The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry
The SPEAKER (09:31): As indicated in my statement on Monday, 11 September 2017, I now present the class A records of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the late Justice Lionel Keith Murphy. The class A records are those relating specifically to Justice Murphy's conduct. For the sake of completeness I also present the class B records of the inquiry. The class B records have been available on the Australian Parliament House website since 19 December 2016. The class A records will be published shortly on the Australian Parliament House website, under the authority of the standing orders of each House.
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill sets out amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 to enable to proprietary companies in Australia to access crowdsourced equity funding.
This will be a game changer, once again, for Australian start-ups and new small businesses.
This is yet another example of the Turnbull government getting on with the job and taking action now by backing-in businesses, getting the settings right to create jobs and help our economy transition.
The extension of Australia's crowdsourced equity funding framework to proprietary companies delivers on the announcement made in the 2017-18 budget and demonstrates the government's commitment to fostering a more innovative and creative Australian economy, by ensuring that start-ups and early-stage businesses can access the funding they need.
Facilitating access to crowdsourced equity is part of the government's agenda to develop a strong and vibrant fin-tech industry in Australia.
That is why this government introduced the crowdsourced equity funding for public companies framework late last year. Extending crowdsourced equity funding to private companies through this bill will enable more innovative companies and start-ups to obtain funding from a crowd of investors. In return for being able to have an unlimited number of crowdfunding shareholders, participating proprietary companies will have higher governance reporting obligations to protect the large number of investors they will be able to have.
Many of the features of the existing public company framework which the government introduced last year, such as the obligations of intermediaries and the process of making crowdfunding offers, will be the same for proprietary companies. This will reduce complexity for intermediaries, crowdfunding companies and investors.
We have consulted widely and have listened to entrepreneurs and businesses, who tell us that it can be difficult for innovative, early-stage businesses, who are often proprietary companies to access funding from traditional sources. Proprietary companies wanting to access equity crowdfunding will no longer have to convert to public company type, with its more onerous obligations. Instead, founders will be able to crowdfund while retaining the greater flexibility of the proprietary model.
Increasing the attractiveness of equity crowdfunding will also increase the pool of potential investments, giving investors the opportunity to share in the risks and successes of these growing businesses. Recognising that this extension is a new approach to the proprietary company framework in Australia, the government has balanced the importance of investor protection, transparency and good corporate governance standards with what can be significant costs of compliance.
This bill complements the Turnbull government's financial sector and innovation policies such as tax incentives for angel investors in start-ups and announcements in this year's budget including the open banking review currently underway; the development of an enhanced regulatory sandbox for new and innovative financial services; and changes to the tax treatment of digital currencies.
The government has consulted at length on this extension of this policy to proprietary companies, releasing a consultation paper in 2015 followed by industry roundtables in 2016. The government also released the draft legislation for public consultation in May 2017. Submissions expressed widespread support for the extension of the crowdsourced equity-funding framework to proprietary companies.
I would like to thank all of the stakeholders who participated in these consultations over the past two years. It is important that the regulatory framework for crowdsourced equity funding for proprietary companies operates effectively to maximise the benefits to businesses, intermediaries and investors. Stakeholder feedback has assisted with the development of a framework that achieves this. I would particularly like to thank the fin-tech Advisory Group that has been working closely with me on all of these issues, lead by Craig Dunn and his very willing and enthusiastic team, and who are making an enormous difference through their engagement with the Turnbull government.
I would now like to turn to the provisions of the bill.
This bill removes the regulatory barriers preventing eligible proprietary companies from accessing the crowdsourced equity-funding framework.
To ensure proprietary companies can effectively access the framework without breaching the 50 shareholder cap that currently applies to proprietary companies, investors who acquire shares through crowdfunding offers will not be counted towards the cap. Subsequent transfers by crowdfunding investors who on sell their shares will also be exempt if the company is not listed on a financial market. This will give crowdfunding investors flexibility to exit their investment without causing the company to inadvertently breach the shareholder cap and forcing it to convert to public company type.
Further, the government is very proud of the flexibility it has built into the regime. Proprietary companies with shareholders who acquire shares through a crowdfunding offer will not be subject to the takeovers rules. For founders contemplating crowdsourced equity funding, this will give them certainty that they can crowdfund and still seek further funding to grow the business without contravening the costly and complex takeover provisions. To ensure investors are protected, the bill includes a regulation making power to allow the government to respond quickly by imposing additional conditions on this exemption if required.
Acknowledging that proprietary companies that access crowdsourced equity funding will no longer be closely held, these companies will be required to comply with additional obligations to protect investors.
Proprietary companies with crowdfunding shareholders will be required to prepare financial reports in accordance with accounting standards, with financial statements to be audited once the company raises at least $3 million from crowdfunding offers. Financial transparency will allow investors to monitor progress of companies and make informed decisions about their investment.
Crowdfunding proprietary companies will be required to have a minimum of two directors, rather than the usual one director. This will provide greater transparency and certainty around succession planning. As proprietary companies that use crowdfunding will rely on public funding, the restrictions on related party transactions under part 2E of the Corporations Act 2001 will be extended to crowdfunding proprietary companies to ensure that individual investors have appropriate protections against the risk of fraud and bias from the transactions with related parties.
As the bill enables proprietary companies to access crowdsourced equity funding, the bill also removes the temporary concessions from certain public company reporting and governance obligations that were included in the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Act 2017. These concessions will be grandfathered for companies that register as or convert to public company status prior to the commencement of the extension of the framework to proprietary companies. However, to ensure consistency for those public companies eligible for the grandfathered concessions, the bill increases the audit threshold for eligible public companies from $1 million to $3 million.
The bill further improves the overall crowdsourced equity funding framework by reducing the withdrawal period after a company issues a supplementary or replacement offer document from one month to 14 days. A 14-day withdrawal period still gives investors adequate time to reconsider their investment, while providing greater certainty about the outcome of the offer for other potential investors and the company.
The extension of the crowdsourced equity funding framework to proprietary companies will take effect six months from the date the bill receives royal assent. The changes to the crowdsourced equity funding framework for public companies, excluding the removal of the corporate governance concessions, will commence on royal assent.
The 2017-18 budget provided the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with $4.5 million over four years to implement and monitor the extension of the framework. This funding will be recovered from regulated entities.
The government proposes to make regulations to support the operation of the measures in this bill.
Introducing this bill today delivers on the government's commitment to extend equity crowdfunding to proprietary companies. Unlocking a new source of funding delivers on our commitment to foster innovative economic activity and support the development of the Australian fin-tech sector.
Once again, I want to thank all of those who participated in this consultation to ensure that we are getting these measures right. I also particularly want to thank the Treasury officials, who have worked very hard on this over a long period of time, and have worked very constructively with industry, demonstrating, I think, an excellent relationship between Treasury and the corporate sector in getting these measures right.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 6) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (09:42): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements two government initiatives to encourage innovation in Australia.
This is another example of the Turnbull government pulling back the red tape and outdated tax settings that hold back Australian start-ups and innovators, and ensuring our tax system is fit for purpose in the modern economy.
Schedule 1 of this bill amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999to change the GST treatment of digital currency to be like money.
The bill delivers on the 2017-18 budget commitment to remove the double taxation of digital currency from 1 July 2017.
The bill ensures that GST will no longer be charged on purchases of digital currency. As announced in the 2017 budget, the bill has a retrospective start date of 1 July 2017.
Currently, consumers who use digital currency can effectively bear a GST burden twice: once on the purchase of the digital currency and once again on its use in exchange for other goods and services subject to the GST.
The current GST treatment of digital currency is an obstacle to the growth of the financial technology or 'fin-tech' industry in Australia.
This government bill removes this GST obstacle.
Schedule 1 of the bill will introduce a definition of digital currency into the GST law. The definition is based on principles to ensure that digital currency that operates like money is treated like money for GST purposes. The bill will apply to all digital currencies that meet this definition.
The government has worked with the fin-tech sector to ensure that the definition of digital currency to be included in the GST law can support rapidly evolving technology.
The fin-tech sector has enthusiastically supported the measure. The bill will make it easier for new innovative digital currency businesses to operate in Australia.
fin-tech is about stimulating technological innovation so that financial markets and systems can become more efficient and consumer focused.
The measure to remove the double taxation of digital currency is an important step to creating an environment for Australia's fin-tech sector where it can be both internationally competitive and play a central role in aiding the positive transformation of our economy. This will be one of the big productivity drivers over the next generation.
The government continues to deliver on its fin-tech agenda by commencing work on an enhanced package of further reforms to be implemented this year.
The government will make it easier for new innovative start-ups to access funding and the investors they need. We will support fin-tech businesses to test innovative financial services to facilitate more innovation, promote greater competition and increase choice for Australian customers.
The government is making real progress. We are taking action now when it comes to realising the opportunities of fin-tech for the Australian economy and the jobs and the growth that will flow from that.
Schedule 1 of this bill, to remove the double taxation of digital currency, proves yet again that the government is backing fin-tech with tangible initiatives.
Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation on the list of deductible gift recipients. Deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to the centre.
The Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation is a registered charity based in Western Australia that works with universities, research institutes, government, private enterprise and industry to promote entrepreneurialism and commercialisation of innovative ideas.
The centre's mission to encourage the take-up of innovative ideas by start-ups in Australia, rather than moving overseas, is a core theme of the government's innovation agenda. Forging stronger connections between researchers and the private sector is important in enhancing the new sources of growth which will deliver the next age of economic prosperity in Australia. It is key to the collaboration agenda that was set out in the National Innovation and Science Agenda by the Prime Minister in late 2015.
Granting deductible gift recipient status for the Centre for Entrepreneurial Research and Innovation will assist the organisation with fundraising for this very important cause.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:47): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Turnbull government is committed to supporting families and protecting the health and wellbeing of all children. The Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill2017 acts on this commitment by improving the child support scheme to ensure it operates in the best interests of Australian children, and by strengthening incentives for families to immunise their children.
Schedule 1 —c hild support amendments
Schedule 1 of the bill regards child support amendments, and it introduces a range of improvements to the child support scheme, which supports more than 1.3 million separated parents and 1.1 million children, to ensure it is operating in the best interests of Australian children. This will help separated parents to understand and meet their responsibilities for the costs of raising their children, in line with their individual capacity to do so.
The changes address three priority recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report—From conflict to cooperation: Inquiry into the Child Support Program. These are areas where the current policy was identified as leading to outcomes that are inconsistent with the objectives of the child support program, or which required parents to undertake onerous court or administrative processes. The government committed $12.4 million in the 2017-18 budget towards implementing its response to these three priority areas.
Part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill amends the child support and family assistance legislation to provide better outcomes for parents in dispute about their children's care arrangements, addressing recommendation 8 of the inquiry report.
From 1 January 2018, the 14-week interim period that applies before child support and family tax benefit (FTB) are recalculated to reflect a change in actual care will be extended to up to 52 weeks if the disputed care change occurs within the first year of a court order. For older court orders, the interim period will be extended to up to 26 weeks if the person with increased care does not take reasonable action to participate in family dispute resolution.
This extension of the interim period strengthens the incentive for parents to comply with court orders and appropriately discourages parents from withholding care of a child from another parent or carer where that particular care arrangement has been ordered by a court to be in the best interests of the child.
For care arrangements in a non-enforceable written agreement or parenting plan, the interim period will remain at 14 weeks where the disputed care change occurs in the first year after the agreement or plan is made. For older agreements or plans, where the person who has increased care participates in family dispute resolution, a shortened four-week interim period will apply.
These amendments to the interim period provisions are designed to strengthen incentives to comply with court orders or participate in dispute resolution processes about care, which is in the best interests of the children.
Part 2 of schedule 1 of this bill will amend child support legislation to allow amended tax assessments to be taken into account for child support purposes in a broader range of circumstances being in line with recommendation 12 of the child support inquiry report.
From 1 January 2018, an amended tax return will always be able to be taken into account in a child support assessment if it results in a higher taxable income. This means parents will not be disadvantaged if another parent has understated their income, no matter how long it takes for them to correct their original tax return.
An amended tax return that results in a lower taxable income will be used where a change in child support is sought within 28 days of receiving their original tax return, within 28 days of becoming aware of an error or if special circumstances apply.
These amendments will allow a parent's true taxable income to be more easily reflected in their child support assessment, without having to estimate their income or apply through the change of assessment process, and will also help to ensure that separated parents are taking responsibility for the costs of raising their child in line with their capacity to do so.
Part 3 of schedule 1 of this bill amends child support legislation to make it simpler to set aside child support arrangements in certain circumstances, also in response to recommendation 12 of the committee's report.
From 1 July 2018, to provide greater fairness to parents who entered into agreements prior to 1 July 2008 (known as the transitional binding agreements), the government is introducing a separate and less restrictive test for a court to set aside the agreement where one of the parents did not obtain legal advice.
In addition, for all child support agreements, this bill introduces provisions that will terminate or suspend the effect of the agreement from 1 July 2018 if the person who is entitled to child support for a child under the agreement ceases to be an eligible carer of the child—that is, where the person's percentage of care for a child falls below 35 per cent.
The two policy changes in respect to recommendation 12 will enable changes in circumstances to be more easily reflected in child support assessments without parents having to go to court or through onerous administrative processes, both improving and simplifying the Child Support Scheme to better support families.
Part 4 of schedule 1 of this bill amends child support legislation to create greater equity in the collection of child support debts and overpayments. These amendments, to apply from 1 July 2018, are being made in response to recommendation 22 of the committee's report.
The government is expanding the methods available to recover a child support overpayment from a payee to align with the current methods available for recovering child support debts from payers. The government is also expanding the basis upon which an overpayment is recoverable to ensure that all backdated reductions to a child support assessment, which had previously been collected by DHS on behalf of the payee, will be recoverable by DHS. However, new backdating provisions will provide a fairer basis for retrospectively creating a child support overpayment or arrears.
Overall, the policy changes in schedule 1 will help to ensure correct outcomes and improve the administration in around 90,000 to 100,000 child support cases each year.
Schedule 2: f amily tax benefit amendments
The Turnbull government is very committed to helping more Australian children become immunised. Since the government introduced the No Jab, No Pay policy on 1 January 2016, national immunisation rates have increased across all three target groups of one-, two- and five-year-olds, and more than 210,000 families have taken action to ensure that their children now meet the immunisation requirements.
Immunisation coverage rates for one- and five-year-olds have reached more than 93 per cent, which is nearing the critical level of 95 per cent to provide what is known as herd immunity—when large numbers of individuals are immune to disease and chains of infection are disrupted, stopping or slowing the disease. This is vital to protecting children and the wider community, particularly young babies who are not fully immunised and other people who cannot be vaccinated from preventable diseases, such as whooping cough.
As part of the 2017-18 budget, the government provided $14.1 million over four years for ongoing catch-up vaccinations for almost 370,000 Australians aged between 10 to 19 years, and more than 8,000 adult refugees and humanitarian entrants.
The government has also provided $5.5 million over three years to encourage Australian parents and carers to vaccinate their children. The campaign will specifically target areas of low vaccination rates by addressing myths and misconceptions and explaining the benefits of childhood vaccinations for both the individual and the community.
Schedule 2 of the bill will strengthen current immunisation incentive measures to ensure that from 1 July 2018, children must meet immunisation and health check requirements as a prerequisite for families to be eligible for the full amount of fortnightly entitlement to family tax benefit part A.
At present the No Jab, No Pay and Healthy Start for School policies link the family tax benefit part A end of year supplement for each child to meeting immunisation and health check requirements. The new measure will replace this incentive structure and serve as a more immediate and constant reminder for parents to immunise children and access a health check for their four-year-old child on time. The new measure will also ensure that all family tax benefit families, irrespective of income, continue to have a clear financial incentive to immunise their children.
Under the new rules, if a child does not meet the immunisation or health check requirements, their fortnightly family tax benefit will be reduced by around $28 per fortnight. Over the course of a year, this is the same value as the present end of year supplement.
Should a child not meet their immunisation requirements, families will have 63 days to meet the requirements. This grace period gives parents enough time to comply with the immunisation requirements even if they experience a delay in vaccinating their child, for example, due to illness. It also aligns with the 63-day grace period provision to meet immunisation requirements to receive childcare payments.
This bill also makes a technical amendment to the medical exemption provisions in relation to the approved form and manner in which an application for a medical exemption from immunisation requirements may be made. This change will further enhance the integrity of the measures and help ensure that only legitimate cases qualify for an exemption.
The government considers there is no excuse for parents who, for no valid medical reason, choose to not immunise their children. These parents are not only putting their own children's health at risk, but they risk the health of every other child and place that at risk as well.
Parents will still have the right to not vaccinate their child. But a family's choice not to immunise a child should not be supported by this government or through the taxpayer. Nor should such action ever be supported by taxpayers in the form of undiminished family payments.
If that's the choice an individual family makes and parent makes, they are putting their child and the community at risk of infectious disease, and they will no longer be eligible to receive their full fortnightly family tax benefit part A payment.
Conclusion
For those reasons, the bill prioritises the protection of Australian children and it is commended to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (09:59): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 is designed to support the government's housing affordability package as announced in the 2017-18 budget. The bill introduces the framework for what will be known now as a new Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme (ARDS) to enable tenancy charges and other housing costs to be deducted from income support payments and family tax benefit for occupants living in social housing; and making amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008 (NRAS Act) to support streamlining and simplifying the administration of NRAS until it ceases operation in 2026-27.
Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme
This bill will implement an Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme to help reduce homelessness for social housing tenants who are in serious rental arrears that could, and in many cases does, lead to eviction or housing abandonment.
The new scheme, to be implemented in March 2018, responds to concerns from all levels of government and the community about evictions and homelessness due to rental arrears.
The states and territories have informed the Commonwealth government that in 2013-14 more than 8,900 households living in social housing, including families with children, had more than three weeks of rent in arrears, with more than 2,300 people evicted due to rental arrears. As social housing is generally the most affordable housing option available, it is highly likely that many of these families end up in specialist homelessness services, or staying with family or friends, or, indeed, sleeping rough.
This is undoubtedly a terrible circumstance for the individuals and families involved and of course can lead to long-term homelessness. However it would also contribute to additional and avoidable costs for governments and does put extra pressure on community service providers.
This new scheme will allow rent and utilities that are legally required to be paid under social housing leases to be deducted automatically from an individuals' welfare payments and paid directly to the social housing providers. Other amounts, such as rental arrears or amounts for damages due, will also be able to be deducted from a tenant and all adult household members living in a social housing residence. Social housing providers will work with tenants to help them meet their obligations in a planned and sustainable way.
The Department of Human Services presently administers the voluntary Rent Deduction Scheme, which gives social housing tenants the choice of having their rent and other costs automatically deducted from their payments. This service is used by many social housing tenants. However, as it is presently voluntary in its arrangements, tenants may cancel their deductions—and those tenants often go on to accumulate arrears which put their tenancies at risk.
This scheme will build on the current voluntary Rent Deduction Scheme by ensuring that social housing providers do actually receive rent from tenants and other household members on time, in particular from those who consistently fail to pay. The scheme will work alongside other available supports, to ensure that tenants and other adult household members continue to be housed safely and affordably while they get the help they need to sustain their tenancies.
The Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme will help prevent high levels of arrears being accumulated. It will help reduce evictions and it will help reduce property abandonments from social housing.
The legislation has also benefited from valuable comments made on the bill during a recent exposure draft process, and the government is grateful to the state and territory governments who contributed their views and expertise in this important area and process.
The new scheme will be implemented through amendments to the social security law and the family assistance law, supplemented by legislative instruments on some matters of detail. This will make the scheme more flexible and responsive, while allowing for scrutiny by parliament.
The Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme is a preventative measure designed to stop the accrual of rental arrears, leading to eviction. The policy has been designed to ensure that it will support the tenancy management processes that presently exist in states and territories.
Deductions under the scheme will stop when the person is no longer living in public or community housing covered by a current tenancy agreement.
State and territory housing authorities are best placed to understand the individual circumstances of the tenant because of their tenancy management responsibilities; and therefore will be responsible for reviewing any decisions about tenancy agreements and ensuring their legal obligations are met.
This bill also takes a significant step to ensure a stable rental income stream for social housing providers and will lead to a more efficient social housing system. At the same time it will address the problem of nonpayment of rent which can lead to evictions and homelessness among Australia's social housing tenants, by providing a means by which regular payment of rent can be managed.
National Rental Affordability Scheme
NRAS is administered under the NRAS Act and the National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008 (the NRAS legislative framework). In 2016, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reported that the NRAS legislative framework, as designed by the previous Labor government, was complex and lacking in clarity. The report noted that:
The Regulations could be reviewed with the aim of simplifying and clarifying aspects of their operation.
NRAS stakeholders have been firmly of the same view. In December 2016, my department consulted with NRAS stakeholders to identify ways to improve the administration of the scheme and reduce the regulatory burden on approved participants. Over 30 submissions were received with a range of suggestions on how the regulations could be streamlined to support the efficient and effective administration of the scheme going forward.
In its submission to the NRAS consultation paper in 2016, the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) noted the need to improve transparency for investors in the scheme. The Ombudsman's submission also made recommendations on measures to strengthen the integrity and compliance of the scheme.
Review of the scheme
In January 2017, my department commenced a review of the scheme to address the concerns raised by the ANAO, the Ombudsman and NRAS stakeholders.
On 15 July 2017, minor regulatory amendments came into effect to address areas of the scheme that imposed disproportionate penalties for noncompliance which led to outcomes that were inconsistent with the objects of the scheme.
The amendments introduced in this bill clarify what were ambiguous provisions in the NRAS Act and lay the foundation to strengthen and simplify the future operation and administration of the scheme.
Amendments to the NRAS Act
The first amendment provides express legislative authority to transfer an allocation from one approved rental dwelling to another. The ability to substitute dwellings is crucial to achieving the object of the scheme, being to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings. As investors exit the scheme, the ability to substitute a like-for-like dwelling ensures the level of NRAS housing stock is maintained.
The NRAS Act requires the NRAS Regulations to prescribe maximum vacancy periods for approved rental dwellings. The prescriptive nature of the current vacancy provisions has been amended to allow greater flexibility for the NRAS Regulations to prescribe permitted vacancy periods. This flexibility will assist in the future administration of the scheme should changes be required on how the maximum vacancy periods are to operate.
The NRAS Act requires the NRAS Regulations to prescribe that the rent charged for an approved rental dwelling must be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent 'at all times during the year'. The term 'at all times during the year' has been subject to very conflicting interpretations over time. The amendment in this bill supports the correct interpretation of this provision, which is that each time rent is charged it is to be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent. Some interpret it to mean the total rent charged across the year rather than each time rent is charged.
Two new provisions will be added to the NRAS Act to provide express legislative authority for the NRAS Regulations to vary conditions of allocation and put it beyond doubt that conditions may be varied or imposed after an allocation has been made.
Conclusion
The government is committed to putting in place measures which aim to reduce homelessness for social housing tenants who are in serious rental arrears and to reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. The measures in this bill will support the Housing Affordability Package and contribute to this goal. For these reasons I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms O'Dwyer, for Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (10:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The proposed bill will amend instrument-making powers in the Defence Act 1903 ('Defence Act') to ensure that, when remaking certain instruments made under the Defence Act in the future, the instruments can reflect modern policy requirements and approaches to drafting.
Several instruments made under the Defence Act are scheduled to sunset in April 2018, including the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 and the Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987. These instruments deal with important issues and it will be necessary to remake them in some form before they sunset.
As is the purpose of sunsetting, the intention is to improve the instruments by consolidating duplications, improving consistency and providing clarity where possible.
Defence inquiries
At present, the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 ('Defence (Inquiry) Regulations') establish a range of inquiries that can be undertaken in Defence, including General Courts of Inquiry, Boards of Inquiry, Combined Boards of Inquiry, Chief of the Defence Force Commissions of Inquiry and Inquiry Officer inquiries.
The different types of inquiries outlined in the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations all perform a similar function, which is to assist commanders in the Defence Force to obtain accurate and relevant information in a timely manner to inform their decisions and actions. Similar procedures and powers also apply to each type of inquiry.
When remaking this instrument, the intention is to consolidate the different types of inquiries, instead articulating one form of inquiry that would be flexible and scalable to suit the relevant circumstances.
To achieve this, the bill will amend the regulation-making power in the Defence Act as it relates to inquiries. Instead of listing different types of inquiries, the new provision will simply enable the making of regulations relating to inquiries concerning the Defence Force.
Defence Aviation Areas
The Defence (Areas Control) Regulations 1989 ('Defence (Areas Control) Regulations') prescribe affected land, in which buildings and other objects hazardous to aviation can be regulated.
The regulations include limits on building heights within prescribed areas, prohibitions on bringing hazardous objects within a prescribed area, powers to require the removal or marking of hazardous objects within prescribed areas, and powers to enter a prescribed area to remove or mark hazardous objects.
The power to make these regulations is at paragraph 124(1)(na) of the Defence Act, which enables the making of regulations for 'the regulation, control or prohibition of the construction or use of buildings, erections or installations, the use of apparatus, machines or vehicles, and the removal in whole or in part of buildings, erections, installations, apparatus, trees or other natural obstacles, within prescribed areas…'.
The scheme established in the Defence (Areas Control) Regulations is important to maintain safety for defence aviation, prescribing areas in the surroundings of 12 defence airfields.
The bill will repeal the regulation-making power in paragraph 124(1)(na), and insert a new part IXD relating to the establishment of defence aviation areas in which buildings and objects can be regulated for the purposes of removing and reducing hazards to defence aviation.
Rather than being prescribed in the regulations, the minister may declare an area to be a defence aviation area by legislative instrument. This will significantly reduce the length of the regulations, enable changes to maps of the areas to be incorporated in the instrument more quickly, and will be consistent with the approach taken to the declaration of defence areas under part 11 of the Defence Regulation 2016. This will not reduce the ability for the parliament to provide oversight to these regulations.
The bill will also improve the clarity of the regulation-making power more generally in the new part. In line with current drafting practice, the new part will trigger the standard provisions in part 2 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 ('Regulatory Powers Act') for monitoring whether legislation is being complied with, or whether information given to the Commonwealth in compliance, or purported compliance, is correct.
Defence Public Areas
The Defence (Public Areas) By-Laws 1987(by-laws) apply in public areas declared under part IXB of the Defence Act.
There are currently two existing public areas: the Beecroft public area in New South Wales, and the Garden Island public area in Western Australia. Each public area is a significant tract of Defence land, where there is a strong interest in enabling public entry for recreational purposes where this can be achieved consistently with defence requirements.
The by-laws apply in the public areas, and regulate the public's use of the areas. For example, they provide for offences relating to parking, camping and fishing in public areas.
When remaking the by-laws, the intention is to enable some of the offences to be enforced through an infringement notice scheme. At present, paragraph 116ZD(2)(r) enables the by-laws to include this type of scheme for some offences. However, the by-laws do not currently include an infringement notice scheme.
In line with current drafting practice, the preference is to establish infringement notice schemes by reference to standard provisions in the Regulatory Powers Act. Accordingly, this bill will amend the Defence Act to enable the by-laws to specify strict liability offences as subject to an infringement notice under part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act.
The sunsetting and remaking process of these Defence instruments have provided Defence with the opportunity to update its policies and practices in a number of important subject matter areas.
The bill provides Defence not only with the opportunity to modernise the language of its legislation, but also assist the regulation-making process in the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms O'Dwyer.
Bill read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day
Second Reading
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (10:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to strengthen accountability of superannuation funds and improve outcomes for members.
This bill contains measures that will ensure that choice of fund is provided to over one million more Australians and that salary sacrifice contributions are reflected in members' retirement savings.
It is part of a broader package of government reforms that are squarely focused on protecting members' money, prioritising members' interests and strengthening the foundations of the superannuation system.
The measures in this bill deliver on the findings of the 2014 Financial System Inquiry and address issues identified in the government's Superannuation Guarantee Cross-Agency Working Group report Superannuation guarantee non-compliance.
Choice of Fund
Individual choice of fund is a longstanding, hard-fought-for feature of compulsory superannuation. The government believes all individuals should be able to decide where their compulsory superannuation contributions go.
However, it is estimated that around a million people are covered by federal enterprise bargaining agreements that restrict their ability to choose their own fund.
Providing choice of fund to individuals is a no-brainer. It was a recommendation of the Financial System Inquiry and the trade union royal commission. It was also endorsed in a recent draft report by the Productivity Commission.
In 2015, the member for McMahon also agreed with extending choice of fund when he said in a television interview on the ABC:
… there's a relatively small number of circumstances where an enterprise agreement says you can only go to that fund: that fund alone. And the Government has said that they'd introduce more choice. Of course, that's something which would be fine. Who could argue with more choice for members?
This bill will extend choice of fund by narrowing the deemed choice provisions in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act.
It will no longer be possible to deny choice to individuals on the grounds that they are part of an enterprise bargaining agreement or similar determination.
Why should a student working two jobs, for example, one in hospitality and one in retail, who is covered by separate enterprise agreements be required to have their superannuation paid to two different funds?
Why should they have to pay two sets of fees?
And likely two sets of insurance premiums too?
Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon scenario. Almost 44 per cent of people have two or more superannuation accounts. Multiple fees and insurance premiums erode a person's retirement savings.
Frankly, it's not good enough.
We want people to be able to make choices about their deferred wages—we want them to be active in making decisions about their future.
And most of all, we want the settings that underpin the system to be focused on their interests—on maximising their retirement savings from the first contribution and throughout their working life.
To be clear, this measure does not prevent enterprise bargaining agreements from specifying a particular fund. It simply allows individuals to choose a different fund, including a self-managed superannuation fund, if it suits them better. After all, it is their money and they should be able to choose where they put it.
Salary Sacrifice
We will also close a legal loophole that has been used by some unscrupulous employers to short-change employees who make salary sacrifice contributions.
Fixing this legal loophole was one of the key recommendations of the government's Superannuation Guarantee Cross-Agency Working Group.
