepare. The government is holding back the longer term benefit of automation and technological change, and it's increasing the risk of the downside on people. We as a nation cannot afford that. I commend the report, but I certainly condemn the government for their inaction in this space.
Debate adjourned.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
Shortland Electorate: Television Reception
Shortland Electorate: Broadband
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (17:22): Since I was elected to parliament four years ago, there has rarely been a week in my electorate office when we haven't received complaints about inadequate television reception. I have been actively campaigning for improved communication services in the Lake Macquarie and Central Coast regions, and I have continuously called upon the Minister for Communications and the government to help me in resolving the issue. However, the people of Shortland have been continually ignored by this government. These residents have a right to expect decent television, as television provides us access to news and a connection to our community with locally produced content from regional broadcasters. It is particularly important for people who are elderly and isolated, as free-to-air television remains the most accessible form of telecommunications.
Inaction by the government prompted me to launch a digital television survey to gain further feedback on the state of television services in Shortland. I received 227 responses, which provided a small snapshot of the area and problems we are experiencing. However, hearing these stories has been overwhelming. So many people have told me they are frustrated and angry, and many have exhausted all their options. I found from the survey that the transition to digital has seen a large decline in satisfaction with television reception. The proportion of respondents who were satisfied with their television service dropped from 83 per cent with analog to 54 per cent with digital since the transition. That's a drop of 30 percentage points. Of the respondents who have had a technician out to improve their service, more than half saw little or no improvement. Let me repeat that: more than half the people who have taken action to get a technician out still can't improve their service.
One example is Mrs Flanagan from Belmont, who has had several technicians out to try and improve her reception since the switch to digital, but nothing has helped. She looks after her grandchildren and is unable to access ABC KIDS for them because of the poor reception. Mrs Flanagan applied to the Australian government to receive access to VAST, viewer access satellite television, to resolve the issue but was rejected because of the new transmission tower in Belmont North. However, multiple technicians have explained to her the new tower offers her no improvement. Another example is Mr Hedley from Caves Beach, who has digital reception so bad that he's had to pay for VAST equipment to be installed. The ability to watch television came at a considerable expense to him. I do not believe it is reasonable or fair that these residents are forced to invest in a satellite service simply to replace what has been delivered for nearly half a century for free. Due to the nature of satellite television, Mr Hedley is now excluded from access to local news content from the NBN channel.
The government has been aware of the issues for years, as this matter was first raised by me in 2014. In the years since, the government's response to my attempts to resolve the issues have been appalling. I have asked both the former and the current Minister for Communications to refer the digital television issues to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for field testing and for the government and regional broadcasters to start working together to find a solution to these problems. This has not been done. In an act of political hypocrisy, half a million dollars of federal funding was allocated to upgrading the television transmitter in the nearby Paterson electorate in 2015 in a vain attempt to keep the former member for Paterson in that seat. That failed miserably and the seat was won by Labor in the 2016 election. I had hoped that the then communications minister, the now Prime Minister, would do the same for the people of Shortland, but instead they were ignored. He literally drove through my electorate—which is facing similar or worse television reception problems as those the electorate of Paterson is facing—to make this announcement, which showed outrageous pork-barrelling of a coalition seat. The people I represent deserve better than that.
Access to basic services like free-to-air television reception in towns less than an hour and a half from Sydney is a basic right of a developed nation. It is a right that should not be politicised. It is a right that is actually fundamental to democracy. This isn't just about watching entertainment. So many constituents in my area get their news from television. That is the way they form conclusions about the political process and it helps them make decisions about who to vote for in elections. They have a right to get free-to-air television. Let me repeat: we are an hour and a half from the largest city in Australia. The fact that so many of my constituents cannot get adequate television reception is a disgrace. And the regional broadcasters must share some responsibility. Media reform legislation that is going through this parliament right now will increase the profitability of those broadcasters. They should invest in television reception for their customers. It is a basic right. To my constituents I say that I will continue to campaign for greater telecommunication services and I will not rest until we get the services we deserve from this unsympathetic and incompetent government.
I will turn to another communications issue, and that is the appalling rollout of the National Broadband Network in my electorate. The most up-to-date figures from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman show that the postcode with the second highest level of complaints is that of Belmont in my electorate, which also happens to be where my electorate office is located. There are three postcodes on the Central Coast in the top 10 regarding complaints—another of the areas I represent. Let me repeat that: the second highest number of complaints comes from a suburb in my electorate, and three suburbs on the Central Coast, an area I represent, are in the top 10.