There are instances where employees that enter salary sacrifice arrangements discover that their superannuation has increased by less than they were expecting because employers have used salary sacrifice amounts to satisfy their superannuation guarantee obligation or have based their superannuation guarantee contributions on the lower, post-salary-sacrifice earnings base.
To address these inappropriate practices we are taking steps to ensure that an individual's salary sacrifice contribution does not reduce their employer's superannuation guarantee obligation in any way.
If Australians are to continue to have confidence in the integrity of the superannuation system, we must ensure employers are paying workers their full entitlements, whether they are wages or superannuation.
Prior to finalising the salary sacrifice amendments, the government released draft legislation for consultation.
I want to make it clear that the government is focused on ensuring Australia's superannuation system delivers outcomes for all Australians first and foremost, and is working for them.
A system that encourages people to participate actively and make informed decisions, and one that gives people the confidence that their salary sacrifice contributions will boost their retirement savings as they intend.
I'm confident that the measures in this bill will achieve these outcomes.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (10:21): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1. Introduction
Australians rely on medicines and medical devices to prevent, treat or cure their illnesses, injuries and conditions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), as regulator, enables the therapeutic goods available in Australia to be of an acceptable safety, quality and efficacy and that the latest therapeutic advances are available to the Australian public when they need them.
The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 builds on recent amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to support the continued implementation of the government's response to the Expert Panel Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation.
The review assessed the regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices in Australia, providing a number of recommendations aimed to position the TGA to effectively respond to the increasing globalisation of the therapeutic goods industry, expectations from patients that they should have access to new medicines and medical devices at the same time as their peers in Europe and North America, and to the rapid pace of innovation in the development of health products. It is imperative that we update the regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices in Australia, ensuring it remains in a position to continue to support the availability of high quality, safe and efficacious products in a timely way to the community.
2. Summary of the bill
This bill, therefore, provides for:
establishing a provisional approval scheme so patients can have earlier access to highly promising new medicines in cases where they address an unmet clinical need—it comes directly from the agreement with Medicines Australia;
making changes to the regulation of complementary medicines that will allow consumers to make more informed product choices;
introducing reforms to streamline the advertising framework for therapeutic goods so that consumers will be better informed about the medicines and other healthcare products they buy; and
improved compliance and monitoring provisions to strengthen consumer protections.
This bill will build on the recent changes enacted through the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Act 2017.
2.1 Provisional approval pathway
First, this bill will establish a provisional approval pathway for certain promising new prescription medicines. This would allow Australian patients with currently inadequate treatment options to access potentially life-saving or life-transforming medicines up to two years earlier than under the current framework. It builds on similar approaches available to patients in Europe and North America.
Such medicines would be registered on the basis of early clinical data which provides promising evidence that the medicine is likely to be a major therapeutic advance for Australian patients.
Provisional registration will be time limited and subject to strict conditions imposed by the TGA, including the requirement to collect more data to confirm the clinical benefit and safety of the medicine, and there will be specific communications with patients and healthcare professionals about these medicines. A number of enhancements to the TGA's post-market monitoring scheme are being implemented in parallel. These do not require further legislative changes, but will be important to monitor the safety of provisionally registered medicines.
I particularly want to thank both the TGA and the leadership of Medicines Australia, chaired by Wes Cook, and led at CEO level by Milton Catelin, for their input, involvement and engagement in the Medicines Australia agreement and compact with the government. These changes are a result of their collaborative and cooperative work. I want to acknowledge and thank them for that.
2.2 Use of overseas assessments for medical devices
In addition, in relation to the use of overseas assessments for medical devices, what we will see is that medical devices will also potentially reach the market sooner through the greater use of overseas amendments afforded by this bill. Under the amendments, the work of comparable overseas regulators will be accepted as evidence when determining whether a medical device should be included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Provision of an additional pathway for seeking approval for inclusion in the register provides the potential for faster access to market for industry and therefore earlier access of innovative devices to address specific needs of patients.
2.3 Advertising
Furthermore, to strengthen the regulation of advertising of medicines and medical devices, while also reducing regulatory burden, this bill will overhaul the current structure for therapeutic goods advertising into a more streamlined framework.
Industry will no longer have to navigate an often complex co-regulatory system which has incomplete coverage, as it requires only some medicine advertisements to be approved prior to publication or broadcast.
Similarly, advertising complaints can be heard by multiple bodies and currently take many months or longer to resolve. Instead, the shift will be to a single, centralised complaint handling system managed by the TGA, and enhanced enforcement and compliance powers to deter inappropriate or misleading advertising of therapeutic goods. This will be supported by better education and guidance for advertisers, to encourage greater understanding of and compliance with the advertising regulatory framework.
2.4 Compliance powers
In terms of the fourth area of compliance powers, to further protect consumers, this bill looks to strengthen and broaden the current range of investigation and enforcement powers under the act. It has done so in conjunction with support from the sector. Powers relating to monitoring, investigation, infringement notices and injunctions will be standardised to align with comparable Commonwealth regulators and contemporary government policy.
The changes will allow for a graduated approach to compliance and enforcement and provide the TGA with a full suite of sanctions and penalties to protect public health—this includes such things as more ready use of infringement notices for minor offences while at the same time providing the regulator with the ability to seek a court injunction for more serious matters.
2.5 Complementary medicines
The fifth element here is that the reforms to the complementary medicines regulatory framework will also lead to increased information on the products and stronger protections for consumers. This bill provides for a list of permitted indications from which industry sponsors must exclusively select when entering a listed complementary medicine on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.
Only low-level, pre-approved claims will be permitted for these products.
This bill will also provide sponsors of listed complementary medicines with a new assessment pathway that bridges the gap between existing listed and registered complementary medicines. Sponsors will have the option of utilising this pathway for indications that address more than the most minor of conditions. Under this pathway, the TGA will assess the evidence of efficacy that supports the proposed indication and make a decision whether or not to approve the complementary medicine product for the market.
Complementary medicines assessed via this new pathway will be eligible to contain information on the packaging and advertising material to indicate that the product has been assessed by the TGA for the approved indication. This new pathway is intended to encourage greater development of evidence relating to complementary medicines; increase consumer confidence in the evidence around product efficacy; and improve effectiveness of the sector.
3. Other changes from the Review
A number of other recommendations from the review, which are being implemented without the need for legislative changes, also aim to strengthen consumer protections.
3.1 Better reporting of adverse events
In addition, the TGA will create a means for more efficient reporting and analysis of adverse events, work with other stakeholders to analyse electronic data to detect adverse events, and have the powers to inspect companies to check that they have systems for timely action on adverse event reports for their products.
3.2 SME Assist
A further initiative to encourage innovation has been the establishment of SME Assist, which I launched on 9 June 2017. SME Assist provides targeted tools and content to help small and medium enterprises and research and development groups developing new medicines.
The bill contains, therefore, a number of other supporting amendments which are intended to provide consistency across the different types of therapeutic goods.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the overwhelming stakeholder support for these reforms is evident from the many consultations undertaken—from the initial stages of the review, through to consultations on options and the exposure draft of the bill.
I particularly want to thank:
Medicines Australia
the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association
the Pharmacy Guild of Australia
the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia
Complementary Medicines Australia
the Australian Self Medication Industry, and
the Medical Technology Association of Australia.
The changes outlined in this bill, coupled with the recent amendments already enacted, will strengthen Australia's therapeutic goods regulatory framework, ensuring it remains well positioned to respond effectively to global trends in the development, manufacture, marketing and regulation of therapeutic goods.
This is our opportunity to make significant reforms to the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia—reforms that will ensure better access to medicines, streamlined administrative processes and stronger consumer protections; reforms that will ensure Australia remains at the forefront of therapeutic goods regulation, now and into the future.
I especially want to thank Alex Best, from my office, and the head of the TGA, Professor John Skerritt, and I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (10:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Act 2017 amended the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to allow Australian corporations to be designated as Australian conformity assessment bodies. Once designated, these bodies will be able to undertake conformity assessments of manufacturers of medical devices.
The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 further amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to make it clear that an annual conformity assessment body determination charge is payable by the Australian corporation that is the subject of a determination.
This bill therefore makes consequential amendments to the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989 to enable regulations to be made to specify the relevant amount of the charge. Different charges may apply depending on the scope of the conformity assessment body determination.
The introduction of such a charge will ensure that the Department of Health, through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is able to recover the cost of its postmarket monitoring activities of conformity assessment bodies, which will ensure the safety and performance of the devices assessed by those bodies.
The bill also provides that where the secretary suspends a conformity assessment body determination, the obligation for the conformity assessment body to pay an annual charge will continue during that period. This is because a suspension is temporary and during the suspension period the usual regulatory work in relation to the determination continues.
The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 also establishes a new provisional approval pathway for promising new prescription medicines. This bill clarifies that annual charges prescribed in relation to provisionally registered goods, will also apply to any provisionally registered goods entered in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods by Commonwealth officers in accordance with a corresponding state law. Similar provisions are currently in the charges act in relation to registered goods, listed goods, biologicals and medical devices.
I commend the bill to the House. I thank the opposition for their cooperation during this process and acknowledge the shadow minister.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (10:35): I move:
That notice No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (10:35): I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approve the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 11 September 2017, namely: Demolition of the kiosk adjoining The Lobby restaurant.
The National Capital Authority is seeking approval for proposed works within the parliamentary zone to demolish the kiosk adjoining The Lobby restaurant. The kiosk and The Lobby restaurant are located at the corner of King George Terrace and Parkes Place West within the parliamentary zone in Parkes. The kiosk extension to The Lobby restaurant was built as a temporary structure over a decade ago, and some elements are deteriorating. The proposal does not impact on the original Lobby building. Approval of both houses is sought under section 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974 for the proposed works in the parliamentary zone. I commend this motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:36): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Airservices Australia new aviation infrastructure and fire station works, Brisbane Airport, Queensland.
Airservices Australia is proposing to install new air navigation services infrastructure and technology and construct a new aviation rescue firefighting service station at Brisbane Airport required to support and enable the introduction and operation of the Brisbane new parallel runway project. The proposed works will include the installation of a new fibre-optic network and new air navigation aids at each end of the new Brisbane parallel runway. The project will also include the development and construction of a new fire station. The project is valued at $24.9 million excluding GST, which includes all construction and consultant costs; internal labour; equipment and travel required to prepare sites for the installation of new air navigation equipment; as well as the development and delivery of the fire station, including the costs associated with the demolition of the current satellite fire station.
Subject to parliamentary approval, Airservices's new infrastructure and fire station works at the airport are scheduled to commence in late 2017 and be operational by mid-2020. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:39): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:40): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:41): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip, nominating Ms MMH King to be a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in place of Mr Hammond.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (10:41): by leave—I move:
That Mr Hammond be discharged from the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and that, in his place, Ms M. M. H. King be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Publications Committee
Report
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:42): I rise to present the report from the esteemed Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are now being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) 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 the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:
(1) this significant structural deterioration in the Budget is unaffordable;
(2) the Government has prioritised giving millionaires and big business tax cuts, and raising income taxes on workers earning above $21,000, over saving penalty rates; and
(3) the Government has failed to deliver any economic leadership".
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (10:44): I am pleased to speak on the government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, which will boost the Australian economy, creating prosperity and jobs for hardworking Australians. And I'm pleased to see the Minister for Small Business here in the chamber. It is his complete, utter and entire focus—isn't it, Minister?—that we will create more jobs for hardworking Australians and make sure that businesses can do their very best for our nation.
This tax plan is about encouraging employers to invest in and grow their businesses, which ensures greater job security for workers, more employment and higher wages growth. By reducing the company tax rate, our government will give businesses the certainty they need to plan for long-term growth in Australia. This will unlock so much untapped potential for private sector investment, allowing us to better compete globally.
A high corporate tax rate ultimately hurts hardworking Australians, with the companies' tax burden falling on employees through lower real wages growth. With a tough global economic environment, the task falls to the Liberal and National coalition government to implement ambitious policies to boost our nation's economy. We have already passed—earlier this year—the first part of the enterprise tax plan, which lowered the rate for 3.2 million small and medium-sized businesses, employing over 6.5 million Australians, but we cannot stop there. This bill will extend that tax reduction to the remainder of Australian businesses before the rate is dropped to a more internationally competitive rate of 25 per cent in 2026-27. This will be the lowest corporate tax rate since the mid-1960s. And don't we need that! Don't our businesses and our workers need that. Australia has gone from having the ninth-lowest corporate tax rate out of developed economies in 2001 to having the equal fifth-highest today. That's a very disappointing result, which is why we are working hard to turn it around. It means that if a business is looking at identical projects in two countries, each with exactly the same return on investment, it will choose a country other than Australia because of our higher corporate tax rate, which is not the outcome that we want. Indeed, Treasury modelling has found that our current tax system is a drag on the economy. Based on this, we know that a more efficient tax system would help grow the economy, creating opportunities for all Australians.
This is part of our national economic plan. Along with our enterprise tax plan, the coalition government are opening up new markets in our region for Australian exporters through comprehensive free trade agreements. This is particularly important for our farmers. My mum and dad are farmers, so I know full well how important is lowering tariffs and charges on our agricultural products overseas. Education also is one of our major exports from Australia. I have Flinders University right in the heart of my electorate of Boothby. It's a very fine educational institution, and it's trying hard to grow its share of the international student market. The government are also investing $70 billion in productivity-enhancing infrastructure across Australia. I have been very lucky to see the results of some of this with the Darlington upgrade and the extension of the Tonsley rail line up to Flinders University, which is a key part of Flinders University's plan to build new student accommodation, in particular, to attract more international students. We are also, as a government, delivering on a comprehensive 20-year defence industry plan, which is critical for my home state of South Australia, and we're implementing significant reforms to improve competition and choice for Australian consumers. We have secured record funding for our schools and our hospitals. We're protecting Australia's revenue base through some of the world's toughest anti-tax-avoidance laws—we're cracking down on those companies who try their hardest to not pay tax here in Australia.
These policies are already delivering for the Australian people. Recently we've seen the highest rate of jobs growth in 10 years, along with the highest business confidence in 10 years. It's no coincidence that the last time we saw such promising figures was when Mr Howard was in government, along with Treasurer Peter Costello, who provided fantastic economic leadership for our nation. We had some very fine National Party leaders at the same time as well, didn't we, Minister for Small Business?
Mr McCormack: Indeed we did!
Ms FLINT: It is no coincidence that these figures bear a great degree of correlation. Some 240,000 jobs were created over the past financial year, and job advertisements are up by over 13 per cent. The latest jobs data reveals that 210,800 full-time jobs have been created in the past six months alone. This is the strongest full-time jobs growth since records began 40 years ago. It's a very impressive outcome, isn't it, Minister?
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Ms FLINT: Full-time employment growth is outperforming part-time growth, which is very positive news. In total, over 736,000 jobs have been created since the coalition government came to office, and over 80 per cent of these have been full-time. Add to this the fact that wages paid to employees rose by 1.2 per cent in the June quarter, retail trade rose 1.2 per cent and manufacturing output is at the highest level in 15 years and we can see how our coalition government policies are enhancing and accelerating our nation's economic recovery. Without a doubt, we can say that these achievements are a credit to and the result of strong Liberal Party and National Party government of the nation.
The national accounts data released last week reinforce the trend we've seen picking up under the coalition. Real growth in the economy was 0.8 per cent in the June quarter, more than double the 0.3 per cent in the March quarter. Based on these figures and other indications, the government will likely achieve a better than budgeted final year outcome for the underlying cash balance for the previous financial year. The largest contributor to growth in the last financial year was household consumption, which increased by 0.7 per cent in the previous quarter to be 2.6 per cent higher than a year ago. The government's investments in productive infrastructure are also creating solid growth, with new public final demand rising by 2.1 per cent, driven by an 8.6 per cent boost in government investment. Our $75 billion infrastructure investment will be used to build roads, railways, water infrastructure and other strategic projects, one of which is the grade separation of the rail line near Westfield Marion, in my electorate of Boothby, a problem that has been in existence for some 40 years. I am really pleased to have been able to deliver that for my local community.
Our defence industry plan is delivering for the economy, particularly in my home state of South Australia. Defence investment was up 26.3 per cent in the last quarter thanks to my government's prioritisation of the defence industry and national security.
When we take into account that this is only the beginning of implementing our National Economic Plan, that's when we can begin to realise and understand the sheer volume of untapped economic potential that my government is unlocking. But while the government unlock the economics of opportunity in Australia, our achievements are placed at risk by those opposite, who want to tax Australians into oblivion once again. While under the coalition all Australians are sharing in the benefits of this economic growth, those opposite, the Labor Party, would levy $150 billion of new taxes on Australians, with families and small businesses to bear the brunt of this tax pain. Under their tax plan, no Australian is safe. Everyone is in the sights of Labor's unprecedented tax grab—families, singles, retirees and, in particular, small businesses, which are the economic engine room of the nation. Under Labor's tax plan no Australian is safe; they really aren't.
The grim reality of a Labor government will be tax upon tax upon tax to pay for their insatiable appetite to spend the money of hardworking Australians. They are going after workers, savers, home owners, professionals and the small business owners of Australia. Let's have a look at few of Labor's policies. Their permanently higher top marginal tax rate will take about half of every dollar earned above an income level that is now just over twice the average weekly earnings—a wage which many middle-income-earning Australians aspire to. They have proposed a negative gearing tax grab on wage earners in middle Australia again. For example, a nurse on a wage of $50,000 a year who invests in property with $7,000 in annual net rental losses would under Labor face a whopping tax increase of 41 per cent. They have launched an attack on self-funded retirees with their planned ban on limited recourse borrowing arrangements. They have proposed to introduce a tax policy on trusts, which, again, is an attack on small businesses. The policy singles out as Labor enemies stay-at-home mums, students, doctors and accountants, hitting beneficiaries on $37,000 a year the hardest.
Labor would scrap and reverse our Enterprise Tax Plan, increasing taxes on the 3.2 million Australian small businesses that employ 6.5 million Australians. It is a lot of employees that these small businesses are responsible for, and most of them are, by definition, low or middle-income earners that the small businesses are supporting.
I'm interested to know whether those opposite really think that the politics of envy is going to propel them into government. While they stoke division and resentment in the Australian community they are doing our nation a disservice. There was a reason for the historic failure of socialism. When you're in government, if you pursue equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity, the people suffer. The people in our community who are best able to contribute to our success as a nation will either lose their incentive to work hard to be successful or they'll leave Australia altogether to go overseas to work hard and be successful. We don't want a nation that's encouraged to be mediocre and to stagnate.
Labor's policies will ultimately make it much harder for Australians to get ahead, but, you know, we're quite used to that from those opposite, unfortunately. It's been disappointing to see those opposite step back from their previous positions, where they did support cutting tax rates and encouraging our businesses to grow so that they were productive and employing as many Australians as possible. But, as we know, the Australian people are much smarter than those opposite give them credit for, which, I think, is why we see them not gaining much traction, particularly in this area.
The Australian people know which party they can trust with the economy. They know that the Liberal Party and the Nationals, the coalition government, will not keep dipping into their incomes and their savings. We're here to support hardworking Australians, our small and medium businesses, our bigger businesses and the thousands and millions of Australians that they employ. Our government is committed to growing the economy and helping fund the services that Australians rely on now and into the future. I'm pleased to commend the government's bill to the House.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:57): I do rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, but I really must respond to the member for Boothby. What a lot of rot from this alumnus of the IPA—that bunch of neo-Liberal right wingers who still believe absolutely in the failed policies of trickle-down economics. They somehow believe that if you give more money to the top end of town and give more money to the corporations and the CEOs, somehow, it will magically trickle down to the rest of the population. It hasn't worked in America for 40 years. The middle class in America has been gutted. It is non-existent now because of the failed policies of Reagan and Thatcher, and this mob over here wants to see them imported into Australia. We have one of the greatest societies, one of the greatest economies and one of the greatest countries on earth built on egalitarianism and built on a sense of a fair go. It was built on a fair industrial relations system and a fair sense of equity of income, and these guys want to tear it down because, somehow, they look at America and they actually like what they see. They like to see the middle class gutted, they like to see the billionaires become multibillionaires and they somehow think that's good for the rest of us. It hasn't worked. It just hasn't worked. The evidence is before your eyes.
The member for Boothby was talking about high taxes—what a cheek! I mean, the government has come into this place actually proposing higher taxes for Australians earning up to $87,000 a year, tax cuts for people earning more than $180,000 a year and tax cuts for corporations of up to $50 billion over 10 years.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: It is $50 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. I will take the minister's interjection. Yes, I accept what he's saying. Well, it is $65 billion actually, when you take the total. Some $65 billion in tax cuts to corporations over the next 10 years is the government's grand plan. Why? Because they say it's going to be better for the economy. But their own figures show that if you give $65 billion back in tax to the big corporations, the net result for GDP—for growth in this country—will be an incredible, magnificent, rocketing 0.1 per cent over 10 years. That's their grand plan for economic growth in this country. There will be $65 billion in tax handouts to big banks and corporations and 0.1 per cent growth in GDP. What an absolute joke! They think they're the best economic managers that this country has to offer. I've got news for them: evidence says otherwise.
The member for Boothby—a goldmine of ridiculousness—said that if we don't give tax breaks to big corporations they will all lose the incentive to be here. That somehow there will be this big flood of companies leaving Australia because they will lose the incentive to be here. They will go somewhere else with their business. What a load of rubbish! There are countries in this world that charge companies a lot more tax than Australia. They manage to keep their companies and they manage to keep their corporations. Business will stay wherever they can make a profit, and every business knows that there are good profits to be made in Australia. It's a stable economy, it's a stable political system, and people have relatively good incomes. Despite the efforts of those opposite who want to cut incomes, cut penalty rates and increase taxes on middle Australia, Australia is a good place to do business. I'm pleased that the minister acknowledges 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth thanks to the policies implemented by Labor under Hawke and Keating.
We all love a tax cut. I love a tax cut. Who doesn't love a tax cut? But you have tax cuts when you can afford them. How this mob over here can say: 'Oh, we can give $65 billion to big corporations and banks, but to pay for it we're going to take $3.8 billion over the next five years off universities. We're going to take billions of dollars out of schools. We're going to take money out of hospitals. We're going to take money out of infrastructure.' Honestly, the people of Australia want services and goods. They want a standard of living. They know they're not going to get it from a $65 billion handout to corporations and banks.
Now let me get to the substance of this bill—having dealt with the member for Boothby's ridiculous contribution. I note that the bill comes before the House in an amended form following amendments moved by Labor in the Senate which were successful. The changes initiated by Labor will require a review of this bill's safe-harbour provisions after two years to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. That's important because, even with the best of intentions, we don't know where this is going to go so we need to review it after two years. We're pleased that the Senate agreed and that the government agreed to implement those amendments.
This bill makes some significant changes to the way companies act when trading insolvent. It provides breathing space for responsible change in corporate structure or business practices to enable a business to get through tough times. Today, it's an unfortunate reality that announcing an intention to enter voluntary administration can be, in effect, the kiss of death for a struggling business. You go into voluntary administration in order to try and keep your business going, but that signals to the market that somehow you're in deep trouble. What happens of course is that suppliers stop supplying and customers stop buying. Voluntary administration is supposed to send a signal to the market that although a company is struggling, it's salvageable. Unfortunately, the very act of entering into it can set off a chain of events that can make matters worse, and that's an outcome in no-one's interest except the vultures who swoop in to devour the entrails. We see that happening all the time: companies go into voluntary administration and some joker comes in and swoops it up at a cheap price and carries on the business. That's not fair.
Currently, companies must stop trading as soon as the directors believe they may be insolvent. That makes sense. You shouldn't be able to trade and take on new liabilities when you suspect that you don't have the means to pay your existing bills. But it's a rule that is so inflexible that, arguably, it can do more harm than good. This bill seeks to allow some flexibility with conditions, and the conditions are important. With safe harbour, this legislation will create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for trading while insolvent. A key condition is that directors must be honestly and diligently taking a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company than the immediate appointment of an administrator or liquidator. The intent is sound. We all would much rather see a struggling business get back on its feet than close its doors.
Labor's amendments, which the government has agreed to incorporate, will see the safe-harbour provision reviewed after two years to ensure there are no unforeseen consequences. That's a sensible measure, bringing together both flexibility and accountability. Importantly, safe harbour is not available where the company is failing to meet its obligations to pay its employees, including superannuation; where the company fails to meet its tax reporting obligations; and when a person fails to provide an administrator or liquidator with certain required information, such as a company's books.
So, while supportive of this bill, I am disappointed, however, that it fails to deal with the issue of phoenixing. Phoenixing occurs when a company's directors strip cash and assets from a company, liquidate the company and then reopen for business with a different ABN and different signage. Closing the business down in such a manner strips employees of their entitlements and creditors of their ability to sue for payment. Phoenixing rips off creditors and staff, but also the wider Australian community. A report earlier this year by the University of Melbourne and Monash University said that phoenixing companies, which cost the Australian economy billions of dollars a year, is too easy, too cheap, lucrative and largely invisible. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated the cost to the economy at a staggering $3.2 billion, simply from companies that go bust and then start up again, having wiped off their obligations to their employees and their creditors.
I do note the news from this week, where the government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into finally taking action on phoenixing, four months—four months!—after Labor unveiled our own policy to tackle dodgy directors. Since May, this side of the House has been calling for the introduction of company director ID numbers, which make it easier for authorities to track the spivs who kill their companies and start up again. Director IDs are backed by the Productivity Commission, the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. It's taken the government four months, but it's reluctantly come on board—although not all the way. We note that penalties are still too low and that the government has failed to introduce an objective test for transactions that deprive hardworking and innocent employees of their entitlements. So, I acknowledge the announcement this week, but it's a shame the government had to be dragged into making the decision rather than coming to it early. And it's a shame that it did not take the opportunity to include antiphoenixing provisions in this bill.
Part 2 of this bill sets out new provisions to stop the enforcement of ipso facto clauses that are triggered when a company enters administration. An ipso facto clause creates a contractual right that allows one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of some specific event. Currently, such rights may allow one party to terminate a contract because of the financial position of the company, even though the company is still meeting its obligations to that party. So, for example, if a company has a short-term lack of liquidity which leads directors to appoint a voluntary administrator, an ipso facto clause might allow a major supplier to cancel their contract even though the administered business is still meeting all its payment obligations to that supplier. Cancelling supply may then starve the business of the opportunity to continue to trade while it restructures, which then brings on a liquidation which may otherwise not have occurred. So the operation of such clauses may in fact destroy the ability of the business to restructure, destroy the value of the business and prevent the sale of the business as a going concern.
The regulation power under this bill includes an anti-avoidance mechanism to enable the government to respond to possible contractor agreements that are drafted or prepared in a way to circumvent its provisions. Regulations can carve out certain contracts from the application of these clauses. This amendment will not stop parties from terminating a contract with a company for any other reason, such as a breach involving nonpayment or nonperformance, so those rights are protected. This legislation, in theory, gives business, and particularly small business, a fighting chance of making its way through a tough time, utilising fresh eyes and fresh ideas and without stigma.
Of course, prevention is better than cure. Ideally, we should be doing more to encourage businesspeople to receive practical training in finance, employment responsibilities, resilience and adaptability. Stronger businesses are in everyone's best interests. Carl Gunther, New South Wales Head of Restructuring and National Turnaround Lead notes:
Whilst legislative changes proposed by government are a key element to reform, ultimately early intervention by company directors when indicators of financial distress arise is the best form of defence to claims of insolvent trading. Director's reluctance to call for help continues to result (sadly) in the high volumes of insolvencies in Australia and until this changes no amount of legislative reform will make a difference.
So it's pertinent to note that those opposite are making such training harder by cutting back on TAFE and continuing to encourage the failed privatisation of the training sector. We urge them in all sincerity to give a good, hard look to what they are doing to the TAFE and training sector in this country. Too many paid-up students have fallen victim to failed private organisations, and I still shake my head at a system that allowed Careers Australia to vacuum $40 million out of its own accounts, send them offshore and then, just months later, close the business down, claiming it had no cash. So today's legislation is a start, but we need to dig deeper.
This bill may indeed change the face of Australia's corporate culture. It may even give experienced directors more confidence to join start-up boards. Time will tell. We are cautiously optimistic, but our final position will be evidence based. The results of the review in two years will be instructive. This legislation is about business, and Labor is a friend of business—especially small business.
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: No, the chicken hawk can laugh, but Labor really is a friend of business and small business. The fact is we know small business is the engine of employment in this country and we are friends of small business. You can't go around calling corporations small businesses. It's just a nonsense. You can't go around calling Westpac and Commonwealth Bank small businesses.
We know small business runs on tight margins and we know times can get really tough, which is why we have an open mind about the merits of the legislation. Australia is home to 2.1 million small businesses and Tasmania home to 37,000 of them, a number of them in my electorate. They employ around 100,000 Tasmanians. They are vital, especially in regional communities like mine. I know it's almost a rite of passage for small business to criticise government, but the real threat to small business is big business, and it's time this government got on the side of small business and stopped protecting their big-business mates.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (11:12): It gives me great pleasure to arise this afternoon and speak in favour of this legislation, because it is the government's responsibility to set the environment and infrastructure around its people—not to get caught up in its lies but to put the environment and infrastructure around them to allow them to innovate, to grow and to invest. That's a government's responsibility. That's what we did back in March when we passed the first tranche of this legislation, passing tax cuts onto small businesses. It's quite interesting that the member for Lyons, the champion of small business, proclaims to know and understand it all. I challenge him and those opposite to understand and know what a small business is. Many on this side, including me, own a small business, have to pay the wages and the electricity, have to understand how to keep it open. Real representation is to understand what economic levers need to be pulled to ensure we get the growth and get the engine room of this nation moving. That's what we did back in March.
But no. These great champions of small business stood in our way and tried to stop it. The hypocrisy of them to come in here and say they are the champions of small business is nothing short of laughable. The reality is we are making the legislative changes. We are pulling the economic levers that are driving growth for small business. There are over 3.2 million small businesses that will take advantage of all of these cuts that we'll be undertaking. But it also ensures that we are going to get now a next level of investment.
Those opposite don't understand the flow of capital. We have to be competitive. When they take off their tinfoil hat with its simplistic understanding of economics—when they understand we are part of a global economy—they will have to understand that we are competing in a global economy and that that's a good thing for this nation. We have to be attractive to actually compete and attract the capital that we need to invest and to continue to see, whether it's a small business or a large business, that they are the engine room that employs people. Those opposite want to take umbrage at trickle-down economics and all that it may or may not be, but let me tell you: we are starting to see the benefits of this so-called trickle-down economics as we are pulling these levers right here and now. There were 240,000 new jobs created. That is real economic growth in our nation. We are seeing exports exponentially increase, particularly in the agricultural sector. There has been an increase of over 18 per cent in agricultural exports because of the environment we are putting around the Australian people. We are putting them in an environment where they are now part of a global economy, lo and behold.
Those opposite are yet to understand that we are part of the world and that it's a good thing because we have what the world wants here, and it's important that we engage the world. It's more important than ever that we engage the world, that we are part of it and that we compete in it. You have to have a competitive environment to be able to be part of that global economy. We've done that with the trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China. We continue to work on trade agreements in Indonesia and opening up greater export opportunities that are putting real wealth in the pockets of people across this nation, and particularly in my electorate of Maranoa, where we're seeing significant growth because of the trade agreements in the agricultural sector in particular. We are seeing people getting real returns. Four or five years ago they got $1.50 per kilo for their beef, and now they're getting $4 or $5 per kilo. That's an exponential increase in their income that flows through.
Talking about trickle-down economics, what happens is that it trickles through the economy when people have more disposable income. Those opposite wouldn't understand, but, when you are a small-business owner and you have an industry like the agricultural sector in your community, you need it to be strong because then more money comes into the business. If you invest in small business and business in this community, they reinvest through more employment and through greater competition. That's what this nation is about. It's about understanding how we fit in a global economy but also how we fit locally and how we can get money to trickle down not only to the Brisbanes, the Sydneys and the Melbournes but to the Romas, the Charlevilles and the Longreaches of this world. No matter your postcode, you are just as precious and just as important in this nation. That's something we should always protect, and that's why we must put an environment around our Australian people to allow them to prosper, to grow and to undertake it.
We must not be the big hand of government and think that we can spend our way out of this. This is the simplistic nature that the Labor Party continue to hold onto. They believe that, as soon as there's trouble, the only way is to spend our way out of it—to be the big hand of government. The reality is that we all have to pay for it at some point, and that's what they forget. They have a never-never scheme where they kick the can down the road. Unfortunately, the generations to come—my three young boys—will be the ones that will have to pay for that legacy of economic vandalism that we've seen time and time again from the Labor Party. They are not understanding how we fit in the world and how we need to have a competitive environment for the people we are here to represent.
If you have faith in our nation and its businesses, they will reinvest in our nation, and we will be where we need to be in our international rankings. When you look at our international tax competitiveness, we were formerly the ninth lowest, and now we're the fifth highest. The reality is that our competitive nature in a global economy has slipped exponentially. If you think that we are not competing with other jurisdictions with respect to tax, it's all about profitability—as the member for Lyons talked about, if they're making profits they're happy, but if they get bigger profits that's when they'll invest. It's understanding how business works. Unfortunately, those opposite haven't had a lot of experience in running businesses. They've been union hacks and political hacks, but they haven't had the responsibility of paying wages, paying electricity bills, paying their rates, understanding what it is to run a business—the responsibility not only to your staff but to your community. That's what we bring to the table in terms of pulling the economic levers that are going to generate the growth. We understand that, if we make the investment in our country, it will give an investment back—a great return.
These measures around international tax competitiveness are so important around the flow of capital. I've been an employee of a major corporate. I'm not saying that all of them are the most socially responsible, but the reality is that they are an important employer in this nation. They are a very important employer in this nation. As someone that has been employed by them and has seen retrenchments over time of some of those people I've worked closely with, I can assure the House that those businesses are no different to small businesses. If they cannot have the competitiveness that they need, they won't reinvest in their businesses and they won't reinvest in the human capital of each and every Australian in order to give them the opportunity to have a job.
There is the simplistic notion of class warfare, where big corporates are bad. Yes, they've got some work to do on some issues. But the reality is that we have to put the environment around them to ensure they are internationally competitive and that we attract the capital flows we need—and deserve—to continue to get the employment that we have to have in this nation. Lo and behold, funnily enough, the people who are employed by those corporates also pay tax. The reality is that the simplistic notion of class warfare that the Labor Party unleash at every opportunity just does not work. It is simplistic; it is politically great for them, but the reality is that our nation suffers. We as a nation are at a tipping point. We are $500 billion in debt. We have to pull the right economic levers now to ensure that we put in place a framework that drives growth for this nation.
It is also around infrastructure priorities that will increase the productivity of our nation. You do not have to look far for that. We are making a significant investment in roads and rail and telecommunications. The NBN will be rolled out across my electorate of Maranoa—nearly 43 per cent of Queensland—by 2018. These things are the tools of the 21st century, the tools we will need in order to take advantage of the trade agreements that we have put in place. There is the $220 million that we have put in place for the mobile phone blackspot program—again, tools of the 21st century that we need in order to take advantage of and engage in the global economy. We must understand that we are part of a world that is there to embrace us. It is an important thing that people in rural and regional Australia understand better than those opposite.
Before I was elected, I went out to a little town called Alpha. I visited a lady who had been in drought for the last six years. I went and did a feed run with her. We were driving around in her ute. She was getting a little emotional about the fact that she had not seen her husband for nearly 18 months because he was off working 700 kilometres away. I said to her, 'Do you really think there's a future in this?' She looked me in the eye and said: 'Mate, I don't even know your politics, but the only person who is important to me is the trade minister. When it rains, I know that all the work I've done over the last five or six years is going to be worth something to me. The cattle are going to get us out of this, and my husband is going to come home to me.' That was somebody in the depths of despair. She had been to the bottom and was still at the bottom. For her to acknowledge and understand our place in this world and the importance of the environment we put around our people is something I will never forget. That is the understanding that the Australian people have. If we empower them to do what they need to do then we will get the investment and the growth that we need.
We can also talk about inland rail—a corridor of commerce from Melbourne to Brisbane. It is going to open up regional Australia far more than ever before. We are going to get our products to the world more quickly. We have what the world wants. In fact, if you want to put the importance of trade agreements to the fore, we have a population of about 24 million people and we produce enough food for 75 million people. If we do not have trade agreements, we as a nation will not have rural and regional Australia.
You can couple that with the tax incentives that we have provided to small businesses. There are 25,000 small businesses in Maranoa that took advantage of the first tranche of this, which those opposite opposed. Those opposite opposed small businesses being able to get on and reinvest in their communities and in their businesses. Those are the types of things that have a real impact. We must understand that capital flow is so important—whether it be the family farm or at the corporate level. That is where real trickle-down economics comes to the fore. Those opposite should not be scared of that, because it works. And we are seeing that transcend now.
In all the data that is coming through, our growth is starting to get to a tipping point where the decisions that this government has made are having an exponential benefit in terms of where this nation will be in 10 or 15 years time. It is about the continuing investment that this government has proudly undertaken in the business environment and infrastructure. If you do that, if you make that case for investment, you will see private investment flow.
I'll give you an example: the Toowoomba bypass, a $1.6 billion investment that's being put in place now that will get the products of Maranoa to the world quicker, has been matched by the Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport. We now have an Australian export hub on our doorstep, where we have weekly cargo flights taking Maranoa product around the world, because we are putting the connectivity in place. There has been private investment: the owners of Wellcamp, private people, made that investment in the people of Queensland and regional Queensland, because we made the initial investment in the Inland Rail and the second range crossing. That's an important step to understand: if you have faith, if you have confidence, in the Australian people, they will respond. And the Wagner family, quite proudly, did. We should be proud of Australians—proud that, when we put the environment and infrastructure around them, they respond. And when they respond, that is a good thing for our nation. Never before have we seen such investment in the electorate of Maranoa, into connectivity: $500 million into the Warrego Highway, and into Inland Rail, $8.4 billion.
This is about connecting us to the real world. I plead with those opposite to put aside the politics, understand our place in the world and understand the importance of how we can interact with the world and how we can take advantage of the competitive advantage that we have with the world's best product. But we have to have an open mind. We have to understand that there is no quick or easy fix on this. You can't spend your way out of this. You have to have sensible policy that will ensure that we empower the people of this nation to go to the next level.
I'm proud to stand here supporting a government that understands small business, that understands the economy and that understands that, if we get these economic levers right, we will make this nation the nation that it deserves to be.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (11:26): It's my privilege to follow the member for Lyons, in particular, who I thought made a very characteristically useful and considered contribution a little while ago. Even with the member who just spoke, there were parts of what he said—about trade in particular but other things as well—on which I find common ground. But we, on this side, obviously oppose this bill that we're talking about now, for the reasons that have been outlined so well by the member for Lyons, the member for McMahon and indeed all of the speakers on this side of the House.
If you were looking for one bill to sum up, in one piece of legislation, the approach of those opposite, this is it. In this one bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, we have all of the warped priorities, all of the Thatcherite fantasy, all of the trickle-down economics, and all of the wasted money and the fiscal vandalism which have characterised the last four years, and all of the showering of largesse on the top end of town while lecturing middle Australia about debt and deficit disasters. This is a $65 billion ram raid on the budget, which is to be handed directly to multinational corporations and the big four banks at the expense of people who work and who struggle in this country.
Those in this government—if you can believe it—through their policies tell us that they believe that multinational corporations pay too much tax, that people under $87,000 a year pay too little tax and that people get paid too much to work on Sundays. That is the summary of the economic policy of those opposite in this Turnbull government. You couldn't make this stuff up. In their arrogance, they want the Australian people to believe that they can't find $3.8 billion for universities, but they can find $65 billion for big companies in this country; they can't find a billion dollars to maintain the pensioner energy supplement, but they can find $65 billion to give to big business; they can't find the $17 billion for schools; and they can't find the $2.2 billion for GPs and allied health, or the $3 billion for apprentices and TAFE and vocational education, or the $1.6 billion they're cutting out of infrastructure, or the $500 million they're cutting out of the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, or the $300 million they're cutting out of dental, or the $171 million they're cutting from hospital services for veterans, or the $44 million a year they're cutting from homelessness funding.
They can't find any of that; that's too hard to find. That's all too expensive, but they can find $65 billion to give to big business in Australia, and that's what this bill is all about. It does say it all about those opposite; it ticks every box. It's unfair, for the reasons I've just outlined. It's unwise because it won't deliver the growth that we need in this country, the right kind of growth; indeed, it won't deliver much growth at all. And it's unaffordable, particularly at a time when those opposite have made such a mess of the budget that we have record gross debt in this country—high debt, growing, not a peak in sight—under those opposite, and they want to pretend that they are superior economic managers. There's never been more debt on the Commonwealth budget than there is today, and it's growing and there's no peak in sight.
We oppose this bill because, when we have weak growth, this is not the answer. We oppose this bill because, when we have skyrocketing debt, this fiscal vandalism will make the situation worse, not better. We oppose this bill because, when we have more and more people feeling, with some justification, that the rules of the economy are written to benefit others at their expense, this is a recipe for more division in our economy and in our society.
Let me go to some of the details of the claims that those opposite make. The first one, of course, is that this is the only way that we can get growth in our economy. When the government says that, it reminds me of that Johnny Lee song we were talking about before. The member for Herbert and the member for Lindsay were talking about that Johnny Lee song, which talks about 'lookin' for love in all the wrong places'. This government is looking for economic growth in all of the wrong places. There's a lyric in that song which reminds me of the Treasurer. Johnny Lee sings:
Playin' a fools game hopin' to win;
and tellin' those sweet lies and losin' again.
That is the best summary of the economic approach from those opposite and the commentary from the Treasurer about economic growth. This is a government looking for growth in all the wrong places.
They want you to believe that the only way to grow the economy is to hand tens of billions of dollars to multinational corporations—a lot of that will go overseas—or to the big four banks, which get about $10 billion of that $65 billion, or by letting the wealthiest Australians choose how much tax they pay via trusts or by giving the biggest tax concessions to those who need them least. The government will have you believe that that's the only way to grow the economy. They just don't get it.
We understand on this side of the House—all of us do—that growth comes from working people having the money to spend and invest and from us deploying tax dollars in an intelligent way where they can do the most good to boost productivity and boost inclusive growth in our economy. Growth comes from giving people a stake in the growth that they help create, rewarding their efforts and their enterprise, ensuring people can participate meaningfully in our economy and in our society. It does not come from lower wages or higher taxes on working people or these tax cuts that we're discussing in this bill. Those opposite are from an alternative universe, where they think that, if you give $10 billion to four banks, to four companies, a $10 billion tax cut, miraculously, those banks will employ more people. The same goes for multinational corporations, where a lot of that tax cut benefit goes overseas.
We do have very serious challenges in our economy, and key among those is the growth challenge. We are all in the car for the right kind of economic growth, but in the national accounts in the last week or so we had some very disturbing figures that showed that we have weak annual growth, falling living standards and flatlining wages—all in that one data release from the ABS. We have annual growth with a one in front of it. The Treasurer wanders around expecting a pat on the back and a round of applause for annual growth with a one in front of it—1.8 per cent. Our economic growth over the year is lower than in Canada, the USA or New Zealand. It's lower than the OECD average. It's been less than two per cent annually for three of the last four quarters. That is the worst result since the global financial crisis.
Real net national disposable income per capita, the best measure of living standards, fell 1.4 per cent in the last quarter. Living standards are going backwards, and wages are flatlining. Average compensation per employee fell 0.1 per cent in the last quarter. Wages went backwards in the most recent national accounts. And economic growth is obviously still well below what we need to cut unemployment, put upward pressure on wages and boost demand in the economy.
Beyond those troubling national accounts figures, the workers' share of national income is at record lows and underemployment is at record highs. I'm conscious that a new set of data has come out while I've been on my feet, which I'll read with interest, but the trend for underemployment has been horrible: there has been record underemployment. People who need more work or more hours at work can't find them. The people-facing part of the economy is suffering. This bill and the government's approach to the economy will turbocharge those challenges, not address them. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
On the government's own figures about growth, the growth dividend from this bill we are discussing today—the $65 billion tax cut for big business—will be negligible at best: one per cent over 20 years. We're talking about one per cent in 20 years time. Those opposite go on and on about how this is crucial, this is the key, this is the secret sauce when it comes to getting growth in this economy. We are talking one per cent in 20 years. That's $2 a day in wages per person in 20 years time, on the Treasury modelling. That is what we're talking about here. This is their one-point plan. That will be the miraculous outcome of this one-point plan—so many bucks for so little bang.
The tax cuts in this bill are unfair for the reasons I've described and are unwise. They won't get the growth we need and they're also unaffordable. This is a $65 billion ram-raid on the budget. It's the single biggest piece of fiscal vandalism of the Abbott-Turnbull government. We have this mess in the budget, despite the fact that the government is actually raising something like $77 billion more in taxes in 2017-18 than was raised in 2012-13, the last year of the Labor government. Tax to GDP, which is the measure that we rely on to see how much tax is being paid in the economy, is higher for every year in the forward estimates in the most recent budget than it was in any year under the former Labor government. This government is taxing more than the former Labor government did and yet still we've got net debt at record levels for the next two years. We've got a deficit for this year 10 times bigger than was predicted in Joe Hockey's first budget. We've got half a trillion dollars in gross debt. That is the first time that has ever happened in Australian history: half a trillion dollars in gross debt! And gross debt doesn't even peak. It blows out to $725 billion over the medium term with no peak in sight. Gross debt continues to rise. The interest bill is about $5.5 billion, or $220 for every man, woman and child in this country. The coalition is racking up gross debt $1.4 billion a month faster than Labor, in good global economic conditions. We racked up debts lower than this government during a global financial crisis. Think about that. Debt is being racked up faster when we've got pretty good global conditions now than it was in the life of the former Labor government, which dealt with—successfully, I'm proud to say—the biggest synchronised downturn in the global economy since the 1930s. Think about that. It is a pretty extraordinary achievement for those opposite to rack up debt faster in good conditions than Australia did during the global financial crisis.
There is a whole range of numbers which go to the core of the incompetence of those opposite and the hypocrisy of lecturing people about debt and deficit disasters—all of those sorts of things—at the same time that, on their watch, debt and deficit have blown out substantially across all of those measures. No matter which way you carve it, the numbers don't lie. Gross debt, net debt, debt per person—on all of these measures, those opposite have made a mess of the budget. They would like us to pretend that handing $65 billion to multinational corporations and the big four banks in Australia will somehow be the answer to all of our challenges, when we've got anaemic growth and sky rocketing debt and deficit. This bill will be part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Under this government, you can understand why more and more Australians feel deeply frustrated that, no matter how hard they work, the economy doesn't work for them. They just can't get ahead no matter how hard they work. They do the right thing and try and provide for their families but they feel like the rules of the economy—with some justification—are written to benefit somebody else at their expense.
On this side of the House, we want the rules of the economy to accord with our values: we grow strongest when we grow together; if you work hard, you should be rewarded for it; if you fall behind or fall down, we will be there to help you up. That is a summary of the economic approach this side of the House takes to the Australian economy. That's why we have been announcing all these policies.
I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer, the shadow Assistant Treasurer and all of the colleagues. The policies that we've been announcing are so important to ensuring that the rules of the economy accord with our values. They are part of a larger purpose: to ensure that we can have inclusive growth, that we can have reward for effort in this country, and we can have a decent social safety net for those who fall down or fall behind.
The previous speaker, the member for Maranoa, and indeed a number of the speakers on that side of the House, are fond of saying in the media that our position on handing $65 billion to multinationals and the big four banks is somehow based on some kind of politics of envy or some kind of class war. But that argument, the argument they put over and over and over again, rests on a really tired, old, dishonest absurdity that pretends that the only way to maintain cohesion in this country is to give the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least or pay people less to work on weekends or give tax cuts to the top and tax hikes to the bottom or to shower largesse on the people who need it least in our economy. Theirs is a recipe for more division. It's damaging to the budget, to the economy and to society.
It's far more divisive to hack at the safety net or let the wealthiest people choose how much tax to pay or hand over tens of billions of dollars in company tax cuts at the same time as they lecture middle Australia about tightening their belts. This country is looking for economic growth. That growth will be found in decent incomes so that people can save and invest and provide for their families and in a new government which prioritises the actual drivers of growth and productivity and which recognises that the best growth in this country is people-powered and from the bottom up. Growth won't be found in this $65 billion tax cut or in the trickle-down economics that it represents. (Time expired)
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:42): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. We're talking about tax. Let's start with the comments of the shadow Treasurer on this matter in no less a publication than his Hearts & Minds, a somewhat grandly-titled publication of 2013. He started out by saying:
… it's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
And he is right. When the shadow Treasurer said that in Hearts & Minds back in 2013, he was right. He's often wrong—he's usually wrong—but, on this matter, he was right. He said:
At 30 per cent, our company tax rate is now above the OECD average … it is how the rate compares to that of our competitors that counts.
And he was right about that too. It's not overly complex when you think about it. If you're a company and you have a choice to invest in different places around the world, are you going to favour places where you have to pay a very high rate of tax or are you going to favour places where you pay a more competitive rate of tax? It's pretty obvious and it's set out in a very lucid fashion by the shadow Treasurer in Hearts & Minds. The opposition leader has also spoken at length on this issue. He did so in 2012 when he was the Assistant Treasurer. He spoke to ACOSS about company tax, and had some wise words for the ACOSS audience assembled on that day back in March of 2012. He said:
… corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.
…
Reducing the corporate tax rate … sees more capital flowing into our domestic economy, which will then flow on to workers in the form of higher wages—thereby improving standards of living.
A very sensible analysis. He said:
And because reducing the company rate is an economic growth instrument—
he was right about that too—
reducing the corporate tax rate … is also an investment in the Australian people—including people who might now be on welfare and require the services of ACOSS members.
Helping companies to grow improves employment and is good for the economy and is good for those workers for whom new jobs are created. That was a very, very sensible position for the opposition leader and shadow Treasurer to take.
But, of course, now we see this very, very transparent campaign to demonise any large company as somehow bad for the nation. The terms 'big end of town' or 'top end of town', you will be interested to know, have been used in the parliament in the last year more than 300 times. That suggests an ongoing campaign by those opposite to try to convey the idea that large companies are bad for Australia. But the reality is that large companies employ about 4 million Australians including thousands and thousands of people who live in my electorate. I don't find, certainly in my community—and I suspect the same would be the case around Australia—a sense that people want large companies to exit our shores. To the contrary, what people want is for large companies to invest in Australia and to create the millions and millions of jobs that they do. That's appropriate, and that's why this government is so supportive of policies that create competitive company tax rates.
Of course we have already passed the first round of the enterprise tax bill, which was opposed by those opposite. Those opposite say that if a company has revenue of $2 million or more, it is a big company which should not receive corporate tax relief. That's what those opposite say. Those opposite think that if a company has turnover of $2 million, it means that it makes $2 million of profit. But, of course, it doesn't, because most companies might have a profit margin of maybe five per cent or six per cent—something like that. So a company that's turning over $2 million might be making about $100,000, which is about the average household income in Australia. Those opposite say that is a large company that should not be entitled to corporate tax relief, and they voted against it. They voted against tax relief for a small company in suburban Sydney with $2.1 million in revenue. That is just the reality.
Ms Husar: Not in western Sydney.
Dr CHALMERS: They think that is the right thing to do. They think that a company with $2 million of revenue is a large company that's not worthy of tax relief. The member for Lindsay was interjecting saying 'not in western Sydney' they don't have those companies, but, actually, we have thousands of them. A company that turns over $2 million in revenue is a very small business, but those opposite literally think that that is a large company and they voted against relief for a company with $2 million in revenue. It is an extraordinary policy, and it really does speak to the anti-investment, anti-success agenda of those opposite.
The Leader of the Opposition recently said that in Australia there is a sense that your success in life is predetermined by your parents' income. That's just wrong. Every person in this place, and the vast majority of people around Australia, would say that their success in life has been overwhelmingly determined by their own efforts. That's what we believe on this side of the House. We believe very strongly in promoting innovation and investment and, basically, in backing people who get out there and make things happen. In the absence of that, the economy doesn't grow and we have a weaker economy and a weaker society. The strength of Australia—one of its many strengths—is the fact that people do take risks, people do invest and people do get out there and make things happen. That is why we are so supportive of corporate tax reform—to encourage people to invest more in this wonderful country.
The enterprise tax plan part 2 that we are discussing today will bring tax relief to those businesses with turnover of more than $50 million. Those opposite have already voted against the enterprise tax bill No. 1. Presumably, they will now vote against enterprise tax bill No. 2. It is important to know that there are 3.85 million Australian employees who are employed in companies that will benefit from these provisions. They will benefit because the company will have greater incentive to invest in Australia. Those opposite say that shouldn't occur. They say that it's a giveaway to companies—which is instructive in itself because it implies that all of the money is the government's for the government to decide what to do with, when, in fact, the money has been generated by these companies and not by the government. The government is the one taking the money, not the other way around. We say: let those companies keep more of the money they have generated so that they can reinvest more in our society and create more jobs. That is self-evidently a good thing to do.
But it is important to reflect on the policies of those opposite when it comes to tax. It is the most anti-investment, anti-innovation agenda we have seen from the Labor Party for many decades. I want to briefly run through the list of all the problems they would present for investment in Australia if they were to become the government. One of the things that those opposite propose is that any form of investment in Australia be subject to a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax when it is sold. Labor say they want to do that because of issues to do with the housing market in Sydney and Melbourne. But they propose that capital gains tax be increased by 50 per cent for absolutely everything. So if you invest in a factory, a farm, a technology company, a warehouse, if you help a friend by investing in a small business—a cafe, a small restaurant or whatever—you will pay 50 per cent more tax under Labor's so-called housing affordability policy.
This is a very important point. If somebody wants to build a factory in Western Sydney, of which there are many thousands, to create jobs in Western Sydney, why should they pay 50 per cent more tax? That is an extraordinarily bad policy. It has nothing to do with housing affordability. I would absolutely welcome from anyone in the opposition an explanation of the link between housing affordability and increasing by 50 per cent a tax on investment in a factory, a warehouse or any other job-creating area. Nobody in the opposition has ever articulated such a link—because there isn't one. The policy is that, to address housing affordability, capital gains tax will be increased by 50 per cent. But no-one in the opposition has ever explained why they decided to extend that to factories in Western Sydney, warehouses in regional Queensland and farms in Western Australia. On all of those things, when sold, there is a requirement to pay 50 per cent more tax under Labor's housing affordability policy. If someone would like to articulate why they have done that and how it is related to housing affordability, that would be very welcome. But they won't do that, because there is no link. The reason for this policy from those opposite is that it raises more revenue—which would mean the government would have more money. That is why they want to do it. It has absolutely nothing to do with housing affordability.
Another issue is Labor's policy with respect to negative gearing. Labor's policy is that people investing in an investment property should not be able to claim the cost of interest even though that has been possible in Australia for more than 100 years. For more than 100 years, you have been able to claim the cost of interest when investing in investment properties; that actually applies to any investment, although much of it is investment properties. Labor say you should not be able to do that. And then they say this will have no impact on the market, that all the people who invest in properties will continue to do so. They say the fact that property investors will not be able to claim an interest deduction will not have any impact on rent, because they will have exactly the same rental income; they will not increase rents even though the total cost of owning the property will be higher because they no longer have the ability to make use of negative gearing. So Labor say there will be no increase in rents under negative gearing, even though they acknowledge that the person who owns the investment property will have to pay more. The person who owns the investment property will have to pay more, but Labor say the person who owns the investment property will not pass on a dollar of that cost to any renter in Australia. That is an extraordinary and absurd policy, and that is why it is so important to continue to articulate in a very precise way the cost of that policy.
They also want people who earn $180,000 to pay one in two dollars to the government. If that isn't a disincentive to work hard, what is? That is an extraordinary impost.
They also say that the hundreds of thousands of Australian businesses who make use of trust structures and who have done so for many decades should not be allowed to do so. They say that it's only going to be affecting a very modest number of people. They say they have modelling from the Parliamentary Budget Office on this issue of how many Australians will be affected by Labor's policy of effectively abolishing the use of trusts by small business. We say: release the modelling. The Parliamentary Budget Office would be perfectly fine with those opposite releasing the modelling on what their attack on trusts will do to the small business sector. The Parliamentary Budget Office isn't stopping the Leader of the Opposition from releasing that modelling. The only person who is stopping the Leader of the Opposition from releasing the modelling is the Leader of the Opposition. He should do so. He should be very, very frank and say, 'This is the exact number of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses in Australia who will be affected by this attack on trusts.' They have the number and they have the modelling. It has been provided by the PBO. They should put it out there in the public domain if they are so confident in it.
From those opposite we hear an extraordinary litany of attacks on aspiration and attacks on investment, whether it's on negative gearing, capital gains, trusts, not supporting company tax cuts or attacking investment on a range of levels. They have an antisuccess, anti-investment and antigrowth agenda. On this side of parliament, we are unashamedly pro growth and unashamedly supportive of business investment. We will back businesses to invest in this country and to employ millions of Australians. We have already got the runs on the board with the first tranche of these enterprise tax cuts. This is a very important second step, and it should be supported by all members in the House.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (11:57): I move:
That the debate be adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Mr Burke: Madam Deputy Speaker, to suit the convenience of the House, we are happy to call the division off. A division is not required from our end.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Leader of the Opposition
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (12:00): I move:
That this House condemns the Leader of the Opposition for deliberately misleading the Australian public on power prices.
Let's start with the claim. On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition stated, 'The research shows that the average power bills for a Sydney household have gone up by nearly $1,000.' On the same day in parliament he said to the Prime Minister:
What about the $1,000 extra that Sydney householders are paying on his watch?
It was a claim he repeated in the House yesterday. Yesterday his shadow spokesman on energy, the member for Port Adelaide, said in the House:
Since this government came into office power bills have gone up by $1,000 for the average Sydney household. That figure is based on data from the government's own Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission, reported in The Australian newspaper.
But The Australian newspaper never reported such a figure. It was concocted by the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition and was designed to mislead the Australian people. And again Labor members followed their Leader of the Opposition, repeating this $1,000 false claim. The member for Parramatta, the member for Shortland, the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Lindsay, the member for Werriwa, the member for Wills, the member for Cunningham, the member for Hunter and the member for Blaxland all repeated this false claim.
And then Labor's false claim was repeated and used in the media. Last night, in Andrew Probyn's package on the ABC News, this $1,000 false claim was repeated to hundreds of thousands of Australians. But let me tell the House that the Leader of the Opposition's $1,000 claim for an electricity price increase for the average Sydney household is false, is dishonest and is designed to deliberately mislead the Australian people. It has wrongly asserted data from Australia's independent Australian Energy Regulator and was designed to deceive the Australian people.
This is what the independent Australian Energy Regulator has said in response to the claims from those opposite: '
The Australian Energy Regulator has not published any data outlining the price increases claimed in the article. The price increases in the article are inconsistent with the data published by the Australian Energy Regulator.'
This data suggests that prices have gone down in Sydney by 2.3 per cent from the end of 2013 to July 2017. I table the advice from the Australian Energy Regulator. Similarly, the independent Australian Energy Market Commission has stated in response to these claims: 'The Australian Energy Market Commission's figures cannot be the basis of the estimates of price increases published in The Australian article on 10 July 2017.' I table the advice from the Australian Energy Market Commission, which conflicts with the claims made by those opposite.
There we have it in black and white. The Leader of the Opposition, his energy spokesman and a host of frontbench and backbench colleagues have used the good names of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission, attributing to them data that never existed while cooking up on that side of the House a fake figure of a $1,000 increase in Sydney households designed to mislead the Australian people. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean, to apologise to the Australian people and to come into this House and correct the record.