The New South Wales Business Chamber has released disturbing figures about the impact of the botched rollout on small business. The chamber recently conducted a survey and found that 43 per cent of businesses reported they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the NBN. Thirty-nine of those surveyed reported having to wait more than four weeks for their NBN connection to come online. My electorate office is constantly being contacted by constituents complaining about the rollout of the NBN. Indeed, just last week I was advised that, in a suburb where there had been a full rollout, there is one street which won't have access until 2020. The current Prime Minister—and who knows how long he will last for—is responsible for this mess. He was the shadow minister for communications and then the Minister for Communications and the Arts and he came up with this ridiculous fibre-to-the-node concept—a ridiculous concept that he promised would be rolled out in half the time of fibre-to-the-premises and would deliver comparable speeds. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cost of the rollout has doubled, the speeds are appalling, the service is appalling and my constituents, like constituents around the country, are up in arms. I say this to members opposite: if they claim to represent their electorates they will be voicing the same concerns. Their government is responsible for a botched NBN rollout—a rollout that is putting businesses at risk.
Let me give you another example. A constituent of mine who sells boats had to sleep in his boat dealership for a month because the NBN cut off his alarm system. He was so concerned about the security of his stock, which was worth millions of dollars and was quite portable, by definition, that he had to sleep in his office for a month. Those opposite show contempt for constituents by defending this botched NBN rollout. It will be a national shame and will be the subject of a National Audit Office report in no time—a report that I'm sure will find an incredible waste of money, overpromising of speeds and services and an underwhelming delivery of those services. Communications remains an incredibly important part of my electorate.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CONROY: I hear all the yapping over there from the member for Maranoa, who's been here five minutes and can't keep his mouth shut.
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Maranoa!
Mr CONROY: He's a cheap shots merchant and a man without any credibility. I'll return to the point. Communications are incredibly important to my electorate, like every other electorate in this country, and this government has botched it up. There's no greater symbol of the fizzer we have as Prime Minister than the communications errors he made when he was communications minister, which continue to dog him. They will hang around his neck like a millstone, because that's what they are. They symbolise an incompetent government—a government unable to deliver—and a government that is not delivering the services one would expect in a developed Western nation. I'm very proud that my party took to the last election very strong communications policies that would have fixed a lot of these problems, and I'm confident that we will take policies to the next election that will do the same thing. I continue to fight for my constituents' communications access: access to free-to-air television—which is a right in a developed Western nation—and access to high-speed broadband, which is not just important from an entertainment point of view but also for doing business, for e-commerce, for education and for e-health. These are things that are incredibly important in an advanced economy, which this government is botching and will continue to botch until we chuck them out.
Banking and Financial Services
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (17:32): We work so hard in this place to make things better for our constituents. Sometimes this is a change in vaccination subsidy, like the shingles for free vaccine for 70 to 80-year-olds, or the reinstatement of the pensioner concession card to those 92,300 self-funded retirees who lost it in January this year—both being measures for which I was an effective advocate for change. But some of our advocacy is long-term and needs solid and definite policy change, not tinkering around the edges. I've been working for some constituents on issues that relate to the actions of ASIC, the ACCC, the ATO and bank behaviour—or, in some cases, their non-action. It is hard for me to understand when I take a significant case to ASIC and then to the ACCC and both organisations carefully reply that there is little they can do, yet when the case is given to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, there is actually a case to answer. I totally commend my government for bringing the small business ombudsman into existence for this particular four-year-old case, otherwise it would never have been proper reviewed.
In addition, another important step in the process, as announced today by the Turnbull government, is taking action to crack down on illegal phoenixing activity, which costs the economy up to $3.2 billion per year, to ensure that those involved face tougher penalties. I could not have been more pleased to see the media release from the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Honourable Kelly O'Dwyer MP. Phoenixing is the stripping and transferring of assets from one company to another by individuals or entities to avoid paying liabilities. It's been a problem for successive governments over many decades. At this stage, I cannot name the case I mentioned earlier, but Mark N. would be thrilled to see this antiphoenixing initiative. It has been a long wait indeed.
Phoenixing hurts all Australians, including employees, creditors, competing businesses, subcontractors in the construction industry and taxpayers. The government's comprehensive package of reforms will include the introduction of a director identification number, colloquially called the 'DIN', and a range of other measures to deter and penalise phoenix activity. The DIN will identify directors with a unique number, but it will be more than just a number; it will be connected to other government agencies and databases to allow regulators to map the relationships between individuals and entities and between individuals and other people, unlike the current situation where different levels of bureaucracy and departments allow clouding and difficult investigation pathways to take place.
In addition to the DIN, the government will consult on implementing a range of other measures to deter and disrupt the core behaviours of phoenix operators, including non-directors such as facilitators and advisers. The measures will include: specific phoenixing offences to better help regulators take decisive action against those who engage in this illegal activity; the establishment of a dedicated phoenix hotline to provide the public with a single point of contact to report illegal phoenix activity; the extension of the penalties that apply to those who promote tax avoidance schemes, to capture advisers who are phoenix operators; stronger powers for the ATO to recover security deposits, preventing directors from backdating their resignations to avoid personal liability or from resigning and leaving a company with no directors; and prohibiting entities of the phoenix operator from appointing a liquidator, because this is one of the methods where goods and property are transferred from one company to another with little or no cost implications, and the creditors lose out.
I say it's about time the government consults on how best to identify high-risk individuals who will be subject to new preventative and early intervention tools, including a better process of appointing the liquidators. I hope this applies to the administrators, as well as allowing the ATO to commence immediate recovery action following the issuance of a director penalty notice. These reforms complement and build on other government action to combat crime and fraud in the economy. These include: instituting the Phoenix, Black Economy and Serious Financial Crime Taskforces; strengthening disciplinary rules for insolvency practitioners; legislating to improve information sharing between key regulatory agencies; reviewing and enhancing ASIC's powers and enforcement tools; consulting on law reform initiatives to curb the excessive drain on the taxpayer funded Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme, which covers employees' entitlements left outstanding as a result of failed business enterprises—businesses that are phoenixing should take the penalty; and consulting on a register of beneficial ownership of companies to be made available to key regulators for enforcement purposes. It is excellent to see this commitment from my government to making sure that individuals who engage in illegal phoenixing activity are held to account, and that the regulators are equipped to take stronger action to both deter and penalise phoenixing activity.
In addition, I believe we must start to introduce more effective constraints for businesses and their relationships with their banks. The study being done by Kate Carnell in her role as the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman is an examination of bank behaviour in relation to small and medium businesses. This is, I believe, a model that can be used with the same kind of vigour to investigate what can only be described as unconscionable conduct by banks in their pursuit of ever-increasing shareholder profits, and, in addition, their remuneration bonus structures of reward. The Treasurer is in the process of reviewing this, and recent legislation suggests we have made an excellent start.
We appear to be failing in our duty to the everyday Australian by not forcing accountability and behavioural change in our financial institutions. I welcome the continuing rollout of legislation, review and consultation. There are families and businesses with case studies that are so compelling that we must continue to review the process with the vigour that we demonstrate right now. There's a great need to address what has occurred historically and give recompense where deserved. Even more importantly, there's an urgent need to put in place regulations that prevent such conduct in these associated industries in the future. It is time to gather the recommendations of previous investigations and inquiries done in this House, review them, and determine a legislative timetable to bring forward the very essential changes that are needed and have been recommended.
I've read enough, heard enough and seen enough material from the committee investigations to convince me that what I say is a true reflection of many committee inquiries. As a responsible government, we must continue this process with an expectation of regulatory and legislative change with an appropriate schedule to introduce such changes. There is no code of behaviour for banks to stop them assisting customers applying for credit cards. There does not appear to be an audit of the debt levels for individuals who apply for one credit card after another. But I bet if they defaulted on a payment there'd be a rapid review of their credit status history, and they would quickly be taken to court for financial settlement or have their assets sold off to pay off their debts. We have a problem when businesses incur a debt with the ATO and are not in a position to pay off their ATO debt. There's a prohibitive interest rate applied to their debt levels which makes many businesses become bankrupt. And then we have employees without jobs. Shame on our system for not having a checking system in place—which makes this an important part of policy development in our immediate future. Shame on those in the credit-card industry for not acting with financial responsibility.
I am proud to stand here today to acknowledge the steps that are being put in place, but I recognise there is a great deal more to do. We must encourage a cultural shift in our regulatory boards—ASIC, APRA, the ACCC and the ATO. Their actions, or lack of them, have profound and far-reaching effects on many levels of the Australian economy, both the fiscal economy and also our social economy.
Cambodia
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (17:41): This evening, I'd like to speak about the dire human rights situation in Cambodia. There's been significant deterioration in Cambodia over recent weeks, culminating in the arrest of Kem Sokha, the leader of Cambodia's main opposition party. Kem Sokha is accused of treason and colluding with foreigners under article 443 of Cambodia's penal code arising out of a speech he gave to supporters in Melbourne. If convicted, Kem Sokha faces up to 30 years imprisonment for what the Cambodian government has described as a Washington based plot to undermine its leadership.