We have seen this all before, because the Leader of the Opposition has a pathological pattern of behaviour to deceive, to falsify and to mislead the Australian people. The Leader of the Opposition has a pathological pattern of behaviour to deceive, to falsify and to mislead the Australian people. It goes to the question of integrity, because the Leader of the Opposition is not fit to be Prime Minister of this country. He's not fit to be Prime Minister of the country. We all know about 'Mediscare'. Those opposite were prepared to deceive millions of Australian pensioners and the most vulnerable in our society with a lie, with a mistruth, with a false claim. If we hadn't exposed this $1,000 false claim from the Leader of the Opposition—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): I remind the member for Shortland that he's not in his seat. You're not in your seat. Nor is the member for Lyons or the member for Cowan.
Mr FRYDENBERG: who would know that millions of Australians may have gotten a text message attributed to the Australian Energy Regulator? It's just like what they did with the 'Mediscare' campaign.
The Leader of the Opposition's bad behaviour is not confined to 'Mediscare'. What about his bad behaviour with the workers of Clean Event? As a union boss, he sold out the workers to line the pockets of the unions. What about his efforts in getting $100,000 from the good workers of the unions and giving it to GetUp!? Money that came from the coal workers was given to GetUp! to close coal-fired power stations—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: I will just make a point of order briefly, if I may. This particular resolution, a resolution on notice condemning a member of parliament by direct resolution and claiming deliberately misleading, is a resolution rarely moved. When it's moved, the relevance rules are relatively strict. The minister has now strayed a long way from the subject of the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I call the minister. I have allowed him to continue.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The Leader of the Opposition has a pathological pattern of behaviour to deceive, to falsify and to mislead the Australian people.
We know that he has concocted this $1,000 figure, he has taken the good name of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission and he has got the Labor members opposite to repeat this false claim and to mislead the Australian people. On the issue of rising energy prices, the public concern is genuine, but the Leader of the Opposition's concern is not genuine. When we came to government at the end of 2013, we inherited a mess. We inherited electricity prices that had increased by more than 100 per cent, and they had actually increased by more than that in Sydney. We immediately took action to abolish the carbon tax, and those opposite tried three times to stop us. But when the carbon tax was abolished, we saw the biggest single drop ever recorded, and we have the ACCC saying that Australian householders were, overall, $550 better off.
When we came to government, as I said to the House yesterday, the Australian Energy Regulator in their State of the energy market report shows that electricity bills for an average household in Sydney have varied from increasing by about $1 to falling by $473 in accordance with the latest data in May. Take, for example, Ausgrid: in 2013, their customers saw a 3.9 per cent increase; in 2014, they saw a 5.5 per cent decrease; in 2015, they saw a 6.6 per cent decrease; and, in 2016, they saw a 9.1 per cent increase. We know that Australian households are doing it tough. On 1 July this year, AGL increased average Sydney household bills by $296, Origin increased bills by $310 and EnergyAustralia increased bills by $320. The combined effect of these changes on the average Sydney household bill, since we came to office, means that the price for an average Sydney household varies from increasing by $321 to decreasing by $177. This is nowhere even close to the Labor Party's claim: a fabrication of $1,000.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Order! I remind the member for Lyons that he is out of his seat.
Mr FRYDENBERG: I table the AER's documentation indicating those numbers. We have taken action on a number of fronts to relieve the pressure on household power bills. The Prime Minister has taken action to provide more gas into the domestic market, action to rein in the power of the networks, action to get better deals for the retailers and action to keep existing coal-fired power stations going. These are all actions of a responsible government focused on affordable, reliable power. This contrasts with those opposite with a Leader of the Opposition who's not fit for government, a Leader of the Opposition who has misappropriated the good names of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission and a Leader of the Opposition who has come into this place and made up a figure—a false figure—of a thousand-dollar increase for average household power prices. The member for Port Adelaide should be ashamed of himself because he has made up a number and misled the House. The Labor Party has misled the House. The Labor Party has not produced one valid document to assert its statement is correct.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hunter! The member for Hunter is defying the chair. Order!
Mr FRYDENBERG: I will end where I started. The Leader of the Opposition has concocted the number of a thousand-dollar increase. He has used the good name of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission. There is now documentation on the record contradicting and conflicting with the claims made by the Labor Party. Only this side of the House is focused on a more affordable and reliable system, and only the Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage or the conviction to come into this House, to be honest with the Australian people, to correct the record and to explain why he made up this false figure to mislead and deceive the Australian people.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (12:15): Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, you can't imagine how pleased I am to take this debate, because they have got to be kidding! The last time we had overreach like this was when John Howard said that under Work Choices workers had never had it better. Remember that? Billboard after billboard destroyed his government because of that arrogance, that sense of being so out of touch that the government does not understand what is happening in households across the country. This motion exemplifies how arrogant and out of touch this government is.
The Minister for the Environment and Energy came into the parliament yesterday afternoon and effectively said to the 2½ million Sydney households, 'You've never had it so good.' He came into this House and said to 2½ million Sydney households that under the coalition government power prices have decreased by as much as $473. This minister said that $473 is the cash that Sydney households have in their pockets because of the cuts in their power bills under this government. Sydney households should be grateful for the bountiful sums that have flowed their way from reduced power bills under this minister and his predecessor. He said that with a straight face.
I do admit that the minister did concede that some Sydney households had experienced an increase in their power bills—an increase of $1. He said $1, not $1 per week but $1 per year over the whole of the long four years of this shocking government.
The member for Lindsay gave me a good suggestion earlier today. She said: 'Rather than have this debate in the rarefied atmosphere of Canberra, why don't you'—the minister—'join me in Penrith and have this debate? You can hear from Sydney households how grateful they are for the extra $473 that you say they have in reduced power bills. They'll be throwing rose petals your way, in your path, as you steam into Penrith to gracefully tell them how they've got reduced power bills.' I will tell you this: the member for Lindsay and other representatives of Sydney households on this side of parliament know what's happening in the real world of Sydney power bills. They know that under this government they are going up and up and up. Last year alone, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, they went up by $200 a year on average. As the minister belatedly admits, Sydney households are experiencing power bill increases this year of around 20 per cent. News.com.au says that, on average, for a Sydney household it is about $600 a year—but the minister didn't refer to that yesterday.
This is a government that is so out of touch that it thinks that Sydney households are experiencing a bounty of reduced power bills that are nothing but a fantasy. Perhaps that's why this minister for energy is supporting his Treasurer in cutting the energy supplement to 400,000 age pensioners, to 108,000 disability support pensioners, to 105,000 carers, to single parents and to other families on income support, because apparently their power bills are going down. They don't need the $550 energy supplement paid to the most vulnerable households in our community.
And it's not just households, because business after business has been walking the halls of this parliament over the last fortnight and talking about their energy price rises across the country, including in New South Wales. And we know the figures they're quoting: they're talking to the media and they're talking to members on this side about 70 per cent, 80 per cent, 90 per cent and even 100 per cent increases in their power contracts in New South Wales—all because of this government's stunning underperformance on energy policy.
Now, the reasons for this are very clear. Under this government, 4,000 megawatts of dispatchable power have been taken out of the system. Seven coal-fired power stations, equivalent to powering six million households, have been taken out of the system. I'd love the minister to get up and tell us how many megawatts of dispatchable power have been built in the more than four years of this government, because it's zero. It's absolutely zero! We had the Prime Minister boast about the 2,900 megawatts of gas-fired generation installed in the last decade. He didn't say it was all under the last Labor government, and that not a single megawatt of dispatchable power has been built in the long four years of this government.
But we also know that it's not just the Turnbull government that's let Sydney households down. We saw the ACCC in the paper again this morning, complaining about the Liberal state government's botched privatisation of New South Wales power generation, pushing power prices up for Sydney households, which are already having to suffer at the hands of this incompetent, out-of-touch government.
This government has plunged this country into the deepest energy crisis in living memory. To the minister, I say: power prices are not going down. They are not going down; they are going up and up and up under this government. For the first time in living memory, two-thirds of the nation is at risk of blackouts in coming summers because this government has built no dispatchable power generation, while 4,000 megawatts of dispatchable power has left the system on this government's watch.
It's not just dispatchable power and it's not just power prices: pollution is going up. One in three renewable energy jobs has been lost under this minister and under this government, because of their attacks on renewable energy. One in three jobs! Thousands of workers in renewable energy have lost their jobs because of this government's ideological attacks. And it's all the more unforgiveable because they actually have a blueprint to get the nation out of this deep hole. They have a blueprint to get the nation out of this hole: it's called the Finkel report, a report commissioned by the government itself from the Chief Scientist of Australia that recommends the clearest possible way forward. The clearest possible way forward is a clean energy target, one that's got the support of business and the support of state governments. The opposition has said that we'll constructively engage with them. But why isn't the clean energy target progressing? I wonder why the clean energy target is not progressing? Because two years ago we changed the Prime Minister, but we didn't actually change who runs this show. The member for Warringah runs this show! The member for Hughes has a pretty significant influence as well but is second to the member for Warringah, who really runs this show.
We've got article, after article, after article laying bare all the internal divisions of this sad and sorry government.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Order! Order! Order! I'll ask the member to resume his seat. I'll just remind all members, particularly the member for Hunter—who has interjected the whole way through—that if you want to come to the dispatch box, you'll get your turn. I remind all members that if they're out of their seats, to cease their interjections.
Mr BUTLER: Yesterday we got 'Turnbull retreats on clean energy'. He said this was the way forward, but no, he can't get his party room to do it. We saw yesterday, 'Abbott fuels push from backbench against clean target', proving again that you may have changed the Prime Minister two years ago but you didn't change who runs the show; you didn't change who's got a veto over policy, including climate and energy policy. It's still the member for Warringah who runs this show!
'Party games', yesterday—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Corangamite on a point of order.
Ms Henderson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask the member to direct his comments through the chair. Thank you.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm sure the shadow minister is aware of that.
Mr BUTLER: I'll take that, Deputy Speaker. There are no limits to this government's arrogance. There are no limits to how out of touch this government and all on its backbench are. The Australian people know with power prices; they know that under this government they're going up and up. They know their wages are flat. They know that the Prime Minister is cutting the energy supplement. They know the government is giving tax cuts to millionaires and tax cuts to big business. They know that the government is making their kids pay more to go to university. I tell you what: they'll find this government out.
As an amendment to the proposition, I move:
That all words after "condemns" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the Prime Minister for being so out of touch that his Government is telling the average Sydney household that since this Government was elected in 2013, their power bills have only gone up by $1 or gone down by more than $470 a year".
(Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there a seconder? I call the member for Watson.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:25): I second the amendment, and, if the government think this debate's going well for them, they'll keep it going.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:26): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that that motion be put.
The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:38): The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Port Adelaide be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:44): The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:51): by leave—I present a corrigendum to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services entitled Whistleblower protections.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) 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 the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:
(1) this significant structural deterioration in the Budget is unaffordable;
(2) the Government has prioritised giving millionaires and big business tax cuts, and raising income taxes on workers earning above $21,000, over saving penalty rates; and
(3) the Government has failed to deliver any economic leadership".
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (12:51): Mr Speaker, it is lovely that you are in the chair for a change and I'm not addressing the Deputy Speaker. It's nice to have you in here while I'm giving a speech!
I rise in support of my colleagues who are opposing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017. We have just spent an hour in this House debating something that is absolutely trivial and ridiculous—playing politics rather than spending an hour addressing one of the key issues affecting the hardworking men and women of Australia.
This bill we are talking about now will deliver companies with a turnover of more than $50 million a progressive tax cut to 25 per cent. This follows the Turnbull government's tax cuts to 25 per cent for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million and a tax cut bonanza for individuals, if they are millionaires, in the order of a $16,000 bonus. That's a $16,000 bonus for some of our wealthiest Australians. That's nice for them. I take nothing away from them; that's fine. But there are real stories and real people who actually need that and who could do with having access to tax cuts. We know that the OECD has already said that, when you give tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners, the rest of the nation benefits.
The forward estimates provided for this bill show that the Turnbull government will suck $600 million out of the bottom line over the forward estimates and $36.5 billion over the medium term from hardworking Australians. Let that just sink in: $36.5 billion over the medium term. For a government, a party and an outfit that ran around during the election and cried, 'Debt and deficit!' to anybody who would listen, to increase that kind of debt to our nation's bottom line is crazy. We've heard the figure: $36.5 billion. I actually still can't believe the numbers that have passed my lips, given the opportunities in our community where that money would be better spent and invested—and not just in my community but in the nation as a whole. This is $600 million that won't help all Australians. A trickle-down world just doesn't work.
Whatever happened to fairness? On budget night, we heard it was all going to be fair, but I don't know how stripping $600 million out of the budget for the forward estimates is actually going to be fair to anybody other than the people who are beneficiaries of it. And there are not too many beneficiaries of those cuts in my electorate, for example.
Whatever happened to ensuring we leave in this place in a better state than we found it in? As the member for Rankin pointed out in his speech, which was an hour ago—before the comedy hour that we just had—the Turnbull government's record stinks after four years. To suggest anything else is absolutely fanciful. They keep coming in here, and their favourite topic of the day is Labor, the unions and Bill Shorten, the opposition leader. They never talk about what they've done. They never talk about what they've invested in. They never talk about the opportunities that they're providing, or particularly the opportunities that they're not providing, to people in Western Sydney. Just take a look at the budget and you might see why.
The Turnbull government will deliver new record net debt for the next three years. That's a deficit for the 2017-18 years which is 10 times bigger than predicted in the Liberals' first budget—10 times!—and gross debt equivalent to $20,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. That is absolutely at the end of extremes. It's another gift from the Abbott-Turnbull outfit that the community is going to have to swallow.
Given what we know and what we already see, why would the people I represent in Lindsay think the Turnbull government could possibly understand the issues they face in Western Sydney? Those opposite have failed them abysmally, time and time again. When you consider the legislation before the House, you get an insight into how useless they actually are.
Yesterday we witnessed the embarrassing scene of a government gagging a debate over cuts to university funding and burdening students with more debt. These are cuts to education and universities—the future-proofing assets we should be investing in. The government is scalping universities with $4 billion worth of cuts, and ripping off another section of Australia and exposing more underfunding.
The Turnbull government thought it could slash funding the easiest in Western Sydney, with the largest university funding cut in New South Wales and the second-largest in Australia—just another kick in the guts for Western Sydney. The first and the second come from my electorate. The Turnbull government believes you have no right to a decent education and certainly not to a degree. The member for Banks over there told me about all the great warehousing opportunities that Western Sydney was allowed to have. Well, thanks very much. I've got enough warehouses now. What I'd really like is a few degree-qualified kids who can go into the jobs of the future. The government does want you to have a job, because it needs to raid your pockets. It's happy for us to work in warehouses; it's just not happy for us to get qualified. All this, just so that it can keep supporting the big end of town.
Western Sydney University is an unfortunate example of how this bill before us attacks the very fabric of what is right and what is decent. Western Sydney uni has been a leader in addressing educational inequality facing our community. It's a university where 60 per cent of the students are the first in their families to attend university—an amazing figure, and one that only goes to highlight what educational opportunity is actually about. Those in the government want to give these tax cuts to the big end of town on the backs of universities in Western Sydney. Western Sydney uni is home to 20 per cent of students who are considered of low economic status and 37 per cent of students who speak a language other than English at home. These are more than just statistics. These are realities that are changing Western Sydney. We are not one-dimensional stereotypes that wear high-vis vests and work in warehouses, thank you very much. Western Sydney is an area that is transitioning from a traditional jobs base to a more diverse and broad base. It is an area that wants to create and keep those jobs local. We can't rely on those people opposite to support them.
If this government is not cutting university funding and burdening students with debt, it is going to the other extreme and ruining apprenticeships and vocational training. We've had a 37 per cent drop in the number of apprentices in training in Lindsay. What does this government want Western Sydney to think? Do you want new jobs for the future? It appears not. There is nothing agile and innovative about making cuts to education to low socio-economic communities. Do you want more tradies? It also appears not. It's just a confused rabble of noise coming from the other side, and that last hour that we spent in here highlights that more than anything. Let me give you guys opposite some professional advice—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Order! Remember you are addressing the chair when you use the term 'you'.
Ms HUSAR: Sure. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you some professional advice from the OECD, and you can pass it on to the Turnbull government if you like. The March OECD economic surveys: Australia notes the increasing concerns about inequality. It said:
Developing innovation-related skills will be important for the underprivileged and those displaced by economic restructuring and can help reduce gender wage gaps.
How about we talk about that? Let me remind those opposite: Western Sydney University has 20 per cent of its student body coming from low socio-economic backgrounds. Their female student body comprises 57 per cent of the student population. But wait—the OECD said more. The recommendations went on to say that growth could be bolstered through strong collaboration between business and research. Moreover, it recommended that Australia:
Put a greater weight … on collaboration in university funding and develop a more coordinated approach to industry placements for research students to strengthen the linkages between research and business sectors.
How does the Turnbull government deal with that recommendation? The Turnbull government will attempt to put an end to UWS's ability to partner with industry and government in proven job-creation programs. Really, in the face of such strong recommendations from such an esteemed organisation like the OECD, why is it that Western Sydney University will be jeopardised in the delivery of key collaborations and partnerships for start-ups, small to medium enterprises and future jobs and growth? It makes no sense to make these cuts at the expense of funding the university.
But that's not the end of it. The Turnbull government continues to make the wrong choices across all parts of Australia, robbing from the hardworking workers of Australia and giving to the rich and to the big end of town. Those in the government continue to tell themselves and us that they are the greatest economic managers this country has ever seen. But, taken as a whole, far from helping our communities this government has wreaked havoc on and terrified them as it continues, hell-bent, on its right-wing, trickle-down economic strategy. But we all know it doesn't work. By the time it trickles down to my community and electorate, all it will be is thin air.
Let's just have a look at Lindsay. I'm sad to say that the member for Banks has scuttled out of here, because he tried to tell me that there were so many businesses in my electorate that were going to benefit from these cuts to big multinational tax companies. Now, according to the ABS, Lindsay has 10,313 businesses operating right now. The vast majority of those businesses have a turnover of less than $2 million. A quarter turn over less than $50,000. So, when you look at businesses with $10 million or more of turnover, you'll find just 119 businesses out of 10,313 across Lindsay that may actually get something out of this. This is just over one per cent of businesses. They're not the businesses that are actually turning $50 million; they're just somewhere between $10 million and $50 million, and that is only a very, very small portion.
But the cuts that are coming as a result of this splash to big business actually affect more people in my electorate. The biggest factor in the trickle-down strategy is that they have to rob the workers—the penalty rates of all those young people; women, predominantly; students; pensioners and welfare recipients who want to get back on their feet—just to pay for it and to give handouts to big businesses. Every day here in parliament we are faced with legislation that just creates more and more disparity in our society. The people of Western Sydney want a government they can trust—a government that will invest in them and their futures. They do not want to be milked at every opportunity so that those opposite can pay for the bottomless pit that is corporate profit and corporate greed.
It is fanciful to think these changes are going to trickle down, when all we see is the reinforcement of inequality and the things that drive it. Economic and social disadvantage will be entrenched by this government, robbing people of opportunity. That is the legacy of this government, and I'm sad to say that it affects the people in my area—the community that I love and represent, and one of the hardest hit by these tax cuts, with disadvantages in schools and the university. It gives a tax break to the wealthy on the backs of every single student cohort across my electorate. And we haven't even got to the Nepean Hospital yet! We have a health system in distress and an underfunded Nepean Hospital that could do with some of the money that they are cutting just to give these corporate tax handouts to big businesses.
They have made affordable housing an impossible dream for more and more people because they refuse to take any action on it, and they have killed off any chance of saving when the cost of living just keeps rising but wages don't. But I suppose we can all just wait for the big end of town to open up their wallets. I'm sure those big banks and mining companies who are going to be the beneficiaries of these tax cuts are on the edge of their seats, they are waiting so much just to distribute their profits to the community! Well, let me tell you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I cannot see a time, or a world or an age in which we will live where the people who are being hurt by these tax cuts are actually going to be benefitted by any of them.
Try as I might to see what could possibly be a win for the people in Lindsay on this bill, I can only conclude that they get nothing out of this. Nothing—not one thing. And on the point of equality and disadvantage in Western Sydney, we know it all too well—all too well. I see the member for Parramatta here. She will know this, and when she speaks I'm sure that she will get up and talk about how unequally the people in Western Sydney get treated.
I'm going to point out to those opposite again, and again and again, the rip-offs and the rorts that are happening to the people of Western Sydney. This government has dudded us on education in Lindsay, with $23 million snatched from primary and secondary schools—schools that are at capacity and over capacity. We have university students slugged with higher fees, paying back their HELP debts at a much lower income threshold in the name of reducing debt. That is forgetting that these young men and women will now have the burden of paying off $50,000 debts while trying to enter the workforce and coming into that workforce at the ground level, whilst also seeking an independent lifestyle.
We see more and more focus on the casualisation of the workforce and more and more attacks on penalty rates. They're looking like they're going to come after a couple more awards yet, before they're actually finished having a go at people who earn penalty rates. We've got a housing crisis, and we've got an energy crisis. What we've just seen from the government is that they would rather spend an hour in here playing politics with energy than actually addressing it. It would have been nice to have that last hour actually debating some of the things that we could fix and we could change, but instead we saw an absolutely hopeless government playing politics.
Pensioners in Western Sydney have had their energy supplements scrapped. We've got energy prices out of control, and now they're scrapping the pensioners' energy supplement to pay for these big corporate tax cuts. From cradle to grave, under Malcolm Turnbull, you can expect to be having your pockets raided. The Turnbull government seem to only understand the value of a corporate dividend, which is no surprise given that he came out of Goldman Sachs, not from a hardworking western suburbs community.
How about those opposite start to try and understand the value of the society that they are actually meant to represent? We need investment in people and investment in services. How will this Prime Minister ever be able to have his 30-minute utopian villages that he crowed about last week in Erskine Park by cutting the services that those people out there rely on? The government claim they want to help people with the cost-of-living pressures. We just don't see that reflected in here. Young people are entitled, absolutely, to say: 'Yeah, right. Absolutely. Whatever.'
The government are increasing the cost of living and making everything harder to attain, not easier. With this bill, we see them giving more and more money to corporates, giving them a tax handout from this magic cash cow, increasing the country's debt to a whole new level that we've not seen before in this country on the backs of every single student group; the Nepean Hospital, in my electorate; the community legal centres that they helped defund; and children's education. They won't put any more money into stopping the national scourge that is domestic violence. They can't fund the universities. They certainly cannot find the money to support the people who need to be supported.
Debate interrupted.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Speaker's Panel
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (13:07): Just before I give the call to the honourable member, I would like to make a brief statement. I thank the Speaker for nominating me as a member of the Speaker's panel. So that I can properly represent my constituents and advocate for my community, I will continue to exercise my deliberative vote. To that end, it is my intention to leave the chair before any division takes place. I thank the House.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) 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 this bill a second reading as:
(1) this significant structural deterioration in the Budget is unaffordable;
(2) the Government has prioritised giving millionaires and big business tax cuts, and raising income taxes on workers earning above $21,000, over saving penalty rates; and
(3) the Government has failed to deliver any economic leadership".
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:07): Congratulations, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I spent some time on the Speaker's panel, and it's a great pleasure. One of the downsides of moving into the shadow assistant ministership is that I can't do that now.
The government talk about jobs and growth. They are the two words they use perhaps more than any other. I have struggled over the last four years to see evidence of any action which will actually drive jobs and growth. For the first three years under Prime Minister Abbott, I have to say, I saw the country essentially push the pause button on all the things that matter—on all the opportunities in the world and all the change that we have to undertake as a country. There was just a pause button for three years. Then, when Prime Minister Turnbull took that position, I had a moment of hope. It didn't last long, but I had a moment of hope because I honestly believed we could not continue with our finger on the pause button in the way we had under Prime Minister Abbott. Now here we are in the fifth year of the Abbott-Turnbull government, and the only thing I can see, the one-point plan that, according to the government, will drive jobs and growth is this big business tax cut. This is it. Of all of the things they could do, this is it—the one-point plan that we debate right here.
Essentially, it's a progressive tax cut that reduces to 25 per cent for businesses with a turnover of more than $50 million. It reaches that level in 2024-25. We will see a progressive reduction until 2024-25, when businesses with a turnover greater than $50 million will be on 25 per cent. It's a cost of $36.5 billion over the medium term. When you add that to the tax cuts for those below $50 million, it's $65 billion by 2025-26 and then multiple billions every year after that, when it fully kicks in. They talk about jobs and growth. This is their big plan, just this. But, by their own figures—and these are their figures; they're not mine—this tax cut will generate one per cent growth in 20 years time.
When Prime Minister Abbott was first elected, in his first couple of days he said, 'We're going to slow the pace down.' But I do not think that anyone would have expected that a government in this day and age, with the challenges that we face in terms of stagnating wage growth, general growth with a '1' in front of it and incredible increases in the underemployed, would be needing to slow the pace down to such an extent that we are looking at 20 years to get any benefit, even one per cent growth, from their one-point plan. This is all they have—one per cent growth in 20 years time or the equivalent of a $2 a day wage increase in 20 years time. That is their plan for jobs and growth. This is it. And then, of course, this dud of a policy will be built into the base, so every government that comes after this one will have that additional revenue drain out of the government budget in its bottom line. I am quite hopeful that this government will not be here in 2026—I suspect they will be gone long before that—but they have left an anchor around the neck of future governments with the bill they have presented today.
Since the election I have come in here, I have sat in caucus, I have gone through the bills we are debating and I have looked for anything that looked forward. I have some bills that trashed things, bills that cut things, bills that abolished things. But I haven't seen anything at all that genuinely attempted to stimulate the growth in their great 'jobs and growth' strategy. Nothing. They have blamed. They have misled. Even in their fifth year, anything that could possibly go wrong is still Labor's fault; we are the most powerful opposition ever! Five years down the track, the government has doubled the debt. But, somehow, it is still our problem. Electricity prices have risen enormously over the last four years. Somehow, that's our problem. Liddell, the coal-fired power station, will close in 2022. Somehow, that's our problem. Somehow, over the five years of this government, even in opposition we have managed to be responsible for all—which means they take no responsibility at all. Perhaps that is why they can come in here and sprout the words 'jobs and growth' and do nothing that actually achieves that.
The government—and I have said this once before, when I was talking about Treasurer Hockey—reminds me in many ways of a business that is going through tough times and cuts its marketing budget and inventory. So you walk past the shop and there isn't much there to buy; and you would know that what you have there is a business in its death throes, that is gradually winding itself down. This government reminds me of that. There is nothing to lead to jobs and growth—in fact, quite the opposite.
This bill will finally cut in in 2026. Looking ahead to what the country will need then, I am not sure the corporate tax rate is the thing that I would go to first. If we want to position our economy for 2026 and beyond, and we had $65 billion dollars to spend, what would you actually spend it on? Would it be this? That is the decision this government is making. We on this side say no, it's not the first priority. Funding for universities is essential. If you want this country to be competitive in 2026, we need to build the university and training sector for 2026. Yet this week we have seen this government vote to cut funding to universities to make it harder for people to make their way down that path to the jobs of the future.
You would also want really good high-speed fibre. You would want that not just so that people can enjoy the benefits of it but so Australian businesses in the technology space were able to compete with the rest of the world in that space. If you don't have a critical mass of high-speed fibre, you reduce the capacity of local tech companies to develop new products and grow in the way we need them to so that we can compete in 2026. What've we got instead? We've got a mishmash of technology that in some cases has download speeds that are miserable; and the upload speeds required for the Internet of Things, for example, are simply not there. The requirements of 2020, let alone 2026, are well beyond what this mishmash of technology will offer. The government of the day scrapped it because of its cost, yet it's prepared to put $65 billion into a tax cut for big business which will generate no more than one per cent growth over 20 years. I would bet that a real investment in high-quality fibre communications technology would give you a better bang for your buck than that.
We've seen this government cut the ground from under renewable energy, and we've seen investment in that area fall to incredible lows—a dramatic reduction in the amount of investment going into renewable energy, because of the uncertainty. Again, this is an area that you want to grow if you want to position this country for 2026, not just so that we can have cleaner power and contribute to emissions reduction but so that our businesses can be world leaders in the technology which is taking over the world. If you don't invest now, other countries and other businesses elsewhere will fill the space that we leave. We want our businesses to be world leaders, yet this government are not there at all; they've driven that sector backwards.
If you want to look to 2026, you have to understand that data is going to be the oil of 2026. We have a government siloing ours and selling it off to business in little sections—the cancer register to Telstra, for example. That's where you invest. Where is the investment from this government in making sure that Australia is one of the world leaders in big data, and the use of government data by businesses external to government exploiting data for the benefit of the community and for business growth? Where is the government's plan for that? There isn't one. There's no talk of it. There's nothing going on in that space. It's the same with fin-tech and reg-tech. We hear a few words every now and again—we heard some words early on from the Prime Minister—but there's very little going on in that space, from the government perspective. In fact, as you'll remember, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, in the early years the government actually lost its minister for science and its minister for innovation. They are back, fortunately, but for many years this government had them on pause.
Of course, if you want to position Australia for 2026, you have to worry about climate change. We've just seen massive storms, three cyclones in a row, hit the US. We've seen a flash drought, a term I'd never even heard used before—air that was so dry and so hot that it sucked the water out of the soil and in a few days created the conditions of long-term drought, and farmers lost their crops: a flash drought. We've had bushfires. We have a total fire ban in New South Wales now, in September. None of these things individually can be sheeted back to climate change, but the increase in their frequency can. You cannot position Australia for 2026 without addressing climate change and the needs of our environment. And that's before you start to talk about the extinction of species, and children who may never get to see some of the species that we take for granted. We must act on that.