Shortly after midnight on 3 September this year, more than 100 police officers, without a warrant, raided and vandalised Kem Sokha's home. As a result, Kem Sokha was arrested and taken to the notorious remote prison on the border of Vietnam known as CC3, where he's been detained without access to lawyers. Kem Sokha's arrest is a blatant violation of Cambodia's constitutional guarantee for immunity to members of parliament and an affront to the rule of law. John Sifton, director of Human Rights Watch, Asia, highlights the charge against Kem Sokha as lacking:
… credibility, given its—
the Cambodian government's—
long record of misusing its legal system to silence or intimidate critics and political opponents.
The arrest is a major setback for democracy and human rights in Cambodia and is clearly designed to reinforce the authoritarian rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen ahead of next year's general election. The value and principle work undertaken by the international community in the lead-up to the Paris Peace Accord in 1991 is systematically being unravelled as Cambodia heads towards being, once again, an authoritarian state. Phil Robertson, the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch, Asia, has commented extensively on the matter. He said:
Prosecuting Kem Sokha for treason would be a devastating setback not only for human rights in Cambodia, but for the country's hopes of future democratic development … Once again the government is using its control over the judiciary to manipulate the legal system to silence political opponents.
This most recent development in Cambodia is not happening in a vacuum but is accompanied by a broad crackdown by the government on critical and independent voices ahead of the July election next year.
While Cambodia has been engulfed in a climate of fear, the recent crackdown by the Hun Sen government has been described by many, including Charles Santiago, chairperson of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, as:
… the worst since the country's signing of the Paris Peace Accords … that ended years of civil war and genocide.
Since 2015, assaults on government critics have intensified, with the brutal bashing of two members of the opposition party, Kong Sophea and Nhay Chamroeun. The situation has become dramatically worse over the last two years, with criminal charges having been laid against both opposition members and a number of serious threats to civil society, independent journalism and opposition groups in Cambodia. The government seems to have grown more paranoid ever since the Cambodia National Rescue Party mounted a strong showing at the last national election in 2013. With the upcoming general election next year, many groups and individuals have been subject to intimidation from the government for exercising their basic rights to peaceful assembly and political expression. There are now escalating threats to independent media and civil society, with authorities suddenly alleging that various outlets and organisations owe back taxes as a means of shutting them down.
I have been informed that the independent newspaper, The Cambodia Daily, was last week forced to close down in these circumstances. For almost 25 years the Daily has been addressing sensitive topics including issues of corruption, land evictions and illegal logging. Furthermore, two radio stations, the Women's Media Centre of Cambodia and Moha Nokor, were recently suspended for allegedly breaching their licence agreements. They were airing news from Radio Free Asia and Voice of America. The National Democratic Institute, a US organisation which focuses on civic participation, was told in August that all its foreign staff must leave Cambodia and its operation must be closed. Five senior staff of the Human Rights and Development Association were harassed and arrested for their activism regarding human rights. The 'ADHOC five', as they have become known, were held in detention for 427 days without charge until they were released on bail following international outrage. It is important to note that the 'ADHOC five' still face the prospect of up to 10 years imprisonment, if convicted.
These acts of intimidation by the government follow on from the murder of Kem Ley, a prominent political commentator who was a critic of the Hun Sen government, particularly over issues of corruption. The resurrection of an arrest warrant for the former opposition leader Sam Rainsy, connected to an old, politically motivated criminal case against him, has also raised great concerns amongst the international community. The arrest warrant led to Sam Rainsy's decision in 2015 to remain outside Cambodia, which gave the government momentum to pass two repressive amendments to the law on political parties. The amendments allow the government to dissolve political parties, as well as ban party leaders from political activity, without any due process or appropriate appeal mechanisms. These provisions forced Sam Rainsy to step down as opposition leader and now pose a similar threat to Kem Sokha, who would similarly lose his party leadership if convicted of the charges against him. Kem Sokha's arrest reinforces the government's desperate attempt to maintain its more than 30-year rule.
The Cambodian Australian Federation expressed the views of many in my community when it said:
Hun Sen's government has once again trampled all over Cambodia's laws and its Constitution which enshrine the rights to parliamentary immunity, freedom of expression, press and publication for Khmer citizens.