We're looking at $65 billion for a tax cut which generates only a one per cent return in 20 years, versus cuts to education and our capacity to compete as workers and as thinkers in the knowledge economy; $65 billion in big business tax cuts for a one per cent growth in GDP over 20 years, against really good quality fibre that would allow our businesses to position themselves and compete in the new technology that is being developed around the world; $65 billion for a one per cent increase in GDP, against serious investment in renewable energy that would allow our businesses to own the patents that will drive down the use of fossil fuel power over the next decade. That is where this government should be going. If this government is serious about positioning Australia for 2026 but the best thing it can do is provide a tax cut of this magnitude for such little gain, then it really should think again.
We have stagnating wages. Wages growth is falling, and real wages fell in the last quarter. We have a government that's happy to see the cutting of penalty rates. We have a government that's actually happy to see the living standards and the spending capacity of middle Australia shrink. I know from my days as a small-business owner—and from talking to small businesses around Western Sydney—that what businesses actually need much more than a tax cut, even though they'll take it if you give it to them, is customers that are spending, and a secure investment environment so that banks and finance institutions will invest in them. That's what they need. They need certainty, investment capacity and customers that are confident, that have money to spend.
When you reduce wages, when you cut the energy supplement from pensioners and when you pick away at the living standards of middle Australia, you actually damage small business. They might get their tax cut, but their profits won't be as high. And I tell you, when you ask any small business—or any big one, for that matter—whether they would rather have investment certainty, consumer confidence or growth in the number of customers, they will go for that. When offered nothing else, they'll take the tax cut. But, when you drive the wages of people down through cutting penalty rates, when you cut away at the safety net in the way this government has and when you ensure that a person graduating from university has a huge debt to pay off in those first early years, you do not drive growth and jobs forward; you actually drive it back. The thing that drives growth in an economy is the capacity for customers to pay, and investment certainty.
We've got a government that lectures people about tax, when they're increasing the tax rate on working Australians. They're actually increasing the tax rate. Through these tax increases, they're taking money out of the pockets of businesses' customers and of families. Any Australian who earns more than $21,000 will pay more in tax if this government gets its way. A worker on $55,000 will pay $275 a year more. If you're on $80,000, it's an extra $400. So, we've got a government that's reducing taxes for the big end of town, for virtually zero gain in the medium term. And, on the other hand, it is cutting the capacity of families and small businesses to do well. It's actually backwards. We know that many of the families that are getting these tax cuts spend all of their money. Give them that money, make sure they keep it, and they will spend it. It will flow through the economy a couple of times and eventually end up in the government's coffers. The plans this government has are completely inverted. We need to make sure, in 2026, that we're actually positioned for the future. This bill drives us backwards.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:22): It's very pleasing to hear the member for Parramatta talk about drivers of jobs and growth. It was only a couple of hours ago that we heard some wonderful news from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: the figure for jobs growth in this nation in the last month was 54,200—substantially above what was predicted. All the economic experts predicted an increase of 20,000. We have had 54,200 new jobs created in this economy in the last month. What a vote of confidence by the business community in this coalition government. This is something we should be proud of. We've sometimes seen those ABS statistics vary a little bit. Sometimes they will be a little bit inconsistent. But, for the last several months, we've had continuing very, very strong job growth in this country. Although the headline unemployment rate number has stayed consistent, that is only because we've had a significant increase in the participation rate, up from 65.1 per cent to 65.3 per cent. This is good news. We heard this morning that the dollar has also surged on this news.
The coalition is getting on with the work. We are getting on with driving growth in this economy and we are getting job growth happening. What we must always remember is that the 54,200 new jobs created in this economy over the last month were not created by governments or bureaucrats. They were created by private individuals putting their capital on the line and taking a risk, taking a business risk, taking the risk to put on a new employee. And that is exactly what the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 is about. This bill is about lowering the rate of corporate tax in this nation to incentivise people to continue to take that risk.
Although we can be very satisfied with that rate of job growth in the last month, there is still a lot more work to do. We must make sure our nation is internationally competitive for those in the business community that we ask to go out there and put on new employees. We've got to give them an internationally competitive environment to play in, and we can't do that if we are burdening them with a higher rate of corporate tax than we see in other countries. Peter Costello, the former Treasurer, understood this. The shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, used to understand this. He actually wrote an entire book on the subject of the importance of lowering your corporate tax rate to incentivise business investment and get jobs growth happening.
But, sadly, today's Labor Party no longer believe in that. They no longer understand the importance of business having an international competitive playing field to compete on. So they are quite happy to see the corporate tax rate in this country well above OECD averages. They are prepared to see personal rates of tax in this country well above averages. How can we incentivise young Australians to stay in this country with Labor's policy of an almost 50 per cent rate? They want to have a top marginal tax rate of 49.5 per cent. That is the rate that they want against somewhere like Singapore or Hong Kong, with 15 or 17 per cent. That becomes a disincentive.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: And the so-called tax increase, which I hear the member at the table bellowing about, is to finance the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We owe it to those disabled people—we have to owe it to them. We can all talk up a big game here about how we all support the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but we have to fund it. It would've been wonderful if we could've funded it from a budget surplus. It would've been wonderful if we could've funded it from additional growth. But the reality is: the only way that we can fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme is to ask everyone to contribute a little bit more through their Medicare levy—and we have Labor members coming in here representing that as a tax increase.
The member for Parramatta also went on about renewable energy and how important that is and the uncertainty that's facing it and how there's no investment in renewable energy. That's simply untrue. There's something like $7 billion being invested in renewable energy in this country today. But the problem is that it's being invested in importing containers of solar panels from China and importing foreign-made wind turbines. It is not the investment that we need. The investment in renewables should go into research and development, not into the rollout of the current technology. We have seen from the Australian Energy Market Operator's report that when we most need our electricity, in that time of peak demand, we can only rely on renewables for two per cent of their capacity. So the $7 billion of investment is doing nothing to fix the shortfall of generation capacity in this nation. It is doing nothing to encourage research and development in what we need.
What we really need to do is make sure that the investment is in the best areas of the economy, and the worst people to pick that—the worst people to decide how that should be—are government. We need to release the private sector to put their investment capital on the line, where they think it will do best. They will not always get it right. The majority of Australian businesses after several years, we know, will no longer be trading. But those few businesses that continue to grow and expand are the ones that will drive our economy forward in the future.
The other thing that we need to have international competitiveness on is not only our taxation system but the cost of energy. We've seen the policies of the Labor Party: a 50 per cent renewable energy target that will do nothing but drive up the cost of electricity even more than what it has been in this nation. We have seen the example from South Australia, the state that now has the proud title of having the world's highest electricity costs. It has pursued a policy of a 50 per cent renewable energy target, and what has it delivered? The world's highest electricity costs. How are we going to get business investment and job creation if we go down the track of putting in policies that the Labor Party want that will deliver such high, internationally uncompetitive electricity prices?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (13:30): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Hughes will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Jewish High Holy Days
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:30): On behalf of Labor, I extend my best wishes to Jewish communities, who in the coming weeks will celebrate the holiest days in the Jewish calendar: Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Rosh Hashana, or Jewish new year, occurs on the first and second days in the Jewish month of Tishri and marks the beginning of the High Holy Days for Jewish people around the world. Over two days, Jewish families and communities unite in prayer to reflect on the past year and share blessings for a prosperous year ahead. Some of the unique rituals of Rosh Hashana are the blowing of the shofar, a ram's horn trumpet, repeatedly throughout the day; the lighting of candles in the evening; and the eating of sweet delicacies, to symbolise a fruitful and pleasant year ahead. Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th day after Rosh Hashana. It is the highest point in the Yamim Nora'im, or 10 days of awe.
For millions of Jewish people in Australia and around the world this is a period of self-reflection; atonement for sins; prayer; and charity. It's also a time to seek forgiveness for any wrongdoings against fellow human beings. I'm grateful for the contributions the Australian Jewish communities have made to the multicultural fabric of our nation through politics, business and the community.
On behalf of Labor, I wish everyone in the Australian Jewish community: 'Shanah tovah; may you enjoy peace and prosperity and be sealed in the book of life.'
Myanmar: Rakhine State
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:31): I rise this afternoon to highlight the critical humanitarian disaster that's taking place in Myanmar: the brutal assault on the Rohingya population of Rakhine State which has resulted in more than half a million people fleeing to Bangladesh in recent years, including more than 300,000 in the past two weeks alone. This latest occurrence in the ongoing dispute, which was set off by attacks on some 21 police stations, has led to a highly disproportionate response—indeed, a brutal response—by the Burmese military.
As a long-time friend of Myanmar and a significant aid donor, Australia must use its influence with the Burmese civilian government of Aung San Suu Kyi to bring this violence to an end, to immediately allow the distribution of needed food to starving people, to allow access by international humanitarian agencies and to involve the international community in the peaceful resolution of the long-running dispute. There is an egregious breach of human rights occurring in Myanmar as I speak. We need to bring as much pressure as possible to resolve this in a peaceful way.
R U OK? Day
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:32): On R U OK? Day, I want to give a shout out to all those who suffer or have suffered with mental health issues and to their families and friends. The daily rituals of living—the getting up and getting going—are taken for granted by those who've never known the torment, the struggle, of anxiety or depression or the countless other debilitating conditions, whether situational or ongoing. To those who know the struggle, because they live days where their bed is their only safe place, and to those who love and care for them and are often left painfully aware of the trauma but are unable to be of immediate assistance, today is about recognising that your pain is known to many and that there is help available, even if on some days it feels like there isn't.
Today is an important day to acknowledge the legitimacy of the pain and to encourage people to start the conversations with those suffering and those we suspect are suffering. R U OK? is about asking the real question and listening to the real answers. It is a reminder to all of us to take the time to stop and listen and to check in on those we love or care for. In this place, it is a day to remind us that when we shape policy we need to remember the numbers suffering and the difficulties they might have in interactions on any given day or for whatever period they suffer.
I want also to say to families of those suffering: are you okay? Because you too need support and to be part of a conversation as we all work together to build systems that support rather than punish.
R U OK? Day
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:34): Tomorrow is the anniversary of my first speech in this House. My reflection is that in my role as the member for Chisholm I remain truly honoured and proud to have the opportunity to meet literally thousands of wonderful people. However, despite all of our daily interactions with people, be they friends, family, work colleagues or indeed constituents, one can often not really know if a person is okay. Anxiety, depression and other disorders are conditions that make people unwell and not okay. They are conditions that are often invisible to us as we go about our daily activities. Today is R U OK? Day. It is a question that can start an impactful conversation with our loved ones, friends and colleagues, and a campaign which encourages all Australians to reach out and check in with our mates and loved ones. Almost half of all Australians will experience mental health issues in their life.
I'm proud of the Turnbull government's investment package towards building a modern, 21st-century mental health system. I'm equally proud of the campaigns the universities in Chisholm are running on R U OK? Day. At Deakin University in Burwood and at Monash University in Clayton, staff and students are encouraging conversations and connections that build community and support those who may be struggling. Today and every day I encourage all Australians to be proactive, be brave and ask three little words, 'Are you okay,' which can have an enormous impact.
Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:35): Imagine trying to run a small business without access to internet and phone services. In my electorate, as I speak, there's a small business called Swimart Erindale, which is run by Wendy and Peter, in Gartside Street, Wanniassa. The business provides a range of pool and spa products and services. Wendy and Peter haven't had access to phone or internet services since 8.30 am yesterday. That is nearly 29 hours without vital services that they actually pay for and that they actually expect. Without these services they are unable to run their business. Their business is run entirely on a cloud server, and Wendy and Peter have been forced to turn customers away and send staff home, uncertain about when they will be able to return to work.
Their service providers, Optus and Telstra, are advising this was caused by NBN Co switching over the exchange at Kambah—winning strategy, NBN Co! After spending close to five hours on the phone to Optus, Telstra and NBN Co, Wendy and Peter have been told they have to wait another 24 to 48 hours, and possibly over the weekend, before someone can come look at their problem. Wendy and Peter have bills to pay. They've got staff to pay, and their staff have bills to pay. This isn't just affecting Swimart; it's affecting eight other businesses in Canberra, in my electorate. This is unacceptable. I'm calling on the minister to fix this problem. (Time expired)
Infrastructure
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:37): They say politics is about building bridges, building bridges in relationships and across to the other side of the chamber, but I want to say: we are building real bridges. I'm really pleased to be announcing here in the parliament that we have just received confirmation of seven more bridges in the latest round of the Bridges Renewal Program, right across the Mallee. This will take our total to 11. These are real bridges. It is $1.26 million worth of bridges to be built in the Wimmera Mallee.
We produce some of the best food you would ever want—if you come to the Wimmera Mallee—and we need to get those things on trucks. You know why? You need to be able to get across a culvert, a creek and a river, and you can't do that if you haven't got a bridge. It is our government that has developed, for the first time, the Bridges Renewal Program. I want to commend the Gannawarra shire, Horsham Rural City Council, Northern Grampians shire and the West Wimmera shire for putting in good applications. We are partnering with them to ensure that the products we produce can make it to the markets so they can make it to the supermarket shelves and make it to the breakfast tables of Australians. The Bridges Renewal Program is about the government delivering real things for real people. We are not only building bridges in this place but actually building them across the Wimmera and the Mallee.
Chifley Electorate: Sports Clubs
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:38): It's great to hear a National Party member to talk about renewables in such a way! There are great sporting groups in the Chifley electorate, out in Western Sydney. I want to give a shout-out to one in particular: the Mount Druitt Netball Association. It is always difficult as a basketballer to recognise netball, but I'm proud to do this today. They had their eighth annual awards dinner. They have 150 representative players and coaches. They've got almost 90 representative players who compete in the state age championships and are achieving great results all around. I was pleased to be able to present the under-15s team with the junior representative team of the year award on that night. I want to congratulate president Margaret Weir, secretary Yvonne Richardson and treasurer Pat White. They all do tremendous work.
I also wanted to say all the best to Western Magic women's AFL team. They are smashing it on the footy field. They are a first-division team. They only started playing in 2015 and this weekend will be in the AFL Sydney grand final, a tremendous effort. They have so far scored 240 points and only conceded 14. They are playing at Blacktown International Sportspark. I want to congratulate everyone who contributed to the team's success. I wish you all the best of luck. Regardless of the result, you will make us all very proud. Go Magic!
Energy
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:40): I'm glad netball came up, because we in McMillan and Gippsland are about to make a very important announcement that the netballers in Latrobe Valley are going to be very excited about. I think the Keenagers in Moe-Newborough are going to be very excited about an announcement that will be made very shortly. I can't make it today, but they're going to be happy!
I want to talk about my workers in Latrobe Valley that dig for gold. That gold is brown coal and that brown coal drives the power in this place. It drives the power for the whole of Melbourne. It drives the power for our manufacturing. It drives the power that enhances the lives of every Victorian, every Australian. It's been there constantly pumping out that power 24 hours a day, and those workers are proud of what they do. Their families are proud of what they do. I'm proud to be their representative. The netballers that play on the courts we are about to announce—but I won't get into detail of that!
We are proud of Latrobe Valley. We're proud of the towns like Moe-Newborough and Morwell. We're proud of the workers that work in those coalmines and work in those power stations that make the difference to every family in this nation. We should be lauding what they do, telling them how good they are and thanking them for the job they do on our behalf, because, when you get up in the middle of the night and want your air-conditioner on, those men are in there working for you today and tonight.
Middle East
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:41): Next month is the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beersheba, where on 31 October 1917 the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade conducted a mounted charge that helped capture Beersheba from the Ottoman defenders. Vital to the Palestine campaigns of the British empire were the local Arab troops, but their rebellion against the Ottomans was encouraged by the British and French, who promised the Arabs their right of self-determination should Britain and the allies win the war. However, the Arabs were betrayed through the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the only place the Arabs were given free of foreign rulers was the Arabian desert. Moreover, the Palestinians did not achieve their independence then and they are still waiting 100 years later.
When the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition travel to Beersheba next month, I hope they recognise the sacrifice of the Arabs during this campaign and honour their Palestinian descendants. Moreover, as we approach these commemorations, the PM and opposition leader, along with everyone else, should be careful to avoid attributing misleading historical consequences to this battle. Remember we shared the dangers, the losses and the successes of the Palestinian campaign with the Arabs. The best way to commemorate this battle and the part the Australians played is to now recognise Palestine and work decisively towards its independence even if it is 100 years too late.
Energy
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:43): The cost of electricity in Queensland did not rise for the 26 years from 1980-81 to 2006-07. That's according to a Queensland Productivity Commission report released last year. But, in the nine years from 2007 to 2016, the cost of electricity increased 87 per cent. Why? It is because billions of dollars were thrown at clean energy programs: the large-scale renewable energy target, the small-scale renewable energy target, feed-in tariffs of 44c per kilowatt-hour, more than double the domestic use tariff of 21.3c per kilowatt-hour, $1 billion of free money through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, solar panel rebates, $1.6 billion in the Solar Flagships program, the Clean Energy Initiative, the Clean Energy Trade and Investment Strategy, the Solar Homes and Communities Plan and, for too long, the carbon tax.
It's time we stopped placing all these burdens on consumers and taxpayers. The last thing we need is yet another scheme applying to renewables a subsidy that will come out of the pockets of consumers or a scheme that will mandate energy retailers having to purchase more expensive power. That can only lead to one thing: higher electricity prices. I will not be party to it. I will not vote for a Clean Energy Target that will push up power prices even higher than they already are. North Queensland has some of the largest and best coal deposits in the world. It is exported for use in high-energy, low-emissions coal-fired generators around the world. It is time Australia built one for itself, in North Queensland, close to a source of coal— (Time expired)
Let's Go Greek Festival
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:45): Last Sunday I went down to St Ioannis Church in George Street to celebrate the Let's Go Greek Festival, once again. The wonderful Greek Orthodox community moved from its old church about four or five years ago now to an extraordinary new building in George Street, with a lot of land around it where they will build their new church. Every year since 2014 they've all come together to celebrate everything Greek. They do it with great 'Greekiness'. It is quite fabulous. I have only about 1,800 Greek Australians in my electorate and about 131 Cypriots, but somehow they turn that into between 25,000 and 30,000 people who come through the gates to celebrate all things Greek. It really is an amazing day.
In the last few years I have noticed there are more and more people coming along who clearly aren't Greek, and they are more than welcome. It has become a genuine broad community event that celebrates an important part of the history and culture and traditions of the wonderful Greek Australian community in Parramatta. I'd like to thank Kos Dimitriou, who is the president of the Greek Orthodox parish, and Father Dimitri and Father Nicholas, for their warm welcome every time. But, mostly, I would like to thank the volunteers, who do the most amazing things there, from moving their church to this wonderful new location to building their childcare centres, and having community events. They are an extraordinary bunch of people and they make the Let's Go Greek Festival an extraordinary success.
India: Meat & Livestock Australia
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:46): India is a rising global power and Australia's relationship with India only deepens with every passing year. Half a million Australians have Indian heritage and 260,000 Indian tourists came to Australia in 2016. India is the largest source of skilled migrants to Australia and the second-largest source of international students. Under Prime Minister Modi, India is playing a more important role in global defence and security, especially in the Indian Ocean. India is the fifth-largest destination for Australia's exports. It has DFAT's economic strategy says:
Australia is well placed to partner with India through its period of modernisation and economic growth.
Australian agriculture can support India’s food security.
Yet Meat & Livestock Australia, an industry peak body designed to promote brand Australia and Australian produce, has put all of this at risk by producing a commercial called 'You'll Never Lamb Alone'. In this commercial the MLA pokes fun at a number of deities, including Jesus and the Hindu deity Lord Ganesh, all of whom are sharing a lamb lunch prepared by an atheist. But of all of the deities it is only Lord Ganesh who is derided as an elephant and then is laughed at by the other lunch guests in a mocking tone. Lord Ganesh is absolutely central to the Hindu faith. There is no Hindu temple without a Ganesh idol in it and he is the first god to whom Hindus pray.
Australians are renowned for their sense of humour, and people of faith have humour, but there is such a thing as going too far. Today, as the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of India, I rise to condemn the Meat & Livestock Australia and call on them to withdraw the commercial and apologise— (Time expired)
Media Ownership
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:48): Today is the dark day for the parliament, because today it looks like the coalition is getting through a dirty deal with One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team for the so-called media reform package. You don't call it reform when it makes things worse. Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world. When it comes to where they get to consume their media, Australians have fewer choices than people in just about any Western developed nation in the world. This is a complete sell-out by the government, and certainly by Senator Xenophon, because if you are doing a deal with One Nation you can pretty much be sure you are on the wrong side.
One Nation wants to gut the ABC and have an investigation in the ABC. The ABC is an absolute institution in this country and I am proud to stand here and defend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is an absolute institution and we should defend it. Look at the household name programs: Four Corners, 7.30, Insiders, Catalyst, Landlineand Play School. Where would this nation be without these programs? Just in the last week, in the parliament, the ABC came and we all were getting our photos with Bananas in Pyjamas and the rest of them. We all were happy to cuddle up to them, but, meanwhile, in the Senate One Nation were having a go. We need to stand up to these people who are attacking the ABC. You shouldn't be doing these deals to get a dirty media reform package through the parliament. Australia deserves better.
Energy
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:49): Labor's policies on energy are nothing short of ludicrous—in fact, they would be more ludicrous if they actually had a decent policy. But there is nothing reliable or affordable about Labor's stance on energy. They bow purely to the whims of the Greens, Lock the Gate and GetUp!. A stark example of Labor's lack of understanding is the fact that they have no idea about how they are letting down industry and households.
One example of this is the Andrews Labor government in Victoria, which tripled the royalties on coal the minute they came to government. That was a $252 million impost on coal. The Treasurer of the day, Tim Pallas, said that the changes would result in a very small impact on the electricity prices faced by Victorian families. He didn't even realise that this increase by tripling the royalties on coal was going to have such a detrimental effect on ENGIE's decision to shut down Hazelwood. We know that Hazelwood shut down later this year. Because of Daniel Andrews' tax grab, Victorian energy prices have soared by 22 per cent.
And then we come to gas: a full ban on exploration or extraction of gas. We don't even know in Victoria what we don't know. The minister down there has said that despite some claims, there is no proved or probable onshore gas reserves in Victoria. The very day he said that, Geoscience Australia said that we've got more gas in Victoria than we've ever had. (Time expired)
Lindsay Electorate: R U OK? Day
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:51): Mr Deputy Speaker, are you okay? Today is national R U OK? Day, a conversation starter that takes place to ensure that mental health for everyone is getting a check-up.
On 19 September, I am looking forward to going to Samuel Terry Public School and celebrating R U OK? Day with that school. Natalie McPherson, a mother of four who has students at that school, is passionate about her kids' education and their wellbeing. Natalie lost her best friend to suicide last year, and four months later lost another close friend to the same tragedy. They both had young children, and their children all attend Samuel Terry Public School in Cranebrook. Now that school will host its very first R U OK? Day on 19 September.
I applaud Natalie and the school for taking great action on such an important initiative. That day will be all about teaching kids how to ask anyone and everybody if they are okay. It is a proud school that is very antibullying, so they are announcing that it's time to let all kids know that bullying is out and that asking if you are okay is in.
Seven Australians take their own lives every day. It is painful for all left behind, who are left wondering why and 'what if?'. But if we start with, 'Are you okay?' we can at least open up the conversation and act. Out of a very sad story, Celeste Cannell has written a children's book, Emily and the VERY Big Feeling. This book was written in honour of Celeste's best friend's 16-year-old daughter, Emily Brady, after she was lost, tragically, to suicide in 2013.
I commend all members in this House to order the book so it can be published. I am proud to support the author of Emily and the VERY Big Feeling, and will be providing a book launch in my electorate. Mr Speaker: are you okay?
Energy
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:52): I want to take this opportunity to add my voice to the many voices of reason that are calling for a rethink when it comes to renewable energy subsidies or imposed market regulations by mechanisms like the mandatory renewable energy target for the proposed clean energy target.
It's time that we stopped and had a critical look at this and what is being achieved. It's time we had a frank discussion. It's time we acted in a practical way, rather than in an ideological way. The bottom line is that people are hurting. Household energy costs keep increasing; they more than doubled when Labor was in government and, unfortunately, they continue to rise.
This summer we are facing blackouts and forced power rationing, and our national grid is not even secure. This is madness, that a country as resource-rich as ours is in this predicament. It makes no sense for Australia to be closing down coal-fired power stations while hundreds are being opened up around the world—many of which operate on our coal. It astounds me that both state Labor in Queensland and the federal government are so in lock step with the Greens that they continue to push higher renewable energy targets to 50 per cent by the year 2030. It's a bad policy and it will hurt our consumers. I believe that we urgently need to rethink the ideology that has led us down this path. I want to reassure my constituents I will be pushing for it in this debate.
I will also acknowledge that in my electorate I have the highest amount of solar panel uptake of any electorate in Australia. They do that not because they are conscious of the environment but because they are conscious of the price point in their household budgets. As a government we need to work in that space, and I look forward to that outcome. (Time expired)
Turnbull Government
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:54): Tomorrow, Malcolm Turnbull's government turns two.
The SPEAKER: The member for Blaxland will refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr CLARE: The Prime Minister's government turns two, and what a cracking two years it's been. Debt's gone up; the deficit's gone up; electricity prices have gone up through the roof; and taxes have gone up. Almost everyone now has to pay more tax—unless, of course, you're a millionaire. If you're a millionaire, this year you got a $16,000 tax cut. What else? There are cuts to schools, cuts to TAFE, cuts to universities, cuts to pension supplements and cuts to penalty rates. He's stuffed up the NBN. It's now double the cost and still doesn't work properly. He introduced laws to make it easier to be racist but refuses to introduce laws to make it easier to marry. They've refused to set up a royal commission into the banks, stuffed up the census, caved in on climate change and even had to made five ministers resign. For one, it was because she went real estate shopping on the Gold Coast on the taxpayers' dime and, for another, it was because his mum made him Italian.
I've got a confession to make. My mum made me Italian the other night. It was terrific—spaghetti bolognaise—but I didn't have to resign! It's not all that bad, though. He hasn't knighted anyone yet. I don't think he's eaten any raw onions yet—maybe a few truffles. On behalf of the Australian parliament: happy birthday to you, Malcolm. The millionaires of Australia salute you. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: I just say, before I call the member for Dunkley, to the member for Blaxland that I cautioned him at the start of his contribution about using correct titles. He flouted that ruling at the end. If there is a repeat of it, I will take action against him.
Ukraine-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (13:56): The year 2017 marks 25 years of diplomatic relations between the Ukraine and Australia. Last night, I was delighted to relaunch the Ukraine-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop, and deputy chair, Senator Catryna Bilyk. We welcomed to Parliament House the Ambassador of Ukraine in Australia, His Excellency Mykola Kulinich; the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations chair, Stefan Romaniw; Sir Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Defence Force; the former permanent representative of Australia to the United Nations and former President of the UN Security Council, Gary Quinlan; and many members of the Ukrainian community, including Andrij,Chrestyna and Taras from Blue Bay cheese, in Mornington, in my electorate in Dunkley, successful examples of Ukrainian-Australian migrants. The Ukrainian delegation formally recognised Minister Bishop as a friend of Ukraine, and Australia as a firm ally on the international stage. The minister's leadership was recognised, as was that of Sir Houston, in establishing an embassy in Kiev following the MH17 tragedy.
It was also an honour to host amongst our guests members of the Ukrainian armed forces. I was proud to emphasise with my parliamentary colleagues the close relationship that our two countries have, as well as our shared commitment to Ukrainian economic growth, territorial integrity, sovereignty and cultural exchange.
Energy
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:57): There's a reason people are scratching their heads and asking themselves: are this mob as dumb as a box of spanners? You really can't make this stuff up. You get one of the smartest blokes in Australia to write your energy policy, and, if you don't like some of the recommendations, you go to some of the daftest blokes in your caucus, and you say, 'Can I have a few ideas?' That's exactly what they've done. After five years, they still do not have an energy policy.
While these guys are playing parlour games, the people in Australia have got real problems. They were promised that their power bills were going to go down by $550, but instead they've gone up and up and up. Businesses have been quoted prices for their next contracts with increases between 70, 80 and 90 per cent. And then, a few moments ago, we had the energy minister, who's probably never opened his own power bill in his life, telling Australians that their power bills have gone down. You cannot make this stuff up.
The Prime Minister has got to stop telling people that he is a strong leader, and he's got to start acting like one—start acting, putting in place an energy plan, because the people of Australia need it.
National Stroke Week
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (13:59): Last week was National Stroke Week, and I want to congratulate the Stroke Foundation for their awareness campaign. Kicking off the week in Brisbane, I met with a local support group of young survivors of strokes. I got to meet Emily Benham, who, at age 36, suffered two strokes after going into cardiac arrest. The day started like any other. She was in a florist in Clayfield when, without warning, she slid down the counter, turned purple and stopped breathing. On the way to the royal Brisbane hospital, she suffered two further strokes, and later she found out that her aorta had ruptured almost in two. Emily wanted me to tell her story in parliament today to help raise awareness. She spent two months in hospital. She had the challenge of sourcing services to start her rehabilitation thereafter and faced a major services gap for younger sufferers of strokes. I encourage everybody to read some of the compelling stories on the website of the Stroke Foundation. Join the FAST response team by knowing the signs of a stroke: drooping face, slurring speech or weak arms. Paramedics, nurses and doctors can only treat stroke if Australians recognise the signs and call triple zero immediately.
Emily, thank you for your hard work and advocacy in raising awareness and support for fellow young stroke sufferers. You are an inspiration and a leader for your community.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today, as he's travelling to China to attend the annual Joint Ministerial Economic Commission. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (14:01): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Can the minister confirm that yesterday he claimed in the House:
… since the start of the coalition government in 2013, prices across average Sydney households on standing offers have varied from increasing by $1 to falling by $473.
Is this Liberal government so out of touch that they believe power prices have gone down since they were elected? If so, does the minister want to spend the next three minutes claiming that working families in Australia have never been better off?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:02): The member for Port Adelaide has some cheek. He has some cheek because in this House he told a falsehood. Let me first deal with his question. We have tabled information in the parliament to indicate that, as of 1 July, we saw power bills increase in Sydney. AGL increased by $296; Origin increased by $310; Energy Australia increased by $320. But, if you look back in the years since we came to government, you see big drops—for example when we abolished the carbon tax. The member for Port Adelaide should know that, because he put out a newsletter. He put out his own newsletter, which said the decision to terminate the carbon tax will save the average family around $380. That is what he said.
Government members interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: What a genius. The Prime Minister knows that the ACCC has confirmed that the average Australian household has saved overall about $550 from the abolition of the carbon tax. We have said that power prices have increased, and we are working to do everything we can to put downward pressure on power prices. The Australian people are rightly concerned about rising power prices—but not the Leader of the Opposition.
Let's remind the House what the member for Port Adelaide said yesterday. He said the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission had produced data which indicated that the average Sydney household had seen their power prices increase by $1,000. Now we have tabled in the parliament statements from both the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Regulator contradicting the Labor Party. Labor have manipulated and deceived the Australian people by using data that never existed. It's up to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Port Adelaide and the dozen other members opposite to come to the dispatch box to apologise to the Australian people and to set the record straight. The Australian people know that when the Labor Party was in office, power bills increased by over 100 per cent—that was the record. Labor is selling out blue-collar workers in order to win Green votes in the city, and only the Turnbull government will help create an affordable and reliable power system.
Energy
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure Australians have affordable and reliable electricity, including in my electorate of Swan, and is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. As we've seen from today's job data, our commitment to jobs and growth is not a slogan; it's an outcome—strong jobs growth, with 325,600 jobs in the last 12 months. But to maintain that strong growth, Australians need affordable and reliable electricity. What we have seen is Labor Party policies drive prices up. They've gone up over the last 18 months or so because of the closure of a big base load power station in Hazelwood and, above all, the high price of gas. We know, too, that the coalition's policy of abolishing the carbon tax brought prices down. Coalition policies have brought prices down, and the inherited consequence of the Labor Party's mistakes—particularly with respect to gas and particularly by overlooking the pretty obvious fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time—is that we have seen a dramatic rise in prices. But we are taking action in the medium term, the long term and right now, and we've seen gas prices start to come down because of our foreshadowed limitations on exports.
I want to talk about what we've done to help families with their bills today. I want to talk about the way we brought in the electricity retailers and said to them: 'We know that two million of your customers, at least, are paying more than they need to for electricity. What are you going to do about it? You owe an obligation to them.' We said to those big energy bosses, 'You've got to look after your customers and let them know—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Burt, on a point of order?
Mr Keogh: On relevance: the member for Swan asked a very direct question about energy—
The SPEAKER: The member for Burt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: We asked what they would do for their customers, and they're advising those on the wrong plan that they are on the wrong plan, and thousands of people are getting a better deal. We've seen so many reports in the paper, but I'll refer to one: Christine DaCosta, a single mother with four children living in Brisbane. She used the Energy Made Easy website of the federal government and found a better deal that'll save her $300. That's action for her—that's real money. The Labor Party scoffs at a $300 saving, but it means a lot to Christine and her family, and it's an indication of how out of touch Labor is that it is not prepared to support the government in keeping energy affordable and reliable.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Lindsay, I have regularly asked the members for Burt and Lyons to cease interjecting. I'm placing them both on notice now.
Energy
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (14:09): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Yesterday the minister said power bills for Sydney households had gone down by more than $470 since this government was elected. Does this minister honestly expect households in my electorate to believe that, compared to 2013, their power bills have actually gone down by more than $470 per year?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:09): Come in, spinner! The honourable member should know that, under the Labor Party, power bills would always be higher—much higher—because the Labor Party did not support the abolition of the carbon tax. The Labor Party did nothing. The ACCC have told us that, as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax, the average Australian household has been better off overall by $550. The Prime Minister, with the retailers, is seeing millions of Australians get a better deal. And we know that 50 per cent of Australian households have not moved retailers or contracts in the last five years, despite them being able to make savings of more than $1,000 or more. And what about the networks? Under the Labor Party, the regulator returns were around 10 per cent. Under the coalition now, it's just above six per cent. That means those people in Sydney can be up to $300 a year better off. And what about the decision to abolish the limited merits review process to stop the networks gaming the system? Well, those honourable members opposite who live in New South Wales were just slugged an additional $3.5 billion, courtesy of that limited merits review process. If the Labor Party had done anything when they were in office to abolish that, consumers in New South Wales would have been $3½ billion better off. That is why we have taken action on this front. This is also why the Prime Minister has worked diligently to ensure that there's more gas supplied into the domestic market, and we have seen the spot market fall.
But I have to say that the Labor Party, without having any answers on energy policy, and a track record of a 100 per cent increase, has actually left itself vulnerable now, to the point that it is making up the facts—facts that have been contradicted by the Australian Energy Regulator and by the Australian Energy Market Commission. The Leader of the Opposition sent out a tweet saying that the Liberals have delivered power bills that have been more than $1,000. Well, we've heard from the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Regulator that that is false. This reminds us of Mediscare—this reminds us of the shameful Mediscare lie.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat is warned.
Mr FRYDENBERG: I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to come to the dispatch box, to come clean with the Australian people, to stop the deceit, to stop the lies, to stop the falsehoods, to correct the record and to tell the Australian people that he has been telling falsehoods and deceiving them about power prices. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:12): 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 inform the House how the government is working to deliver more reliable and affordable energy for agricultural businesses across Australia, including in my electorate of Flynn? Is he aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:13): I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that we have had great success in agriculture. It's been a great honour. I will soon have been the minister for four years, so it's a great honour. And we've seen the results this year, with agriculture growing by 22.6 per cent in the last year. In fact, agriculture was the fastest-growing sector in the GDP figures. That goes to show you what a difference a good government makes. If you want to see that in a more anecdotal form, you can see it in such things at table grapes, which grew by 370 per cent from 2015 to 2016. Or you can see it in chickpeas to India, which grew by 90 per cent from 2016 to 2017. Or you could see it in the increase in live cattle volumes—something the Labor Party shut down. They're good at shutting down things—shut down coal-fired power, shut down the live cattle trade. To Indonesia, since 2013, live cattle volumes have grown by 94 per cent; to Vietnam, since 2013, by 1,673 per cent; and to China, since 2013, by 106 per cent.
But it's not just in those areas where we've seen a change in agriculture. We've seen $724 million lent out in concessional loans and 4,000 km of dog fences built to bring sheep back into the western districts. We have put legislation together to build a $4 billion Regional Investment Corporation in Orange. In the last round of applications for APVMA in Armidale there were 450 applicants. We're rolling out country-of-origin labelling, so people in this nation know where their food comes from and the proportions from each country of destination their food comes from and they can back in Australian workers. The wine equalisation tax reforms and the wine industry reforms will see our wine industry go from $2.3 billion to $3.5 billion by 2020. We have set out a process of making sure we deal with invasive species, such as parthenium, prickly acacia and blackberries. In Tasmania we're seeing water infrastructure rolled out. There is the Macalister Irrigation District in Victoria, the Loddon-Wimmera pipeline and the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, using recycled water.
There is one threat, of course, and that's power prices. The people of Australia know that they cannot trust the shifty member for Maribyrnong. They couldn't trust him with the figures yesterday; they can't trust him today. The blue-collar workers can't trust the member for Maribyrnong. Mr Rudd could not trust the member for Maribyrnong. Ms Gillard could not trust the member for Maribyrnong. Labor can't trust the member for Maribyrnong. We can't trust the member for Maribyrnong. The Australian people can no longer trust the member for Maribyrnong.
Energy
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (14:16): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy: This government is now in its fifth year in office. Why did the minister tell Sydney householders their power prices have gone down? Why doesn't this Liberal government understand that people in my electorate are doing it tough? Just how out of touch is this Liberal government?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:17): The member for Chifley is not a bad bloke, but he's got his facts wrong again. Again the Labor Party is repeating falsehoods in this place, misleading the Australian people, making facts up on the run, deceiving them about what the Australian Energy Regulator and what the Australian Energy Market Commission have said. The reality is that power prices in Sydney have recently gone up. We've seen a substantial increase in July, and we also saw an increase in 2016. In the years prior, we saw some decreases. But we have seen nothing like the 100 per cent increase that we saw under the Labor Party. As the Prime Minister has said, we are cleaning up Labor's mess following their failure to heed the warnings of their own energy white paper and their failure to heed the warnings of the Australian Energy Market Operator when it came to setting up large exports of gas from the east coast and the impact that that would have on shortfalls and on price. We know that gas is increasingly setting the price of electricity.
If the Labor Party had only been sensible, if they'd only had some foresight, if they had only prepared, then we wouldn't have been in the situation we are in today, with gas prices tripling over the last five years. And what about their idiocy when it comes to coal? The member for Hunter, who's waving the white flag over Liddell, who's refusing to stand up for his workers, who will go to Newcastle, write in the Newcastle Herald, 'I'm the best friend of the coal workers,' then comes into this place and votes for motions that say coal has no future in Australia. That is what the member for Hunter does. What about the member for Shortland? In his maiden speech he bashes his chest and he says, 'I'm the great friend of coal; I'm a descendant of coal workers' but in this place he's overseeing policies that will close our coal-fired power stations, even though coal is a source of reliable and affordable power.
There's a clear line of difference between this side of the House and those opposite. Those opposite want to join with the Greens to sell out blue-collar workers to try to win some votes in the inner city. We on this side of the House want to stand up for manufacturers. We want to stand up for industries, like in the member for Wannon's electorate and in the member for Grey's electorate. We stand with the—
Ms Swanson interjecting—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Paterson and the member for Barker are carrying on a conversation. They can now continue it outside the chamber. They can both leave under 94(a).
The member for Paterson and the member for Barker then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: And the member for Chifley might be listening outside to the rest of the answer to his question if he continues to interject!
Mr FRYDENBERG: After the Labor Party's record of a hundred per cent increase in power prices, only the Turnbull government will ensure a reliable and affordable power system.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:20): I would like to welcome, in the gallery to my left, the former Speaker Harry Jenkins, who is here with Global Voices. Welcome, Harry, back for the day.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Immigration Detention
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and it's about Manus Island. Can you, Minister, provide details of the government's plan to manage the closure of the regional processing centre on 31 October, as this week I've had numerous representations from my constituents, Rural Australians for Refugees, the UNHCR and the Red Cross seeking more information and a response from the government that shows we can both protect our borders and show compassion, mercy and justice?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:21): I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that it's a heartfelt question. On a number of occasions, the honourable member has made representations to me on behalf of children who are here on visas and people who are here on visas otherwise who may have illnesses and want an extended stay in Australia, and I acknowledge her compassion and the work that she does in this area. It's important to her and it's important to her community, and I'm very pleased to take the question from her today.
I can inform the member that I met with Prime Minister O'Neill in Port Moresby on 1 September and we continued our case from the Australian government's perspective—that is, that we want to see the regional processing centre closed by 31 October. There are obviously a lot of details and logistics to be worked through, and some of the compound has already been dismantled, so that process will continue. Prime Minister O'Neill expressed to me that his government was intent on seeing the regional processing centre close as well. We have spoken with Prime Minister O'Neill and with my counterpart, the new minister Petrus Thomas, about the way in which the logistics could operate. That might include, for example, those people, who total about 200, who have been found not to be refugees being moved into an alternative place of detention away from the regional processing centre, given that they have no lawful claim to be in PNG. There are, in total, just under a hundred or so who have applied for packages to go back to their country of origin. We've had a record number of people who have taken up offers to return to their country of origin given that they don't have legitimate claims to make in PNG. There is capacity within the East Lorengau centre for about 400 people to be accommodated there, and we will work with the PNG government in helping them provide services to those people.
Going to the compassionate aspect and the spirit in which the member asked this question, we have to do it in a way where we don't see boats restart. What all of us recognise is that the threat of people smuggling has not gone away. Over the course of the last couple of years, with the success of Operation Sovereign Borders, we've had to turn back 31 boats, and we've done that in a way where we've seen no loss of life. All of us have seen the pictures and heard the accounts of the women and children being pulled from the water, and the half-eaten bodies and all of the graphic detail that goes with it. We've not presided over a death at sea under this government, and I don't intend to start now. That is the most compassionate response that we can provide. We aren't going to put ourselves into a position where we see boats restart. We've been very clear that if people on Manus Island or on Nauru have sought to come to our country by boat they will not ever settle permanently in this country. That's the message that the people smugglers need to continue to hear today.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:24): Just before I call the member for Banks, I'd just like to inform the House that we've just had join us in the gallery this afternoon a visiting parliamentary delegation from China, led by Mr Li Fei. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Employment
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (14:24):My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on what the government's economic policies have meant for the creation of Australian jobs, including in my electorate of Banks? Is the Treasurer aware of the effects alternative policies will have on hardworking Australians seeking to get and stay in jobs?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:25): I thank the member for Banks for his question and the great work he's doing as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, contributing to the strong economic policies of the Turnbull government. Over the past four years, this government has been cleaning up the mess left behind by the Labor Party, whether it's what we just heard about from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—turning around the border protection disasters of the previous government—cracking down on thuggish unions, making sure multinationals pay their fair share of tax, completing trade agreements that the others left idle or turning around our defence spending. We've been cleaning up the abhorrent mess left by the Labor Party.
But one area where we've had great success is that we've turned around the anaemic growth in jobs which was left to us by those opposite, which was about 1,800 a month. That is now 27,000 jobs every month. We have now had 11 consecutive months of jobs being created, and that is the longest run of consecutive monthly job growth in 23 years. We've had 800,000 and more get a job in this country in the last four years. More than 500,000 of those have got a job in the last two years, which has seen the unemployment rate drop by half of one per cent over that period of time. Fifty-four thousand people went out there and got a job in the month of August. But, importantly, part of that is that 40,000 of those were full-time, and 26,000 of those were young people. In the last six months, 63,000 young Australians have got a job. That is the strongest six-month gain in youth employment since the global financial crisis. Australians are getting a job. Young people are getting a job as well, which is incredibly important.
It's also worth noting that, over the last six months, a quarter of a million jobs have been created, and that is the strongest six-month gain since the Sydney Olympics 17 years ago, and that's an incredible achievement. Eighty per cent of the jobs that have been created in the past year have been full time, and that is the strongest growth in 6½ years. The number of people who are joining the labour force is up as well, and the level of underemployment is down on the latest figures, and underutilisation is down.
I'm asked about alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition has a plan to increase taxes on the Australian economy by more than $150 billion. The Leader of the Opposition, the shiftiest Leader of the Opposition we've seen in a very long time, if he slithers into the Lodge, is going to put a big, wet, soggy blanket on jobs. This government is delivering jobs. We are delivering jobs at record rates. Those opposite want to shut jobs in everything from the coal-fired power stations to the booming service industries, where we're growing exports. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. Your minister for energy has claimed that since 2013 power prices have gone down in Sydney. Is he right?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:28): The technique of the Leader of the Opposition is to tell one falsehood after another and then hope that, by repeating it, it will cut through. He has no regard for the truth whatsoever. He misled the House and was condemned for it today. He misled the Australian people by claiming that the Australian Energy Regulator's figures showed that, under the time of the coalition government, electricity prices for average Sydney households had gone up by $1,000. As has been amply demonstrated in the House today, that was completely untrue. There was no basis in fact. He took the names of two very important government agencies, the AER—the energy regulator—and the Energy Market Commission, and he said they showed that prices had gone up by $1,000 in the four years of the coalition government. He stood out at a door stop and he said—
The SPEAKER: The Management of Opposition Business, a point of order?
Mr Burke: Yes, on direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The question could not have been more specific about whether or not the Prime Minister agrees with his Minister for Energy.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is addressing the claim in the question. He's entitled to address it by staying on the policy topic, which he's doing. He's completely in order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: Electricity prices are not a question of opinion. They're a question of fact. We know what the facts are, and the facts were misrepresented by the Labor Party. They were deliberately misrepresented by the Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'The research shows'—what research? No research, no facts, and they repeated it again and again. As I have said and as the energy minister has said, we know what happened. The coalition came into government, it abolished the carbon tax, electricity prices went down—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter's now warned.
Mr TURNBULL: That's it. Coalition policies resulted in electricity prices going down. Labor voted against that. And we have seen in recent times, particularly in the course of the last 12 months, very large increases in electricity prices.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: And why have we seen that? We've seen that because of the closure of Hazelwood, the failure to provide enough backup to renewables and the soaring price of gas. All of that is the consequence of Labor failures. These are all problems Labor created and that we're seeking to address. But we've got to recognise that despite saying something that was patently untrue—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland.
Mr TURNBULL: despite telling falsehoods about the views of two important regulators, despite misleading the House, the Leader of the Opposition has never had the courage to come to the despatch box and— (Time expired)
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland is now warned.
Workplace Relations
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interests of their members? And is the minister aware of alternative approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:32): I see that my friends on the other side are still standing up for John Setka, as usual. They like trashing public servants who work hard. They like trashing public servants who put themselves—in fact, their bodies—on the line against the CFMEU. They stand up for John Setka instead. Yesterday the Federal Court handed down record fines against the CFMEU of $2.4 million. The judge at the centre of that decision, Judge Geoffrey Flick, said:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU
The jury is so in on the CFMEU. Yet still the Leader of the Opposition refuses to expel the CFMEU from the Labor Party and he continues to take their donations—donations from the CFMEU that, since he's been the leader, now total $8 million. So, the CFMEU has very, very deep pockets, to be able to bankroll the Labor Party, particularly in Victoria.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I couldn't have been more clear with the member for Lyons at the start of question time. He can leave under 94(a). He has clearly chosen to be ejected.
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Mr PYNE: They clearly are pleased to bankroll the Labor Party in Victoria. They're also quite happy to pay these fines. They've been fined again and again. As Justice Geoffrey Flick said:
The CFMEU … has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.
… … …
The CFMEU's conduct exposes a cavalier disregard for the prior penalties imposed by this court …
It's the responsibility of the leaders in Australia to lead by example and to say to the CFMEU, 'You're not welcome in the Labor Party until you get your act together.' Bob Hawke was tough enough, and John Cain was tough enough to stand up to the BLF. The Leader of the Opposition allows the CFMEU into every single forum of the Labor Party in Victoria: into their preselections, into their policy-setting processes, into the governance of the Labor Party. The CFMEU and the Labor Party are in lock step. One of the CFMEU leaders, whose union was fined yesterday, at the Barangaroo site in Sydney described the investigators from the Fair Work Commission as being worse than paedophiles—worse than paedophiles! A union leader said a public servant doing his job was worse than a paedophile. These are the kinds of people the Leader of the Opposition stands up for. He now has the 'cash for stacks' scandal in Victoria to deal with—the cesspit that is the Labor Party in Victoria, and this Leader of the Opposition sits on top of that cesspit. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. Just over three months ago, the Prime Minister said about the clean energy target:
… it has a lot of merit … as I say we will look at it very favourably …
His own Chief Scientist said the clean energy target was urgent and will put downward pressure on power prices. More than three months on from that report, will the government implement the clean energy target? Yes or no?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:36): The government will deliver a final, completed energy policy for the long term which encourages investment, which ensures we make an orderly transition to a lower emission future and we do so in a way that uses all technologies, including coal. Member for Hunter, you don't have to write it all off. He's full of smiles today. I tell you what, there won't be a lot of smiles at the Muswellbrook Workers Club when he gets back home and they learn about his efforts to put them out of work. Oh yes! Not a rostered day off; it'll be a rostered rest of their lives off if he has his way. The member for Hunter can say to his mates there in Muswellbrook, 'Don't worry, the government will look after you; the coalition will look after you.' And we will. We have their best interests at heart, even if the member for Hunter and the member for Shortland have forgotten about them.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland has been warned.
Mr TURNBULL: Turning to the policy issue, we have already put in place important measures which are bringing down people's electricity bills in the here and now, because they're getting big discounts and getting onto the right plan. I've talked about that. I know honourable members opposite describe it as a stunt, but if you are a single mum and you're getting $300 cut from your electricity bill, that is big money; that is real money. Honourable members opposite shouldn't be so sarcastic, just because they're earning big money here in parliament. We also have the scoffer-in-chief there, the member for Maribyrnong. He's the one that described Snowy Hydro 2.0, the largest renewable project—
Mr Shorten interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition needs to withdraw that. I've cautioned him.
Mr Shorten: I withdraw.
Mr TURNBULL: Whether they're scoffing about single mothers getting $300 off their electricity bill, whether they're scoffing at the largest renewable energy project to be built in Australia since the first Snowy scheme, whether they're scoffing about taking action to bring down the price of gas, they cannot escape the fact that their complacency, their incompetence and their negligence have brought these high prices to Australians and, no matter how many falsehoods they tell about us about prices, Australians know what they're up to—
Superannuation
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on the action the government is taking to ensure that the interests of hardworking Australians are put ahead of the vested interests in the superannuation industry? Why is it important that we act to improve the transparency of super funds?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (14:40): I'd like to thank very much the member for Boothby for her question. The Turnbull government has today introduced a very comprehensive set of reforms for Australia's compulsory superannuation system, all designed to protect members' money and members' interests. These reforms apply across the superannuation funds equally. We are legislating a consistent minimum standard for one-third independent directors, including an independent chair, to improve governance and strengthen conflict management across the entire superannuation industry. Australians do deserve the best and brightest minds to be the custodians of their hard-earned retirement savings.
Reports in the Adelaide Advertiser today, though, show us just why these sensible, long-overdue reforms are needed. Serious questions have been raised about the way that the AWU appoints its people to the board of Statewide Super. It's been revealed today that the AWU treats board positions to the $6.5 billion industry super fund for South Australian workers like a family game of pass the parcel. The current AWU representative was appointed after the previous representative, her husband, was lobbed into the South Australian parliament for the Labor Party. He had become the AWU representative after the previous AWU representative, who was his father. Are we really seeing a return to peerage in South Australia? Honestly! It appears to be just another example of nepotism and self-interest by the Leader of the Opposition's AWU, putting his own self-interest and the interests of all those members ahead of—as they should be—the workers'.
Earlier in the week, we learnt about the flow of money from superannuation funds to trade unions, but the report today tells us about the payment from superannuation funds direct to the Labor Party. The Australian Electoral Commission records show that the South Australian Labor Party received over $16,000 from Statewide Super in 2015-16. How on earth can this possibly be in the interests of hardworking South Australian members of Statewide Super? Perhaps the member for Hindmarsh might shed some light on this matter. After all, following his election defeat in 2013, he held a position in the South Australian Services Union and, between 2013 and 2016, he was a director of the board of Statewide Super at the very time that this payment was made from Statewide Super to the South Australian Labor Party. How on earth could anyone justify channelling the funds of hardworking South Australian workers in this way? (Time expired)
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Brand is warned.
Turnbull Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today is two years to the day since the current Prime Minister deposed the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. Is the Prime Minister aware it is reported today that the former Prime Minister has been lobbying government MPs in a bid to dump funding for renewables? Why, two years on, is the former Prime Minister still calling the shots on government policy? Prime Minister, what was the point of replacing the member for Warringah?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Greenway and others will cease interjecting. I have listened carefully to the question and, as it's framed, I don't believe it's in order. We will go to the next question.
National Security
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of protecting the Australian community from dangerous noncitizens? What action has the government taken? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moore will resume his seat. Members on my left will not continue to interrupt when I'm trying to hear the question. I am very happy to eject anyone who continues to interject, particularly those who have been warned or have been ejected under 94(a) on multiple occasions. I don't have a quota in mind; it's up to them. The member for Moore will begin his question again.
Mr GOODENOUGH: My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of protecting the Australian community from dangerous noncitizens? What action has the government taken? Is the minister aware of any other approaches?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, reflections on the Deputy Prime Minister should be made by direct motion, not through a question. There should be a motion on the Notice Paper.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is warned.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has been warned. She will leave under 94(a).
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:46): I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm not sure how many days it has been, but I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on the anniversary of having knifed two former Prime Ministers, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. There must be some celebration upcoming for the Leader of the Opposition. There must be some sort of anniversary coming up for him. I note particular interest from the member for Grayndler on this topic.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will come to the question he was asked.
Mr DUTTON: I thought it was a reasonable preamble, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the member for Moore for his question and say thank you very much to all of the members on this side of the House who have supported the tough changes that this government has made in relation to cancelling visas of noncitizens who have committed criminal offences against Australian citizens. I want to update the House on the fact that we have now cancelled 219 visas for armed robbery; 221 for theft, break and enter; 550 for assault; 54 for murder; 21 for manslaughter; 114 for rape and other sexual offences; over 200 for child pornography and child sex offences; and—this number will be of particular interest to those opposite—150 bikies. The Labor Party has an interest in bikies, as we know, because the outlaw motorcycle gang members provide the muscle for the CFMEU on building sites.
Dr Aly: Why don't you evict outlaw motorcycle clubs?
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan is warned.
Mr DUTTON: So the CFMEU is particularly concerned with the bikies being kicked out of this country and those people who have been involved in criminal activity. I note that for the benefit of the House.
Dr Aly: What about Aryan Nations?
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will leave under 94(a).
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: I am asked about alternative approaches. It is impossible to get an alternative approach from what is known as the shadow minister for border protection and immigration in this House. He sips nervously on a glass of water right now. I don't normally get into question time until just on two o'clock, but I presume the sedation of the member for Blair takes place just before he comes into parliament or just after. He is wheeled in on a fridge trolley, as I understand it. Three or four times during question time, they take a pulse from the member for Blair to see whether he is still alive. He is the captain of—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will resume his seat.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting, as will the Leader of the House. The member for Grayndler, on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: Reflections on members. That crossed the line.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will be careful with his language. He won't reflect on members.
Mr DUTTON: Let's celebrate anniversaries. Today is the 418th day since the member for Blair asked a question on border protection matters. Is it because he doesn't understand the topic? I don't think so. He is an educated man. He is a decent person. But he is in witness protection. He is the man who is not allowed to ask questions on border protection because, like all of us and the whole Australian population, he knows that this Leader of the Opposition is weak when it comes to border protection. He does not want to talk about boats; he doesn't want to talk about visa cancellations; and the Australian public has worked him out. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. Australian businesses are still being offered gas contracts that are double or triple the price of their expiring contracts. The gas trigger must be pulled by 1 November. Given that the High Court may not decide whether Senator Canavan or the Deputy Prime Minister are even qualified to be members of parliament by then, why won't the Prime Minister stand his deputy aside and put someone else in the job that can pull the trigger now?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:51): The trigger on gas that should be pulled immediately is the one held by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory—there is a very large amount of gas reserves there—and, of course, Daniel Andrews as well. While I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's partial backflip on Victorian gas, apparently he is now not opposed to developing—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Oh, maybe I'm being too kind to him. But I understood he wasn't opposed to developing conventional gas in Victoria anymore. We have a lot of gas in Australia, and Labor Party politics is keeping too much of it locked up. There is a big opportunity. We had a great event last night. The member for Solomon was there, of course. He spoke, with Senator Scullion, about the great opportunity in the Northern Territory. I am talking about Facing North and the future of the Northern Territory. Gas can be a great future for the Territory, and they can provide a lot of gas to Australia.
Mr Snowdon: What do the people of the Northern Territory think, you idiot!
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will withdraw.
Mr SNOWDON: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: And he will now leave under 94(a).
The member for Lingiari then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: For the assistance of the member for Blaxland, I will just repeat what I said earlier in the week. The domestic gas mechanism, which would have the effect of restricting exports to the extent necessary to ensure the domestic market is fully supplied, comes into operation on 1 January. The minister has a decision to make about the extent of the restriction on exports to be made, which obviously is based on a lot of industry and expert advice which is being received. As I described earlier in the week, we're already seeing substantial amounts of gas coming into the domestic market. So it is, in a sense, a very rapidly changing environment. So as long as the decision is taken before 1 January, it does not matter when the decision is taken. The honourable member—and I am sure he has done this innocently—shouldn't mislead the House by suggesting that the gas mechanism comes into effect any earlier than 1 January. The minister will make his decision when he is fully informed and able to do so, and then the mechanism will come into place on 1 January.
Welfare Reform
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is using the welfare system to improve the health, welfare and wellbeing of Australian families? Are there any alternative approaches?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:54): I thank the member for her question. As the member knows, the process of creating firmer and fairer mutual obligations really did begin with the No Jab, No Pay policy. Since 2016, 210,000 more families are immunising their kids, all categories of immunisation are pushing up to the 95 per cent target and, critically, immunisation rates for Indigenous kids at five years of age are the first to pass that 95 per cent target. So this policy has done something that is completely remarkable. It did not just close the gap on this critical measure; the gap now is in favour of Indigenous kids on this critical health measure.
I might just pause to note that, during the course of question time, my attention was brought to a statement made by the Australian Council of Social Service which I want to read to the House because it is one of the most staggeringly stupid things I've ever seen. They say: 'No Jab, No Pay is a strategy to attack people receiving benefits.' Here we have a policy that is giving better outcomes and better protection to Indigenous kids from polio and diseases like whooping cough than the mainstream population, and ACOSS prize ideology so far over outcomes that that is their view on the policy. We can all accept that, when this policy first came into being, it was opposed by any number of peak bodies—peak medical bodies, academics and legal bodies—but you would think by now that people would've changed their minds because it's working. Australians want a safety net system that is comprehensive. They want it to be fair. But they become very frustrated when reasonable conditions are not also attached to ensure that people do the right thing by themselves and their families and their communities.
I was asked about alternatives. We've got one from ACOSS, but we've also uncovered another gem from the opposition leader. Before he picked up the Jeremy Corbyn student radical baton, this is what he thought about the welfare system:
… the aim's got to be not keeping them on welfare; it's getting them into a job, then they control their own lives.
The sad fact is that there doesn't appear to be much room in modern Labor for that sort of common sense now.