In order to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia and allow for an environment of free and fair elections, Australia needs to take an active role as part of the concerned international community. This is imperative, given that Australia is the fifth largest donor to Cambodia and will provide an estimated $87.4 million in development assistance to Cambodia in 2017-18.
There is a clear case to press for stronger language in the United Nations Human Rights Council's annual resolution on Cambodia. We should support the renewal of the special rapporteur's mandate as well as tasking the UN high commissioner with reporting back, prior to the national election, on the civil and political situation in Cambodia. Addressing these issues of human rights is essential from any developmental perspective for Cambodia. Promoting a safer society where the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are protected, rather than threatened, can help Cambodia improve its standing in the global community.
Given our ambitions for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Australia should play a more forthright role as we develop closer economic ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. We should use our influence to enhance human rights and promote genuine democratic principles. This way, we can ensure our commercial ties help states like Cambodia improve their human rights record, which in turn can help them open up prospects for new economic opportunities.
Farrer Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms LEY (Farrer) (17:50): I would like to speak this evening about the NDIS and its rollout in my electorate of Farrer. People with disability are now living more independent lives, engaging with their community, entering the workforce or returning to work, and receiving the services and equipment they need. The Productivity Commission found that the NDIS could result in an additional 320,000 people with disability being employed. NDIS replaces a system that was often unfair and inefficient with one that maximises people's independence and capacity to participate and contribute to our community. It wants to set itself apart from previous support mechanisms that had little focus on outcomes and almost no understanding about what works for particular groups of people.
The NDIS began last year and is being introduced in stages across Australia, through to 2019, to ensure it is successful and sustainable. This is a unique challenge for the National Disability Insurance Agency, the NDIA, as they work to implement the largest social reform in Australia since the introduction of Medicare. As a government we need to focus on as smooth a transition as possible, where we move from old systems to new and avoid disruption to services. After trials conducted in the Hunter Region and Nepean Blue Mountains, the runs are starting to appear on the board. Between April and June this year the scheme grew by 15,078 participants with an approved NDIS plan. This includes 6,134 children under six years of age accessing the scheme via the NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention. I hosted an information forum in Albury, on 5 June, ahead of the NDIS commencing in my electorate from July this year. As many as 6,000 people with disability will join the scheme throughout the Murrumbidgee area. They are among some 140,000 people in New South Wales of 460,000 Australians set to benefit from the NDIS, with an extra $140 million to be allocated to meet their needs.
The NDIS also presents a huge opportunity for the development of a competitive and innovative disability services market, which will result in more jobs and significant financial investment. It is estimated that the national workforce needed will grow by an extra 60,000 to 70,000 people. In New South Wales alone, it's expected that the number of jobs in the disability sector will grow to around 59,200—up by more than 30,000—solely due to the NDIS rollout. The NDIS should give all Australians peace of mind that if their child or loved one is born with or acquires a permanent and significant disability they will get the support they need.
The NDIS is designed to work side-by-side with health, education and other universal services which people with disability will need to continue to access, but it is not responsible for these services. The NDIA has acknowledged that things may not be perfect immediately, but it is committed to listening, learning and improving as the scheme grows. At its best, the NDIS will provide support that empowers people with disability to exercise choice in the pursuit of their goals and in the delivery of their supports. I've talked a lot about contributing to the community, about the number of jobs, about personal choice and about the architecture of the system, and I'm going to talk in a minute, if I get time, about the process. But I don't think we should ever lose sight of the individuals who are at the centre of this scheme and for whom we built the system. It is entirely for them and their needs.
We have to be careful as we roll out the NDIS that we don't get bogged down in too much bureaucracy, too much red tape and too much in the way of—although there has to be a necessary level of it—form filling, approvals and accreditation. For the families, particularly those with children, who are waiting to access the scheme it can get quite overwhelming. I know that in New South Wales access to disability support under the scheme that is the responsibility of the state government was quite arduous. And I don't say that as criticism of the scheme, but, having noticed constituents, I again come back to the children of families whose parents are struggling, who are quite exhausted by it all and often don't know where to get the help they need. So they come to their local member of parliament, and we're very glad that they do. We appreciate and find it an honour to be able to assist. But it certainly informs me and my office about how the system has, unfortunately, let people down, and I want to make very sure that the NDIS doesn't do the same thing. When I see parents who are waiting for assessments, filling out forms, providing, as one mother said to me, their life story and their bank account details for what seems like the umpteenth time to yet another agency, trying to get the support that they know they need for their child and that any objective observer can see that their child deserves, I become more determined that we don't fall for the same situation under the NDIS.