Another policy that we launched today with legislation in this House is that welfare will have automatic deductions for the payment of public housing rent. The idea is to stop evictions and decrease homelessness. The only two jurisdictions in Australia who've not come on board are the Labor jurisdiction in the ACT and the Labor jurisdiction in Victoria. You would think this is good, common sense stuff, but it is not quite the ideological cup of tea of the ACT Labor government— (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton and the Treasurer might want to have a chat behind my chair.
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (14:57): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in response to a question about the seven power stations that have closed under this government, the Prime Minister boasted about an extra 2,900 megawatts of gas power generation coming online over the last decade. Can the Prime Minister confirm that every single megawatt of this gas generation came online under the previous Labor government? Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility at all for the investment strike in dispatchable energy that has occurred since this government came to power?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:58): If my recollection is correct, I was quoting from a letter from Australian Energy Market Operator. I'll ask the minister to elaborate on that.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:58): I can confirm to the House that it was through the actions of this Prime Minister that we now see Pelican Point in South Australia, a gas-fired power station, about to come on. As a result of the actions of the coalition, as a result of the Prime Minister sitting down with the gas suppliers, ENGIE, the owner of Pelican Point, a 240-megawatt power station, was able to get a contract with Origin. What about Swanbank E in Queensland—another gas-fired power station that the Prime Minister is helping to ensure sufficient gas for? What about the Tamar Valley in Tasmania and the gas-fired power station there? We are seeing, on this side of the House, actions to ensure sufficient gas is available into the market.
When the member for Port Adelaide gets up, we just have to remind the House that he thinks a genius of an energy policy is that of his own state of South Australia, where we have had a statewide blackout, with more than half a billion dollars lost. In his own electorate of Port Adelaide, Adelaide Brighton has had to book a loss of $13 million, 450 jobs. As a result they had 36 hours where they lost power. That's in his own electorate. Now the South Australian government thinks that a genius of an energy policy—a green, clean energy policy—is to spend $110 million on diesel generators that use 80,000 litres an hour and that don't work in the heat. That's the genius of the policy—taking more coal-fired power from Victoria and the Latrobe Valley, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a gas-fired power station built by the taxpayers of South Australia. That is what the South Australian Labor Party delivered in their nearly 16 years in office. If given half a chance, this Leader of the Opposition, aided by the member for Port Adelaide, will deliver blackouts and higher prices across the country.
Vaccination
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (15:00): I have a question for the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the government's strategy to improve immunisation rates right across the country? How does this translate into better health outcomes for all Australians?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:01): I want to thank the member for Bowman, who, as a committed health professional, has been a strong advocate for vaccination all his working life. In March, the Prime Minister and I met with Toni McCaffery. Toni is a young mum who had a beautiful little baby called Dana. Dana caught whooping cough when she went with her mother to the drop-off at a childcare centre attended by their older child. Dana was still too young to be vaccinated. In this childcare centre, there were low vaccination rates. As a consequence, Dana's mum, Toni, nursed that young child as she coughed and lost her way through a battle with whooping cough and died, only a few weeks old. Our commitment to Dana's mum, to Toni, was to fight even harder to lift vaccination rates in Australia.
There are three big things that we are doing as a government. First is pursuing the No Jab, No Pay policy, which the Minister for Social Services has set out. We've made big changes only today through legislation which has been submitted to this House. It's a policy which has contributed to over 210,000 new vaccinations, to young children in Australia having higher rates. But that's being backed up by what we're also doing in relation to the catch-up program for vaccinations. This has contributed to 166,000 children having catch-up vaccinations, firstly in the under-7 category, but secondly in the under-19s, who are benefitting from the $14 million which was allocated in this budget. Thirdly, what we are also doing is, frankly, through education and awareness, taking on the anti-vaxxers head-on. We have no support or encouragement for, and no acceptance of, what the anti-vaxxers are doing. In our view, it's anti-science, it's anti-child and it's anti-health. And so in that campaign—
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member has been warned.
Mr HUNT: This is not the moment, I would say to the opposition, to try to politicise this program. What we are doing through the work of Ian Frazer, who's agreed to head this program, and through the presence of Toni McCaffery and her husband, who have been part of the campaign, is say to the anti-vaxxers that, whether they are from One Nation or whether they are from any other party, they have no place in putting that argument in Australian public life. This campaign is being backed with $5½ million. It's taking that on. As the AMA and the college of GPs have said, it's vital and it's successful and it's helping save lives. At the end of the day, vaccination is about one very simple thing: it saves lives and it protects lives.
Economy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he promised Australians economic leadership but has delivered flat wages growth, higher power prices and falling living standards? He promised intelligent debate—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right will not interject. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again.
Mr SHORTEN: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he promised Australians economic leadership but has delivered flat wages growth, falling living standards and higher power prices; he promised intelligent debate but delivers two-word slogans, instead of three-word slogans; and he promised a national style of leadership but has sold out the national interest for self-interest? Prime Minister, after two years of failure and disappointment, what's really changed? How are you any better than the member for Warringah?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:04): I'm not sure whether it's the Leader of the Opposition's lack of self-awareness or his innumeracy that causes him to ask this question on a day when we see record jobs growth and we see that in the last two years half a million new jobs have been created. Really, what extraordinary, impeccable timing!
When you put these things in your diary, when you say, 'On 14 September, remember to ask the Prime Minister a snarky question', you've got to be able to review it and check what's happened that morning. You've got to check the facts. What we've seen in terms of economic growth is GDP growing by 0.8 per cent in the last quarter. It has grown by 1.8 per cent through the year. Our economic plan is working. Businesses are investing: new private business investment has grown in the last quarter by 1.1 per cent to be 1½ per cent higher than a year ago. We all know we inherited an economy which had seen mining investment scaled down, as it was always going to, and the concern was how we could get the rest of the economy to invest. What did we do? We did what the Leader of the Opposition said we should do when he was in government, which was cut business taxes. We have done that. We have cut business taxes for companies that employ nearly half of all of the Australian workforce. What does that do? It does exactly what he said it would do, before he did his double backflip. It provides more investment and, hence, more jobs. That's why we're seeing more jobs. As I said, jobs and growth is not a slogan; it is an outcome. Jobs and growth, that's what we are delivering.
We are also ensuring that Australians get their essential services. We're unfreezing Labor's Medicare freeze—we're taking that off and getting on with it. We're ensuring that all Australian kids have access to consistent national transparent needs based funding. The Labor Party used to be in favour of that. They used to talk about that, but they did 27 shonky, shady deals—completely inconsistent—and then tried to stop us delivering the very vision that David Gonski promised.
It's been two years of great achievement but, above all, it's been two years since I became Prime Minister, building on the outstanding work of the member for Warringah. What that has done is deliver strong jobs growth.
Welfare Reform
Ms PRICE (Durack) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister update the House on the progress of drug trials which involve a system of cashless welfare and compulsory treatment? What evidence is there supporting the benefit of these trials, and how does this compare to alternative approaches?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (15:08): I thank the member for Durack for her question. I can inform the House that planning is well underway to have drug-testing trials in three locations starting at the beginning of next year. The trials themselves involve three components. The first component, of course, is random drug testing of 5,000 people. There are very good, simple methodologies to do this, which we'll be utilising. The second component is cashless welfare if a person tests positive for the first time. We know from the independent evaluation of the cashless debit card, which operates in the member for Durack's electorate, that this reduces the amount of drugs that a person takes. The third component is compulsory treatment if a person tests positive for a second time. Of course, compulsory treatment is exactly what is used in drug courts around Australia, and studies show that it works. The aim of the trials, of course, is to identify those people who might have a drug problem and assist them to get off drugs and back into the workforce. It's also based on a core principle that welfare should not be used to support a drug habit.
I'm asked, 'Are there any alternatives?' Well, we know that the Labor Party absolutely and directly opposes these drug-testing trials. They say, against each of our three elements, that it's demeaning to test people, that cashless welfare is not appropriate, and that you can't compel people into treatment. But on every single one of those, they've actually supported initiatives which are directly analogous. Let me take you through a couple. First of all, they support random drug testing on construction sites and on our roads. Those who get tested on our roads include, of course, people on unemployment benefits—no problem there. Second, they support using cashless welfare for drug-dependent people. Indeed, the member for Jagajaga set up such a scheme. They set up such a scheme. Thirdly, they actually support compulsory drug treatment programs when it is part of the drug court system. In fact, the drug policy which the member for Jagajaga introduced many years ago explicitly said that the mandatory treatment programs from the drug courts 'literally saves lives'.
Let me just confirm this. They, first of all, support drug testing as a concept. They support cashless welfare as a response, and they have supported compulsory drug treatment programs. But, apparently, if you put those three things together and add $10 million worth of treatment programs, it is a disaster. That's apparently the Labor way. Labor has been captured by the green-left wing of their party. That's what's dictating this policy and what it means, if they get their way, is people who need treatment won't— (Time expired).
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (15:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. There are reports today that up to 10 coalition MPs are considering crossing the floor over the government's energy policy, like the Prime Minister did before them. Why is the current Prime Minister still letting the former Prime Minister and the right-wing members of his government dictate government energy policy? What was the point of deposing the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, when he's still in control two years later?
The SPEAKER: I'm pondering whether that question is in order or not. I won't need any advice from the member for McEwen, I have to say. I don't think the question's in order.
Energy
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Will the minister inform the House why a reliable and affordable energy supply is important for aged care homes? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would jeopardise the quality of care for older Australians?
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (15:13): I thank the member for Bennelong for his continued interest in aged care. I was concerned when I read in the Queensland Courier-Mail that soaring power prices and shortages could disrupt aged care services, putting old people at risk. You asked me what a risk is in all of this. I want to say that this government recognises the importance of good energy policy and security, and this is why we've taken decisive action to act on this issue. The CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator, Audrey Zibelman said, 'The power system does not have the reserves it once had, and therefore a balance of peak summer demand in real time provides a heightened risk to supply.'
I know that the issues we currently face are a direct result of Labor's total lack of action on energy policy in government and their ideological pursuit of higher energy prices and an unstable energy system. Labor admitted its role in creating this problem when the member for Port Adelaide, Mark Butler, said on Insiders in August, 'Everyone knew there was going to be an impact on prices.' Labor's own energy white paper in 2012 stated that there are likely to be short-to-medium term transitional pressures in the eastern market.
Mr Khalil interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wills is warned.
Mr WYATT: These will manifest in tighter supply and higher prices yet, despite this advice, Labor did nothing. While the Labor Party, with blackouts around the country, is twiddling its thumbs, the government has implemented mechanisms to lift the restrictions on gas exports to ensure there is adequate supply of affordable gas for Australian consumers. The contrast could not be clearer. We have a party of blackouts opposite that is ideologically opposed to affordable and reliable energy and that ignores its own warnings and risks to its policies and does nothing. This government and this Prime Minister are focused on putting downward pressure on electricity prices and ensuring that all Australians, particularly older Australians, have a reliable source of energy into the hot summer months. That is why the building of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 will make renewable energy more reliable. Nothing is more concerning than seeing older Australians being put at risk because of energy policies from those on the other side. We will ensure that they're cared for and that electricity reliability looks after them during the winter and summer months, when they become vulnerable.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: The minister was reading word for word for almost the entire answer from a document, I ask that it be tabled.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Was the minister reading from a confidential document?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: If you'd stop interjecting, I might hear his answer. Was the minister reading from a confidential document?
Mr Wyatt: It is a confidential document.
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's earlier answer. If the Prime Minister considers that the energy policies of the previous Labor government were so bad, why did he cross the floor to vote for them? Why did the Prime Minister ever claim, 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am?' And, finally, why won't the Prime Minister stand up to the former Prime Minister for anything other than keeping his own job?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:17): I'll tell you one of the important measures of effective energy action: it's keeping the lights on. It's ensuring Australians don't have to pay the blackout bill. Effective action involves, if you have a windmill and a solar farm, having some backup when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. That's what's called effective. But ideology and idiocy have been the hallmarks of the Labor Party's approach to energy. I'll give you another measure of effectiveness: an effective energy policy is one where Australians can afford to pay for energy. Labor's failed on both counts.
Welfare Reform
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (15:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on actions taken by the government to defend Australian values and deliver better outcomes for welfare recipients, including in my electorate of Tangney?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:19): Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. On Australia Day, which we defend, we begin the celebrations with an acknowledgement of country and a welcome to country—a recognition of the 65,000 years during which our First Australians cared for this country—and we end with a citizenship ceremony with our newest Australians: a baby, perhaps, in the arms of her migrant mother. Through all of that, all of that which Labor so derides—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Listen to them, Mr Speaker—they deride the values that Australians share. Australians love this country. They love Australia Day. They love the values it embodies, and at the heart of those values are democracy, freedom, the rule of law, mutual respect and mutual obligation. We on our side believe that welfare money should not be spent on drugs and booze.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: We believe that welfare money should not be spent on drugs and booze but those opposite have no problem with it being spent on drugs and booze. They will not support us. How shameful. If you loved those people on welfare, what would you do? Would you tell them to get off the drugs, get off the booze? We'd hope so. But, no, the Labor Party won't do that. And what about the cashless welfare card? I have been there with my colleagues the social services minister and the Minister for Human Services, I have been there with the member for O'Connor and I have been there talking to families whose lives have been wrecked by drugs and alcohol, and they call out for us to support and deliver the cashless welfare card. I will never forget the grandmother in Kalgoorlie who said to me, 'Those who criticise the cashless welfare card should look into the eyes of a child with foetal alcohol syndrome. They should look at that child.' I tell you, Mr Speaker, when we do that, we do so with love and compassion, and according to the Australian values of helping our mates and looking after each other. Standing up for Australia means standing up for Australians. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's time has concluded.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will now leave under 94(a). I've warned her so many times and she's acknowledged it each time.
The member for Ballarat then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: We might just wait for a second before we proceed.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lalor will leave under 94(a). It is completely unparliamentary not only to interject but also to scream across the chamber as members are leaving.
The member for Lalor then left the chamber.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (15:23): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ROBERT: Once again, most egregiously.
The SPEAKER: The member for Fadden may proceed.
Mr ROBERT: Fairfax have been running a campaign over the last two weeks with three stories alleging my election 10 years ago was contrary to section 44 of the Constitution and that our personal family trust and trustee company were somehow nefariously managed. When I entered parliament 10 years ago our business affairs were appropriately structured to ensure complete compliance, and this of course was tested through party vetting. The sale of our company was then completed almost half a decade ago.
Fairfax also alleges that my father was not running our family company when the directors changed, that I was, even though the trust wasn't doing very much. I will seek to table shortly copies sourced from our chartered accountant with annual trust resolutions signed by the directors, my parents, for multiple years during this period. My father is a sophisticated investor and even today runs a very successful business. Fairfax names him as being 80 years of age—his age is irrelevant, unless Fairfax is trying to make an ageist point about competence.
All of this is based on a single call last night by a Fairfax journalist asking opaque questions to my father, who is currently caring for Mum after she has just been discharged from hospital after a second heart attack. I seek leave to table the aforementioned trust resolutions that show the Fairfax articles are a complete load of rubbish, as are the member for Fenner's politically motivated letters to ASIC. They are based on the same rubbish.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted to table the documents?
Mr Burke: Leave is granted.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:24): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Pearce, Mr Henry George
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:25): I seek indulgence very briefly, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has indulgence.
Mr Rob Mitchell: What's Ashby done now?
Mr PYNE: You've got no sense of timing, do you, Rob? That's your problem. Sorry, Mr Speaker. Members might like to know that our oldest former colleague, Henry George Pearce, who was first elected in 1949, is celebrating his 100th birthday tomorrow. We wish Henry George Pearce a happy 100th birthday.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr PYNE: It's a message to all of us that, with a bit of clean living, like the member for Grayndler and I, you can live a long time, despite being a member of this place.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Parliament House: Security
The SPEAKER (15:25): I wish to provide the House with an update on construction work that will begin soon on the House of Representatives' entrance here at Parliament House. Members will recall that a program of capital works to strengthen the perimeter security of Parliament House is being undertaken in response to the heightened threat environment. This work, of course, was agreed to by both houses in December of last year.
This work will cause significant disruption and affect access to the building at various times in the coming months, and so today I wanted to remind you of the impacts that will be felt in the next few weeks, including during the two upcoming October sitting weeks. Work on the House of Representatives entrance will begin on 18 September. This will involve work on the perimeter fence and the construction of a temporary entrance adjacent to the existing House of Representatives entrance.
The main impact you will notice during this early part of the work is there will be no vehicle access to the House of Representatives slip-road, including during the upcoming two October sitting weeks. To remind members: the slip-road is the road used by Comcar to drop members at the House of Representatives entrance. Comcar drop-offs and pick-ups for members will still be available on the House of Representatives side, in the members car park and on Parliament Drive. Members may also choose to use the slip-road on the Senate side of the building, which will be operating. You should contact the Sergeant-at-Arms' office if you have any questions about the arrangements.
The existing House of Representatives entrance will remain open for the time being; however, the media doorstop area on the House of Representatives side will be temporarily relocated to a House of Representatives courtyard. Members will be provided with a map indicating the location before the beginning of the next sitting fortnight.
The members and House of Representatives car parks will remain open, and access to the building will remain normal until mid-December via the internal stairs and car park lift as well as via the Parliament Drive stairs. From mid-December until late March 2018, the House of Representatives entrance and car park lift will be closed. Access to the building from all levels of the car parks will be by way of stairs and a walkway leading to the temporary entrance. The slip-road will be open for Comcar drop-offs and pick-ups at this time. At a later date, the Department of Parliamentary Services will provide further advice on access arrangements, including for users of disabled car spaces. The Parliament House entrance at the public entry and the ministerial wing will operate as normal.
I acknowledge this work is going to have an impact on us all. I ask members and their staff to be patient and courteous with the parliamentary officials who are there to assist them, and to prepare in advance for travelling to and from the building so that disruption and inconvenience is kept to a minimum. I thank all members for their understanding as this important work to improve the physical security of Parliament House is undertaken. I thank the House.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Turnbull Government
The SPEAKER (15:29): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The broken promises and failures of the Government.
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—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:29): After that display during the last answer in question time by the Prime Minister, it is my sad authority to inform the Australian people that the transformation is complete: the member for Wentworth has now become the member for Warringah. Two years ago today, when question time finished, the member for Wentworth followed the member for Warringah out of the door, ready to seize the destiny denied to him by his predecessor. He followed him out the door, but what none of us realised when we watched him follow him out the door was that the member for Wentworth would follow the member for Warringah on every other issue from then onwards.
We have a weak Prime Minister. That is at the heart of the government's dysfunction—a Prime Minister who leads a government united by only one thing: their hatred of Labor, their dislike of the opposition and their dislike of unions. If you take that issue away, there is nothing left of this government. This is a government that can agree on nothing amongst themselves. I could talk today about the costly marriage equality survey—because they couldn't agree—and I could talk today about climate change. But nowhere is the dysfunction and the disunity of this government more on display than with energy prices.
I don't know if government MPs will go to the airport tonight and return to their electorates satisfied with their performance over the past two weeks. I can assure them that, whatever they think, Australians are not satisfied with the state of politics in this country. In the last two weeks, in energy policy in particular, we have seen why Australians are growing to hate politics in Australia. We see a disunity crippling the nation, crippling decision-making, and, most importantly for this parliament, crippling the trust that Australians have in our system. And we see a Prime Minister, who so desperately wanted the job, but, ever since getting the job, all he's wanted to do is hang on to the job and sacrifice every principle he ever stood for.
Two years ago the Prime Minister said to the people of Australia, 'There must be an end to policy on the run and captain's calls.' So the Prime Minister asked the Chief Scientist, who he personally appointed, to prepare a report. The Chief Scientist did the work and when the report came out the Prime Minister's initial reaction about the Clean Energy Target was, 'It has a lot of merit. We will look upon it favourably.' But one comment from the member for Warringah and all we have smelt is the burning rubber of the reversing tyres of the Prime Minister's car. How can it be that the Prime Minister asks the smartest person in the room to do the homework on energy prices, and then he gives to it the dumbest people in the room to mark the homework?
What world do they live in, this government of out-of-touch, unfair MPs? We had the energy minister—what an extraordinary spectacle—standing in parliament and essentially telling the Australian people, 'You've never had it better off when it comes to electricity prices.' It is now apparently the position of the government that, whenever the coalition's in charge, they are putting prices down but, whenever Labor is in charge, that isn't happening. The issue is that the energy minister has said that Australian families and businesses are paying nearly $500 less than they were four years ago. What parallel universe does the Turnbull government live in? The Australian people do not need an out-of-touch energy minister or Prime Minister telling them their power bills are going up. They see the proof every time they open them up. I thought it was a parallel universe in today's question time, as must the Australian people—those who still listen to question time. They must have wondered what on earth the Prime Minister was saying when somehow he said things are getting better. No, Prime Minister, on energy, things are getting worse.
Business knows the facts and individuals and families know the fact. Facts are stubborn things. Wholesale electricity prices have doubled under this government. New South Wales residents have been hit with power price increases of up to 20 per cent alone this year. CSR industrial company reported a 17 per cent increase in the cost of energy. Their bill will exceed $100 million—fact. BlueScope are increasing their energy bill, what they pay, by 75 per cent between 2016 and 2018—fact. And, if the Prime Minister doesn't believe any of that, he should take a day trip from Point Piper out to Parramatta and see how many people clap him on the back and say: 'Well done, old chap! Thank you for raising my electricity prices.' In fact, the Prime Minister should have a postal survey and find out what Australians think about electricity prices and gas prices. He loves the internet; he invented it. He should go on Facebook and see how many people press 'like' when asked whether their prices have gone up. I promise you I know what the result would be.
But instead of getting on with legislating a clean energy target, instead of pulling the trigger on the gas, instead of taking action, all we have seen from this government is schoolyard insults. And whatever happens, the human blame factory, which is now the coalition government, blames everyone else. It blames the states; it blames Labor; it blames previous administrations; it blames future administrations. It blames everybody. It blames the companies; it blames the unions. There is no-one in this country that this government hasn't blamed, except itself.
The fact of the matter is that the climate change and energy price political wars which have dogged this nation from 2007 have got manifestly worse since the coalition was elected in 2013. Anyone who knows anything about gas and energy prices knows that the problem in Australia is a lack of policy certainty. But the problem is that this Prime Minister is so weak that he can't follow the science, the evidence and the facts. Instead, he is tormented by his own bullies, those on the backbench, who insist that we must not change; we must not look at more renewable energy; we must not look at how we have a clean energy target. It is a sorry hallmark. And we see it in the Prime Minister's demeanour. Sure, he gets the odd juice, an energy bolt—he has a bit of Red Bull before he comes into parliament, and he turns red. But the normal and increasingly familiar demeanour of the Prime Minister is of a Prime Minister visibly shrinking and ageing in the job. This is not the job he thought it would be. This is not the job he signed up for. There are all these irritating facts. There is this opposition which doesn't immediately bow down in front of him. His backbench won't do as he says. And the world keeps changing. But of course his motto is: 'There go my people. I must follow them. I am their leader.'
This is a weak Prime Minister. The only thing this out-of-touch Prime Minister can do is tell people what isn't true. The truth is that power prices are going up. It was an unusual competition today to show who was more out of touch. We had the colt from Kooyong and the show pony from Point Piper. And the poor old Minister for the Environment and Energy, feeling a little emboldened, decided to trail his coat. Indeed, he was shredded by the member for Port Adelaide today. In the end, the leader of the government in the House of Reps had to gag their own motion. Mind you, to be fair to that proud son, the inheritor of the Menzian spirit in Kooyong—he loves to finish on a self-proclaimed quote—I'll give him points for this one. At the very end that proud son of Menzies stared valiantly across the dispatch box and declared, 'I end where I finish.' If only he could bring that compelling, laser-like logic to his portfolio!
But the real problem here is that we will have a four-week break from parliament when it rises today, and Australian families and businesses are rightly frustrated that we are no closer to any action on the energy crisis. The weakness of the Prime Minister masks the bigger problems: rising prices, lack of investment, shortages in power and increasing carbon pollution. Now, there's a mix of causes: privatisation and price gouging, gas supply, a dysfunctional national energy market and four years plus of doing nothing. This feasibility study of the Snowy—fair enough, but it won't generate an extra watt of power now; in fact, when it's done it won't generate an extra watt of power. Talking to the companies, getting them to redo their marketing strategy and send letters, doesn't generate any extra power. Australia needs a plan now.
Labor is prepared to offer Australians, in the spirit of compromise, a plan. This is what we want Australians to hear. We should pull the gas export trigger now. We should end the war on renewables, and we should have a clean energy target to help keep prices down.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (15:39): The title of this MPI is 'The broken promises and failures of the government', and I thought I would talk today about the successes of the Turnbull government as a counter to that. I thought it would be a lot more compelling than the 10 minutes of attempted personal sledges and humour, which missed the mark most broadly, although there was a five-second plan at the end of it—almost. Four of the five seconds were filled with the plan.
Obviously, the most important job of a federal government is to keep its citizens safe. Since coming to office, the coalition has increased counterterrorism funding by $1.5 billion. Since September 2014 there have been 13 attempted major terrorism attacks, 74 people have been charged as a result of 31 counterterrorism operations, and 40 people have been convicted of terrorism offences. The coalition has invested more than $45 million over the past four years in programs to counter radicalisation and to remove online terrorist propaganda, more than triple that of the previous Labor government. We are talking about introducing laws where we can pull young, misguided children off planes. I have sat with the families of those affected when those laws weren't in place, and they have just been so disappointed they weren't, because they will never see their sons again.
What did we have under Labor in counterterrorism? It was a budget-cutting item. They cut 700 staff and $735 million from Customs over their six years. There was embarrassment for the member for Blaxland, who was the minister at the time, when the biggest ever catch of amphetamines was found in Regents Park in his electorate under his watch. Labor cut staff from Australia's federal law enforcement and border protection agencies, and under Labor we had record low investment in security of Australian citizens.
The second most important job of the federal government is to protect our borders. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, each time he stands at this box, talks about the fact that the boats have stopped, and they are still stopped. Kids are out of detention. Seventeen detention centres are closed. There have been citizenship changes and 457 visa changes to protect the jobs of Australians.
Then you get to the economy, my favourite topic, which was completely neglected by the Leader of the Opposition. There were personal tax cuts delivered, and 500,000 middle income earners benefited from them.
Mr Hill: What are you doing with your tax cut?
Mr LAUNDY: There have been company tax cuts delivered that drive investment, profitability and employment. The member asked: what are we doing with our tax cuts? What are businesses doing with their tax cuts? My family, I would suggest, are doing what every business in this country is doing: reinvesting in their business, growing their business and employing more Australians. I will get to the results of it at the end. Thank you for asking.
You have free trade agreements. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources stood at the dispatch box today. There is a 39 per cent increase in the agricultural sector over the past five years. We have ChAFTA, the Japan-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Korean free trade agreement and updating of the Singapore free trade agreement, and you have results like this: chilled and frozen beef exports were $670 million in calendar year 2016, up fourfold from 2012—300 per cent. Sheepmeat exports were $240 million in calendar year 2016, more than double—100 per cent above—those of four years ago. Grape exports were $102 million, a sixfold increase. These are the sorts of results we are having at the back end: businesses growing their profitability and yet again employing more people.
Ms Flint: Employing more Australians.
Mr LAUNDY: Employing more Australians, as the member for Boothby knows in her electorate.
Then you have the ABCC—the Australian Building and Construction Commission—and the registered organisation and corrupting benefits legislation, making sure that the rule of law is in Australian workplaces and that unions operate with the same responsibility as company directors have and that, if payments are made to union officials, there is vision and transparency. Why? Because members pay their fees in good faith. They expect that their union leadership is representing them in good faith. If there are payments being received and they don't know about them, and they are going to outside organisations like GetUp! that are then campaigning against coalmines and coal workers' jobs, I don't think that is in good faith.
What are the Turnbull government doing for small business? There are tax cuts, as I've mentioned, and the instant asset write-off. We're working on competition reform. Again, those opposite are not in favour of competition reform. Why? Because it doesn't suit big business. And what's the relationship? It's big business and big unions in bed together, robbing low-paid workers. They do it through EBAs, and they're trying to do it through competition reform.
We've lifted Labor's frozen Medicare rebate.
There is defence spending reform—again, a favourite budget item of those opposite through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. They cut it by 10 per cent, or $5.5 billion. It got to the lowest amount since 1938. We had not one ship built in the six years on their watch. We have announced a massive rollout, $200 billion worth, and there will be jobs galore in states like South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales, as the supply chains that we need through the procurement lever that we use in government are backfilled, engaging with businesses from SMEs to large businesses. Primes are motivated to engage with Australian SMEs. Why? Again, it's because of profitability increases. Growth comes, and then more jobs.
There is $75 billion, as announced in the budget, on infrastructure spending; the country needs it.
There are child care reforms starting next July. There is education reform, with Gonski 2.0. Again, you heard it in question time: there were 27 different agreements in the lead-up to the last election, with Labor running around the country offering different people different deals. Why? So they could have a political win. There was no structure, no thought in it, other than political expediency. That has been cleaned up by the minister for education.
Those opposite came up with the idea—their idea; I give them full credit for it—of the NDIS, and there was bipartisan support. It is hard to budget what these things will cost in the longer term. These things grow. Forecasts are more inaccurate the longer they go. There have been funding shortfalls that have come on our watch. But, in our commitment to that initiative, we have found ways that we can fix those funding shortfalls.
Just today, the Turnbull government delivered the latest addition to No Jab, No Pay—there are 210,000 kids in stage 1 of this—to insist that parents vaccinate their kids for the safety of their children and the other children that they interact with, be it at child care or at school.
Media reforms were announced, passing late last night—long-needed reforms of laws that came into effect before there was the internet, and here they are.