The challenge therefore is that the delivery partners in my own electorate, Intereach and Social Futures, who are managing that local area connection, design and frame the system with the person at the centre. And of course they have a list of instructions, procedures, accreditations, approvals, time lines and so on, but they have to make sure that they never lose sight of the person and the person's needs. If everything they do relates to that central theme, they can't go wrong. As I said to one family, I'm here to kick up a fuss for you, because you're exhausted and worn out by what you're having to do for your child within a clumsy and clunky system. Everyone recognises that particularly when it comes to children we have to make sure we do our very best. Sometimes that means turning ourselves inside out to make sure that the supports arrive when they're needed and that where the system might have indicated an assessment date of December this year, as was the case in one example my office and I worked with, we say, 'Well, that's not good enough for this family; they need the help earlier.' In this case they had a purpose-built vehicle for a young man who was 14 and presumably quite difficult to lift in and out of their current vehicle, and they needed the NDIS to provide the dollars for the hoist and the lifting mechanism so that the family could go on outings. It simply isn't good enough to say that they have to wait until a certain date in a few months time. Those sorts of cases need to have priority, and the system has to be flexible—person centred but absolutely flexible.
Everyone who enters the NDIS will first receive a plan. Most people's plan can be completed over the phone through a conversation between the participant and an NDIA representative about their existing supports, their needs and their goals. That plan is the entry point to the NDIS and the start of an ongoing relationship. The plan will identify the reasonable or necessary supports required to meet the immediate needs of a participant and start to identify and achieve their goals. Some may need to provide evidence, including information on what disability they have, how long it will last and the impact it's having on their life. As I said, Social Futures is the local area coordinator partner in our local services of the NDIS in New South Wales in the Murrumbidgee and the far west. They are working with organisations such as Intereach to deliver the services on the ground.
But the choice and control over the delivery of the services in support is, as it should be, in the hands of the people who actually use and benefit from the services—the participants, their families and their carers. And that is the key transformation, apart from removing so many layers of approval and so many layers of bureaucracy which add considerably to the cost of any service that actually gets provided person to person. The key thing is bringing those services back to the choice and control of the individual. Why would we not empower them to have that choice? Why would we not empower them to say, without even giving a reason: 'I do or don't want this particular individual coming into my home to help me by providing personal support and by taking me on outings. I don't want that person, but I do want this person. I want to be able to visit friends in a nearby town. I don't necessarily want to have to catch a bus. I want to be able to do these things when I decide to'? Particularly for individuals with mobility aids, it's up to them to decide how they most need to be supported.
As I said earlier, this maps well with the aged-care needs in rural and regional communities. It is a huge industry providing services and supports and responding—always responding, first and foremost—to the needs of the individuals.
Automotive Industry
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (18:00): In late October this government, after its four years in office, will reach a unique milestone for Australian governments: it will preside over, for the first time in our postwar history, a time when we are not making automotive motor vehicles either for our domestic market or for export.
In late October, Holden Elizabeth closes. It always saddens me to go through these facts, because we know that, but for a conjunction of events, we would still have a car industry. Those conjunction of events were, first and foremost the government's attitude, the attitude of the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the then Treasurer Joe Hockey, a high Australian dollar and an investment decision that had to be made at that point. If the investment decision had been made a year earlier, Holden Elizabeth and the rest of the automotive industry would have been saved. And had it been made, I suspect, now, we would still have a car industry because, as the Prime Minister and others in question time are so fond of pointing out, they are now much more amenable to the idea of industry assistance. Whether it be in Portland or whether it be in Whyalla, they have changed their tune from the days when we remember The Australian Financial Review headline 'Hockey dares GM to leave'. That was such callous disregard for an industry that had given so much to Australia and so much to my home state of South Australia.
We know Holden Elizabeth is a very, very good factory. Even today, it is top in the world for quality. A plant that is closing is best in the world for quality—for its quality outcomes. So, right now, there are workers at Holden pumping out top-quality cars, pumping out cars that are selling. Some of the high-performance vehicles are now pulling more than $100,000 over their retail price. We've got people with a lot of money in their pockets walking into dealerships and trying to buy their way into the list of high-performance vehicles. So we know there is demand there for those great cars, for those high-performance Commodores, and we know that they have been built with great quality. Interestingly enough, they have put cameras on the lines now. So, if you order one of these cars, you can get a picture of it being built.
What a tragedy it is that we have to celebrate this government's milestone in October. For the first time since 1949—since Ben Chifley watched the FX go off the line—the last Australian car will come off the line. Those workers, who will be exhibiting great pride in their work right up until that last car comes off the line, can, indeed, take great pride. We should be celebrating their efforts in the face of adversity. I think, in so many ways, they're maintaining their work ethic and maintaining their pride. They're going out with their heads held high. As one GM worker said about a previous speech that I did, 'There's a reason why, when lions gather, they call it a pride.' That is very true of the Holden Elizabeth plant.
One of the tragedies is that, while Ben Chifley went to see the first car go off the line, there will be no representative of the government visiting the factory in its final days. I remember going there for a tour with Ian Macfarlane, the then Minister for Industry. I have etched into my mind the memory of when he posed with a tradesman and a ballpein hammer. But you can be sure that there will be no government representative down there either at the community events or touring the factory to see the last cars come off the line. That is, I think, an indication of the moral courage of this government—an indication that it lacks it. We know that if those three things hadn't come together—Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey; a high Australian dollar; and the investment decision—we would still have a car industry in this country and would be making top-quality cars not only for the domestic market but also for export as well.
This, I suppose, will be a bitter time in South Australia's history. The government know they have a political problem in South Australia because they tried to rip, or they have ripped, the industrial heart out of the state. They haven't done such a good job on the shipbuilding side either because we've lost 2,000 shipbuilding jobs. While the government are in this building day in and day out talking about their continuous shipbuilding plan, what they don't talk about is the fact that 2,000 shipbuilding jobs have been lost in this country since that time. We know, through Senate hearings, that there's a very real risk to the composure and the content of the existing workforce down at ASC—the remaining shipbuilders, tradespeople and technical staff. We know that the industry is very, very finely balanced at the moment in terms of its capacity to go on. That's because we're in a valley of death. The last air warfare destroyer is being completed, and there is a gap in the work. The government had an opportunity to fix that gap when they could have done the supply ships.
The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for defence, Richard Marles, have written to Malcolm Turnbull this week, asking him to guarantee Australian content and Australian workers' futures. We're not asking the government to do something that's economically irresponsible and unreasonable. In fact, it's in the government's own Naval Shipbuilding Plan. If you look at 'Chapter 4: key enabler two—the naval shipbuilding workforce', it actually talks about the risks inherent in not retaining a skilled workforce. It actually talks about that. On page 64, it says:
Experiences from other sectors of the Australian economy that have gone through rapid upswings in workforce demand – such as the mining and energy sector – provide salutary lessons. High levels of workforce demand, combined with limited supply of workers increased the price of labour substantially. High wages resulted in workers leaving adjacent occupations to take up the opportunity for higher paid work, resulting in the loss of capability and capacity in other areas of the economy.
It talks about that. We know that, with shipbuilding, retaining a workforce is a critically important thing because those workers have skills that just can't be replicated because they've done four years of a trade and have a minimum of one year of experience in shipbuilding. But many of these workers have far more than that. On the white-collar side, they have a three-year degree plus one year. You can't just wish these workers into existence. You've got to retain them. If you don't then you will have substantial costs in reassembling that workforce and retraining them.
The government's shipbuilding plan also talks about training workers who are displaced from the automotive industry. That's not happening. It talks about maybe picking up people from the oil and gas production sector who might be displaced, but that's not happening. It talks about talking to the unions, but that hasn't happened yet. The government has a real opportunity to retain the existing workers and to train new workers for an industry which will need skilled workers, and they shouldn't miss this opportunity the way they've missed other opportunities, with such tragic consequences. They've lost the car industry, and now they have to keep the shipbuilding industry. That's the challenge. There's an economic imperative and there's a political imperative for this government to do so in the state of South Australia. It is critically important and it should not be missed.
Cost of Living
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (18:10): I want to talk about an issue that, without fail, tops the lists of concerns of my constituents. At my regular mobile offices, in my community surveys and when I'm out and about in the community, people continue to raise with me one issue above all else. I'm sure it's the same for most of my colleagues. That issue of course is the cost of living. Residents are telling me it's getting harder to pay the bills, small-business owners are struggling with rising power prices, families are finding it harder to cope with childcare fees, and there's the often debilitating cost of housing. Parents and even grandparents are coming to me worried about the ability of their children or grandchildren to afford their first home. The coalition went to the last election with a promise to tackle cost-of-living pressures for households, families and businesses. We're continuing to deliver on this commitment, and I'm pleased to say this is being reflected in the feedback I've been getting from people all over my community.
Take power prices. Recent figures from the Australian Energy Regulator show over 460 Queenslanders a week are having their electricity disconnected, a huge jump from last year. It's no wonder, with record increases in wholesale electricity prices under the state Labor government flowing through to households and businesses. At one of my recent community forums, a local from Carindale, Michael Sininsky, told me that, ahead of all other issues dominating the headlines at the moment, the cost of power is the number one problem that needs addressing. When he's chatting with friends, family, neighbours and others in the community about issues the government should be focusing on, it's power prices that dominate the conversation. It's great to be able to tell Michael and other locals about how the Turnbull government has taken decisive action to put downward pressure on power bills. We're getting on with the job of building Snowy Hydro 2.0, we've announced tough new regulations ensuring the gas sector will put Australian businesses and consumers first when it comes to our gas supplies, and we've delivered the energy assistance payment, which will benefit over 21,000 people in Bonner.
More recently we've secured the agreement of our largest energy retailers to implement a number of immediate and ongoing changes. Thanks to this government's efforts the retailers have committed to contacting up to two million Australian households to let them know how they can get a better, cheaper deal on their power bills. I have contacted my retailer, and I'm saving about $600 annually just by changing my plan. We've also promoted the Australian Energy Regulator's comparison website, Energy Made Easy. This site lets households plug in their relevant data to find a better power deal for themselves. Over 300,000 Australians have used Energy Made Easy to check they're on the best energy plan available to them, potentially saving them hundreds of dollars a year. We've also presented legislation to stop electricity networks from gaming the system to boost their profits.
It's a shame that, instead of supporting in the Senate these measures that will give families relief from rising power prices, Labor has instead chosen to play politics and refer the legislation to a Senate committee. The coalition's energy policies will benefit not only householders but small businesses as well. It's so important to support the engine room of our economy. Small business employs more than half of the Australian workforce, after all. As a former small-business owner, I know how every dollar counts towards the bottom line. The skyrocketing power prices Queensland has seen under Labor has meant that, instead of being able to employ extra staff or invest in new equipment, small-business owners have had to spend more and more to cover their power bills. Now, I'm glad to say that our energy policies are paying off for small business. I'm also hearing from more business owners about how our measures, designed to back small businesses, are helping them with their day-to-day expenses.
Take Little Gnome, located in the heart of Wynnum CBD. Little Gnome is a bookshop and cafe run by mother and son duo, Bel and Jack Ellis. It's a great example of a small business that has taken advantage of the coalition's small business initiatives and programs to their full benefit. Bel tells me that the cut to the small business company tax rate was a welcome sight. It allowed Little Gnome to reinvest in new equipment and technologies. She said it's also helped them employ extra staff when needed. She is just one of the many local business owners who have told me that the small business tax rate reduction has helped them expand and hire more people. Bel also praised our decision to extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off threshold. Small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million can now claim a deduction for the business portion of each new or second-hand asset they purchase costing less than $20,000 until 30 June next year—an added bonus to our small business tax cuts, as Bel puts it.
Bel tells me that, when Little Gnome was starting out, the most valuable tool that they had at their disposal was the federal government's small business information portal at business.gov.au. It answered many of their obscure questions on finance, tax, GST and more. The government has also made low-cost business advice available to small business owners through its Australian Small Business Advisory Services program. The local provider in my electorate is the Greater Brisbane Small Business Advisory Services. Can I just say that Alice Langford, Tony Curl and the rest of the GBSBAS team are doing a fantastic job.
The coalition will always have the backs of small businesses to find and achieve savings wherever possible. We understand that when small businesses are given room to grow, to employ more people and pay them better wages, we all benefit. This is plain to see in the latest national accounts data. Business conditions have risen to their highest level in almost a decade. Over 240,000 jobs were created in the last financial year alone—the strongest financial year jobs growth since the GFC—and wages are showing a modest but steady rise. The coalition is also supporting Australian families not just with keeping their power bills down but also with dealing with other cost-of-living pressures, including housing affordability and child care. We've introduced legislation that lets young Australians save for their first home by building a deposit inside their superannuation. We've also boosted the availability of rental accommodation on the market with our foreign resident vacancy tax, and we've legislated the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, which is delivering more affordable and more accessible child care for over 10,200 families in Bonner alone.
For people in my electorate like Michael from Carindale and Bel and Jack from Little Gnome, the Turnbull coalition government's economic plan means better days ahead. Our plan is helping secure small businesses while creating more and better paying jobs. Most importantly, our plan is putting downward pressure on rising living costs. These are the issues that my constituents care about most, and I'm proud to say this government is delivering for them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:18