What do you get at the end of all that? You get the economic statistics that the Treasurer announced today. You are talking about 800,000 jobs that have been created in the last five years—250,000 in the last 12 months. You are talking about 11 months of continuous job growth. And, of those 250,000 jobs, 80 per cent are full-time, arresting the trend that has unfolded historically, driven through the GFC, of the casualisation and underemployment problem in this country. You've got—
Ms Flint: Greater business confidence.
Mr LAUNDY: Exactly! Why have you got that? In 11 of the last 13 months, there has been an increase in full-time jobs, the greatest stretch we have had in that statistic in the past 23 years. Why have you got it? Because you've got a government that believes in business and its right to profit so that it can employ more people and so jobs will grow. What do you have opposite? You have a tax-and-spend mentality. We've seen it before. It doesn't work. For the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and attempt personal sledges and humour, and completely ignore the economy is the latest example of how out of touch he is.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:49): It is a great thing for me that I've had the opportunity to speak today. I had hoped to speak earlier today during the motion that was moved by the Minister for the Environment and Energy but, sadly and kind of bizarrely, the government gagged its own urgency motion that was supposed to be criticising Labor. It was all going so well that they actually had to cut the debate short! If the Minister for the Environment and Energy had been in here, I would've advised him to rethink those great ideas he had after his third Tia Maria and milk after dinner, because what seems like a great idea at 11 o'clock at night after a few Tia Marias doesn't always bear examination first thing in the morning.
I'm glad I have the opportunity to speak now, having been thrown out a little earlier, because I really do want to talk about the broken promises and failures of the Turnbull government. I have a little confession to make: even I thought things would get better with the member for Wentworth in charge. You look at member for Warringah, the Neanderthal policies, the name-calling, the boorish negativity and you think, 'Oh God; anything has to be better than this, right?' We all thought that. We thought of 'leather jacket, ABC-loving, Q&A Malcolm', who was a supporter of climate change, marriage equality and who was doing something on the republic. We thought, 'This guy has to be better than the member for Warringah.' Oh my goodness, haven't we been disappointed! Because every single one the reasons that people thought the member for Wentworth would have to be better than the member for Warringah, he's given up on, walked away from, left behind and discarded—every single one. In 2012 he said:
I am always careful that the political positions I take are consistent with good policy. I would not want to be prime minister of Australia at any price—
No, not at any price, but we know the price: it was $1.7 million. He was very critical of the three-word-slogans of the member for Warringah. He's certainly had a productivity improvement; he has two-word slogans. He's 33 per cent more effective than the member for Warringah. He's gone from three-word slogans to 'jobs and growth', 'engineering and economics' and, my personal favourite, 'continuity and change'. That went so well!
Mr Falinski: 'Jobs and growth' is three; shall we help you to count?
Ms PLIBERSEK: No, he did it with a little gesture, a little upsilon—
Mr Bowen: Ampersand.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Yes, ampersand is the one. Again, he delivered on that. Continuity and change is the one he has delivered, because he changed everything he believed in to deliver continuity with the policies of the member for Warringah. The Prime Minister said:
I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.
That went well! In 2009 he wrote:
Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.
They're in their fifth year of government and they still don't have a policy. He continues to refuse to pull the gas trigger to keep more Australian gas in Australia. He continues to refuse to provide the certainty that would see more investment in renewables and storage. We know that, despite getting the cleverest person in Australia, Professor Finkel, to write a draft report, which said we had to do an emissions intensity scheme, the government said 'no, we can't really cope with that'. Professor Finkel says 'alright, I'll give you the second best thing: a clean energy target'. Despite everyone on this side of the House and most of the people on that side being prepared to compromise and work with them on that, and the same in the Senate, this little group of half-a-dozen or 10 people up here get to hold this whole parliament and this whole country to ransom, because the man who sits there isn't brave enough to stand up to them on climate change, on marriage equality, on the republic, on proper funding for the ABC. He's given that to One Nation as a trade-off for their support. (Time expired)
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (15:54): I do greatly appreciate the compliment of being pointed to as one of the people that's running the country. I feel very privileged. I hope the people in the electorate of Mallee realise just how powerful this area of the parliament is. She pointed over in our direction, I think. I thought Ian was included there. We are certainly very, very powerful!
I want to just talk to the class of 2016 because there are some interesting people there. In the class of 2016, you're learning from the best. But when you're in opposition—for the class of 2016—you have to be an alternate government. We are in our fifth year. There is not one policy that I have heard this afternoon that says to the Australian people that you're an alternate government. Do the work. Now's the time to do the work, to prove to the Australian people that, if they vote for you, this is what you'll do. But you're not doing the work. You're sledging. Come on! This is about an alternate government, and all you can do is sledge instead of outlaying exactly what you're going to do.
In contrast—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I remind members who are out of their place that they are being disorderly.
Mr BROAD: there are some people in this parliament who are doing the work. I want to run you through some of the work that we're doing. Essentially, you've got to create the economy that rewards endeavour and that rewards those who take risk. That's the economy that we're doing. I've got a little message for the people on the other side: you can't build the society you want unless—
Mr Hill: Look out; it's a message.
Mr BROAD: Yes, so listen to this, class of 2016. You're all ears! You can't do the things you want to do unless you've got the economy to pay for it. Do you know how you get the economy to pay for it? You encourage those who get up earlier in the morning and go to work. You encourage those who take a little bit of risk, and they've got to do a little bit better than others. We understand how to reward those who have a go.
I want to say that the people in my patch have benefited greatly from the free trade agreement. There's something we did: free trade agreements. Then, when you produce something, instead of getting $20 for it, you get $60 for it. That means more money. Do you know what that means? It means you might put on an apprentice. That apprentice might have a job, so you have a job. And that apprentice might save up and buy a ute. That means a car that's sold.
I want to tell you: this is how an economy runs. You start with maximising—Mr Shadow Treasurer, you're going to learn something. You start with maximising everything you produce. The next step though, of course, is that, when you create a free trade agreement, you get extra products. You've got to be able to get them to the market. You've got to be able to get your products to the market. Are you listening, class of 2016? So what you do is that you build a railway line. We've got table grapes; we've got stone fruit; we've got everything you could ever produce in the Mallee. How does it get to the market? On a railway line. Who's building the railway line?
A government member: We are!
Mr BROAD: We are! We're building a big railway line. But this railway, at $240 million, is a big railway line with five trains a week, all full of great products produced in the Mallee. This is the sort of thing.
You know that, when you build the economy, then you've got an opportunity to look after those who you want to invest in. Who do we want to invest in? We want to invest in our children. Who has developed and delivered school funding for our children? I think it was our side. I heard a lot of talk on that side, but who delivered it? It's our side. Do you know that every school, and there are 119 schools in the electorate of Mallee, gets more? Every one of them gets more.
What we're hearing here is that I'm starting to lay out some of the fundamentals of running an economy. But all we've got from the other side continues to be sledging, not an alternate government, people of Australia. What I want to see from the class of 2016 are ideas, people! You're fresh; you're new. But do I hear ideas? I don't hear ideas. All we've got here this afternoon is a whole combination of talking about how the government hasn't delivered and how the government hasn't done that. But what are you going to do? Nothing! There is not one new idea amongst the class of 2016. You've learnt how to play the game. You've learned how to get yourselves thrown out of question time. But, if you want to be the alternate government, you need to come up with some alternate ideas to take to the Australian people to deliver better outcomes for everyday Australians.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I realise it is Thursday afternoon, but the excitement is getting a little bit over the top.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (16:00): Four years ago a Prime Minister was elected, and that Prime Minister promised an adrenaline rush to the economy on the government's election. He promised a return to budget surplus. That Prime Minister said that the budget would be fixed just by their very election. He said that the Liberal Party were like a fire truck turning up at an emergency. Two years later—two years ago today—that Prime Minister had to be cut down from office by his own side. What was the rationale for getting rid of that Prime Minister? A lack of economic leadership—that's what we were told by his friends, let alone what we thought of his performance as Prime Minister.
That new Prime Minister promised new economic leadership, fixing up the mistakes of his predecessor, the member for Warringah. What have we seen since then? We've seen the deficit for the last financial year in this year's budget more than triple since their first budget, and we've seen the deficit for this financial year in the budget blow out by more than 10 times what it was projected to be in their first budget. Debt has crashed through the half-a-trillion-dollar mark. I don't know if that's new economic leadership, but it's not the economic leadership the Australian people were looking for from that political party.
We were also promised, consistently, that they were a party of low tax. 'This is the party of low tax'—we still hear it today. We heard it from the member for Reid—not from the member for Mallee, because we didn't hear anything of substance from him. At least we heard the member for Reid say that they're a party of low tax. They are the party that introduced $20 billion worth of tax rises in the budget this year. What we did hear from the member for Mallee was: 'You've got to put out alternative policies. You've got to put your ideas forward to the Australian people.'
An opposition member: He's an ideas man.
Mr BOWEN: Yes. I don't remember the $20 billion worth of tax rises being put forward by those members opposite before the election. They were announced after the election. But of course what the government believe in is different tax, not lower tax—different tax, taxing different people. They have legislation before the parliament, as part of that $20 billion worth of tax rises, to tax every Australian earning more than $21,000. That's their policy. That's their new economic leadership. In fact, the Treasurer's own budget papers show that the Liberals will have increased taxes for every Australian person—every man, woman and child—by $1,906. That is what a low-tax party apparently delivers. I'd hate to see what they would do if they had confessed that they were a high-tax party.
We are seeing tax to GDP go up every year on this Treasurer's watch and under the government's tutelage, and they dare to lecture us. They dare to lecture us—because they actually believe in tax rises. They believe in increasing the tax on every Australian earning more than $21,000. Well, $21,000 a year is not very much money. It's particularly not very much money when you have wages going backwards and when people are having their penalty rates cut. And what's the government's answer? Cut the penalty rates and increase their tax. That's what the government deliver. I don't remember that being promised at any election either. I don't remember hearing about those sorts of policies in 2013 or 2016.
Then we have the issue of the day: the impact on the Australian people and on Australian business of this government's complete lack of control of energy policy. We see this government lurch from one bad idea to the other. We're now told the answer to the energy crisis which is engulfing us today is to keep a 50-year-old coal-fired power station open in five years time. That's what we are told is the answer. AGL and energy companies are meant to make investment decisions when this government can't even deliver them a coherent policy framework in which they will make those investment decisions.
But it's all okay, because the Minister for the Environment and Energy tells us prices are down. The minister for energy's answers are like a Coles ad. 'Down, down,' he says. 'Prices are down,' he tells the House. He tells the Australian people: 'It's all okay. Mission accomplished. It's all good.' Well, the people of Sydney find this a considerable surprise. But we don't, because we know how out of touch this government is, led by the most out-of-touch Prime Minister in living memory. It's permeated down to the cabinet now, to the minister for energy, who says we have no crisis. 'What crisis?' he says. 'Prices are down,' he tells the Australian people. It takes more than the Frydenberg declaration to bring prices down. (Time expired)
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (16:05): Well, I like 'the Frydenberg declaration'! I also like good MPIs, but this is a bad MPI. This motion is to MPIs what an organic soya tofu is to dessert. Labor, you have ruined my favourite meal of dinner. Bad Labor! So what we've got today—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Yes, I'm as confused by your energy policy as you are. I've got to say that, the last time the member for McMahon and I were getting lectured, it was by Yanis Varoufakis. I had the decency to argue with the guy. Clearly the member for McMahon took him seriously. You're not a serious economist in the Labor Party side until you've bankrupted at least one country and potentially a continent!
Mr Bowen: We all had better hair then!
Mr FALINSKI: We all had better hair. That's quite true, member for McMahon.
This MPI is coming from a party that gave us the pink batts and the school halls. It never gets old, Member for McMahon. Don't think we'll be forgetting about that soon. They cut defence spending and lost control of our borders. Twelve hundred people died at sea. Ten thousand children were in detention. And there were all the unfunded programs that they created. And now they've come up with diversions about changing the date on which we celebrate Australia Day. But they have come up with one job program. The job program they've come up with is one for engravers for all those statues that need to be rewritten around Australia!
Mr Butler: Who proposed that? Is that the best you've got?
Mr FALINSKI: Oh, I've got much better, but you'd have to listen, and you're not. 'When all that fails, we just make it up. That's what we do.' I can just see the tactics committee. 'What can we say today? I know what. We'll say that electricity prices in Sydney have gone up by $1,000 per household since the Liberals were in power.' It then turns out that, when we go off to the AER and say: 'What's actually happened here? Labor is telling us your figures are wrong,' the AER comes back and says, 'Some prices have gone up by a dollar and a lot went down by a few hundred dollars.' Why was that?
Of course, the people of New South Wales got an early taste of what Labor policymaking looks like when you set it free on energy markets. Under the Carr government, under Eddie Obeid, under Ian Macdonald—the man whose every friend had to have a coalmine—and, let's not forget, Joe Tripodi, we ended up with Sydney electricity prices per household going up 300 per cent. By the time we got into government, there was only one way for them to go down, member for McMahon, and that was the road of the coals. These guys think they understand policy and they seriously think the Australian people will trust them with fixing energy. Any single person who lives in New South Wales saw what the Labor Party did in government.
In government we've cut taxes, we've signed free trade agreements, we've reduced regulation and we've reduced debt. Debt would have been more than double what it is now under us if we'd left you there. And we funded Gonski and NDIS. You guys couldn't do any of that. We've even lifted your Medicare levy freeze. We are the party of hope. You blokes are the party of nope.
And all of this has resulted in us creating 800,000 jobs since we got elected. On the very day that we can point to 800,000 jobs being created under this government, Labor decides to pull on this MPI. That's why it is the organic soya tofu dessert of the dinner party. Under the Turnbull government, almost 500,000 jobs have been created. We have seen 11 consecutive months of jobs being created. We have not seen a run that long in 23 years. This is the momentum that this government is building, and you guys should get out of the way and just say, 'Thank you'.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (16:10): It is contributions like that that exemplify how long a sitting fortnight can be. That was just extraordinary! This MPI is a particular matter of public importance because it is two years ago today, as we said in question time, that the member for Wentworth defenestrated the member for Warringah on the promise of so much—so much of substance. But I think the thing that the now Prime Minister promised the Australian people wasn't so much specific policy, it was that there would be a change in the nature of politics. Constituents of our side of parliament as well, I'm sure, as that side of parliament felt a sense of relief that there had been a change. They felt that the member for Wentworth was promising to turn a new page in Australian politics, to bring politics back to the centre and to talk intelligently to the Australian people instead of talking to them in three-word slogans. When he made a promise, they thought he would keep the promise, because they remembered that in 2009 this was a fellow willing to lose his job as the Leader of the Opposition for a principle: standing up for effective action on climate change.
If there is one promise that the Australian people most associate with the member for Wentworth, now the Prime Minister, it is the promise he made in 2009 that, 'I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am'. Of all the disappointments from this Prime Minister, of all the broken promises, it is that one that gets raised with this side of the House most often by the Australian people. It exemplifies, most starkly, the change in this man and the shrinking in the public profile of what the Australian people thought they had in the member for Wentworth. There are any number of policies around climate change that I could raise to exemplify that point, but it is particularly in energy policy that this Prime Minister has entirely subordinated his power as Prime Minister to the member for Warringah. It is so clear that the member for Warringah in different areas of policy, but most notably in this one, exercises an effective veto over this government. Two years ago they changed the Prime Minister, but the same bloke still controls the power.
There are any number of aspects to this failure on energy policy. This country has been plunged into a deep energy crisis by this government. Prices are skyrocketing. Reliability is plummeting. The Energy Market Operator has warned that two-thirds of the country over coming summers will be at risk of blackouts. Over this government's time in power, seven coal-fired power stations have been closed. That is the amount of power equivalent to the demand from six million households. Yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted, 'Well, during the last decade, 2,900 megawatts of dispatchable gas-fired generation has been added.' He didn't add that every single one of those megawatts was added to the system under the last Labor government. When they saw that the member for Warringah was going to wreck the country's climate and energy policies, investment certainty fell off a cliff in this country. For that reason, we have not seen a single megawatt of dispatchable power added to the National Electricity Market in more than four years of this government. Four-thousand megawatts have gone out of the system under them. Not a single megawatt of dispatchable power has been added to the system by this government.
And this government's got a blueprint. They've got a pathway out of this: a report commissioned by this government from their own chief scientist, supported by the states and supported by industry. We've said that we'll play a constructive role in negotiating around this report. But the member for Warringah still holds the whip hand. Two years on, you still know who controls this government. It's not the bloke who sits in this chair; it's the one who comes in late to question time every day and sits up there: the member for Warringah. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:15): Well, we know what the member for Port Adelaide would offer the people of Australia if he ever became the energy minister of the Commonwealth: hiccups, you can bank on; confessions, you can bank on; a national electricity market modelled on that great experiment we're seeing underway in South Australia.
When I read the text of today's matter of public importance, I thought at first there might have been a spelling mistake in it. I thought they might have misspelled the name 'Queensland', or maybe the name 'Palaszczuk', and that what they actually wanted to talk about today was that Queensland Labor government—approaching a state election in a few weeks time or months time, possibly—failing to achieve anything at all in their three years in office. But, from listening to the opposition leader and those opposite, I have now come to the realisation that the opposition leader really wanted to set out his plan. I think 'parallel universe' was the phrase that I heard him use a couple of times in his speech—a parallel universe, where he wishes that all of those misleading lines he spouted were true, and where his Mediscare-type lines and his policy scares were somehow true.
No-one can put it better than the Prime Minister did just a few hours ago in this very place. He called out how crazy it is for this opposition to be moving this motion today—this motion about delivery of competent governance—at the same time as we've had such positive economic news. We've just had the numbers: 54,000 Australian jobs were created this month, 40,000 of them full-time. We are delivering when it comes to jobs and growth. I've got the numbers right here in front of me. Since the coalition government was elected in 2013, over 800,000 jobs have been created. Since Malcolm Turnbull became the Prime Minister of Australia, almost 500,000 jobs have been created. We've now seen 11 consecutive months of job creation. We've not seen a longer run of job creation in 23 years, and it shows the momentum that's currently building in Australia's labour market. Over the past six months, the first six months of this year, we've seen over a quarter of a million jobs created. That's the strongest six-month gain that we've seen in years and years—almost two decades. Eighty per cent of those jobs have been full time. We're seeing not only more jobs but also more Australians engaging in the labour market. So not only are we seeing the unemployment rate coming down; we're seeing the participation rate going up. In particular, I want to call out the female participation rate in Australia, which is now its highest on record. Today's numbers also show amazing figures for youth employment, because—while there's still a lot more to do, obviously—over the past six months, over 60,000 young Australians gained employment. That's the strongest gain in youth employment in this country since the GFC. These are amazing economic statistics that we're seeing. They are record numbers, and they're the sorts of numbers that we hope to see, as a result of our enterprise tax plan and our economic plan as we roll it out, in the better days ahead that we've been working so hard to achieve for all Australians. They're the sorts of results that we will continue to see as we further implement our economic plan.
In the 14 months since I was elected as part of this government as a new MP, we've delivered personal income tax cuts; we've delivered company tax cuts for small and medium businesses; we've delivered childcare reforms; we've unfrozen Labor's freeze on the Medicare rebate; and we've boosted schools funding and delivered the real Gonski. We've delivered massive free trade agreements that are unlocking huge potential for Australia in this region. Obviously, media reform today is just the latest example of this government getting on with the job and delivering. There's a litany—a long list—of other achievements there.
I did want to very quickly say that in Brisbane I'm working really hard to deliver on my election commitments as well. This week, constituents right around Brisbane will have received my first annual report, reporting on my work and my achievements in my first year of office. The people of Brisbane right now are seeing work happening on the Bruce Highway, on the M1, on the Inner City Bypass and on Kingsford Smith Drive. I had the Prime Minister in town late last year, when we delivered $10 million of extra funding to get the early planning work right for great future projects like the Cross River Rail and Brisbane's Metro project.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:20): I think the member for Ballarat is going to miss it by two minutes, so I'll make the contribution. Today we have seen the transformation of a Prime Minister to the point where there is, in fact, nothing left. I remember when we had the very first couple of weeks of parliament after the 2013 election. The member for Warringah came in here with a clever little catchphrase—a name-calling exercise that he would engage in—for the Leader of the Opposition. This week we saw almost exactly the same game—almost exactly the same playbook of having a play on someone's name.
To think that this is the Prime Minister who said he was going to bring a more civilised debate. This is the Prime Minister who said he would be able to provide a more intelligent debate than the member for Warringah. Today and this whole week, we've seen it has actually become verbatim the exact same template. The economic policy is the same. The marriage equality policy is the same. The rhetoric is the same. Who would have thought the climate policy would also end up being exactly the same? Who would have thought that that leader who, years ago, crossed the floor to vote for Labor's energy policies would now stand there as Prime Minister, ridiculing Labor's energy policies? He's not just ridiculing Labor's policies now, but the exact policies that he had voted for.
This party has become so driven with chaos that they are in a situation where to do something about energy prices there are two actions they can take right now: they can act on the gas trigger, and they can act on a clean energy target. But they can't act on the gas trigger because we don't know if the Deputy Prime Minister is lawfully here, and they can't act on a clean energy target because the member for Warringah says they're not allowed to. He says they're not allowed to.
After the Finkel report came out, the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, gave all the reasons he thought the clean energy target was a good idea. He would go out there, backing it in, giving arguments as to why the clean energy target was the right way forward and the right solution. Then, on Tuesday, in one party room, the member for Warringah utters one sentence. Now, when we ask the Prime Minister, 'Does he support a clean energy target—yes or no?' he doesn't answer the question because he's no longer sure. He doesn't know what he will be told to believe. What he does know is that, whatever he's told to believe, he will believe it passionately. He will back it in. He will back in hard whatever he's told his beliefs are.
I was no fan of the member for Warringah. I was no fan of the member for Warringah as the previous Prime Minister, but at least we knew who we had. At least we knew who we had in that job, whereas now we've got somebody like a barrister with a brief, opening the folder and asking: 'Okay, what am I meant to argue today? What am I meant to believe today?' That's why, when they don't have any policies they can agree on, the only thing they can agree on is how much they hate the opposition. It doesn't matter what we ask, every answer is: 'This is how Labor is so bad. This is why we don't like Labor.'
It went to peak weirdness over that two-week break, when all of a sudden they decided to run this new argument that the Labor opposition was all about communism. We heard about Cuba, we heard about East Germany and we heard about the Berlin Wall. I've got to say, you've got to feel for the Russian revolutionaries. If only they knew that their whole battle was actually about reining in concessions on negative gearing. How would Castro's revolutionaries have felt if they knew that the whole struggle was actually about an extra half a per cent on the top marginal income tax rate?
.And yet these conspiracy theories are not being run by some random backbencher who they push out the door. No, these are people who used to be viewed as credible. The Minister for Finance is the one with the Berlin Wall conspiracy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs takes on the New Zealand conspiracy. And then, when they're finally asked a straight question about whether or not energy prices are going up or down in ordinary households, they claim they're going down. Well, I've got to say: go back to your electorates and run that argument. Go back to your electorates after this and ask. I remember sitting in opposition when John Howard made a similar claim— (Time expired)
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:25): It's great to hear from the member for Watson, the official king of chaos on the other side. We note that there was not one word about the economy, about jobs or about national security. He talked a lot about what Labor isn't. Mr Deputy Speaker, I'll tell you one thing that Labor isn't: there are no signs of the old Labor or the principles where the old Labor would stand up for blue-collar workers, would stand up for our manufacturers and would stand up for our coalminers. Where are the great old Labor figures of Hawke, Crean, Keating, Ferguson and Combet? Those great figures are embarrassed by what this mob has become. They are embarrassed!
Let us have a look at our record. We've made record investments to keep Australia safe, by investing in our national security and policing agencies. We are delivering record jobs growth: 800,000 jobs created in the last four years, reversing Labor's stagnating performance. Over the last 12 months the economy generated 325,000 new jobs, four times the rate of jobs growth compared with Labor's last year in office. We're investing in small businesses to grow jobs and confidence: we're cutting taxes, fixing our competition laws and providing the instant asset write-off. These are things that Labor used to believe in, but now it wants to drive up taxes and penalise Australia's two million small businesses.
We're stopping the rorts and corrupt payments, and restoring the rule of law on Australian building sites. We are stopping the dirty deals between big employers and big unions, like the shoppies union—of which the member for Watson is a member. He has not been prepared to stand up against those dirty, stinking deals which have seen young workers ripped off, lose their penalty rates altogether and even be paid under the award. We've introduced the ABCC to reinstate the rule of law on building sites around this country and to stop the likes of the CFMEU acting illegally and driving up the costs of construction. What a shame that members opposite won't take a leaf out of Bob Hawke's book and get rid of the CFMEU. They do not have the guts.
We've delivered record schools funding under the real Gonski—an increase of $23.5 billion, which Labor opposed. We're putting Australian jobs first. We're fixing our visa system. We've reversed Labor's horrific border protection policy failures, which saw 1,200 people die at sea and 10,000 children put behind bars.
And look at the Leader of the Opposition's record in Victoria. He's prevailed over several infrastructure investment disasters. There was the $4 billion regional rail link, a white elephant which now leaves commuters standing room only, and has treated the people of Geelong as second-class citizens. He never had the guts to stand up to Daniel Andrews when he abandoned the East West Link, at a cost of $1.24 billion, and all of those 7,000 blue-collar jobs—those blue-collar workers—a project he previously supported. And Labor's West Gate Tunnel Project has been exposed as a sham.
But nothing takes the cake like Labor's energy policy. Our government is driving down energy prices by reserving gas, holding the electricity companies to account, building Snowy Hydro 2.0, standing up for base-load power, standing up for coalminers and standing up for the coalmining industry. The Leader of the Opposition never had the guts to stand up for manufacturing workers in the La Trobe Valley and hold Daniel Andrews to account when he forced Hazelwood to close. Labor's record is absolutely appalling. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Report
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:29): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme—interim report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr ANDREWS: by leave—In summary, the committee has deep concerns that the NDIA is failing to provide appropriate and timely services for hearing-impaired children, with significant disruption of early intervention services, the failure to develop early intervention packages and inadequate and underfunded plans. These issues need to be addressed urgently.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:30): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr GEORGANAS: I do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may proceed.
Mr GEORGANAS: Today in question time, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said that, while I was a director of the board of Statewide Super, the super fund made a payment to the South Australian Labor Party. As the Adelaide Advertiser clearly reported, well before question time—in fact, last night—about that payment in 2015-16:
The super fund said this was not a donation but a refund for super payments inadvertently made to the wrong account by the ALP.
The minister should withdraw.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:31): It being 4.31 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Northern Territory: Business
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:31): I thank everyone for their patience while I get my phone sorted! Last night, I was very proud to co-host with Senator Nigel Scullion a bipartisan event called Facing North. I thank all those members of this House and the other place who attended. It was a very successful night, and I was very appreciative of everyone coming along, getting into the spirit of it and talking to the over 100 Territorians who flew down from Darwin and other places in the Territory to take part, promote the north and talk to parliamentarians about our vast capacity and our vast resources, a lot of which remain untapped—potential unfulfilled. In particular, I thank my parliamentary colleagues Warren Snowdon and Malarndirri McCarthy, as well as Senator Scullion, for working with me and with the other organisers, the Darwin Major Business Group and the Northern Territory government. It was great to have the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, here with his deputy and Treasurer, Nicole Manison. It is always fantastic to see our Territory colleagues down here because, with only four out of 226 parliamentarians, trying as we might and fighting as we must, working in a collegiate way with our colleagues, we need to be selling the Territory's message at every opportunity. So we did that last night in a big way.
I thank Ian Kew for his leadership in this area. Ian runs Northern Territory Airports but also chairs the Darwin Major Business Group. Along with many other captains of industry in the Northern Territory, characters from the Territory and successful cultural exports like Matty Wright, the Outback Wrangler, we put together a bit of an event last night that, hopefully, captured the imagination of people, not only because of their great fondness for the Territory but also because of a deeper appreciation of our most varied culture, landscape, characters, businesses and capacities. Territorians are an innovative bunch and we saw that last night. We saw it through the great displays there but also in the marvellous way in which the Karen Sheldon catering team, with those young Territorians, made amazing food from Territory products like buffalo, crocodile, magpie goose and pearl meat from the Paspaley company.
I thank the Paspaley company and the other sponsors for the assistance they gave us in putting together what was a cultured larrikin experience, epitomised by a chat that I had with Matty Wright on Sky News. He's a great export, in his third season of Outback Wrangler—he's hitting the States soon—and is a great ambassador for tourism to the Northern Territory. I want also to thank CapitalHill Advisory, particularly Catherine and Sarah, who did a wonderful job assisting us to put this quite complex event together. We had Green Ant Gin, which was made into wonderful cocktails. We had many and varied contributors to the event. CapitalHill Advisory did a fantastic job, so I just want to thank them.
Most of all, I want to thank the Territorians who came along. It's a long way to come down—as I know, looking to fly back home tonight—but for Territory businesses it's worth the trip down. The networking that we did last night will bear fruit into the future. I thank the House for the opportunity.
Energy
AGL Pty Ltd
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:36): This afternoon, I call on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate AGL over its conduct involving the Liddell power station. I will discuss, firstly, the importance of Liddell staying open. The Australian Energy Market Operator has estimated that, should Liddell close in 2022, there would be a likelihood of a 29 to 46 per cent risk of blackouts in New South Wales, averaging from 224 megawatts to 290 megawatts, each lasting from two to six hours. It also said that, given the uncertainties, there could be greater risk. There is great risk to the economy and to the health of Australians if we have blackouts and higher prices in this nation.
Section 46 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act provides special requirements for companies that have a substantial degree of market power. The activities of companies that have such power must be looked at through a special lens. The ACCC's chairman, Rod Sims, commented on AGL's market dominance, saying that AGL's ownership of Liddell and Bayswater plants in New South Wales is anticompetitive. He also said:
You've got three players there and with the demand-supply balance getting tighter with Hazelwood and Northern out, that just means that when you've got less players they're in a stronger position.
I argue that it is self-evident that AGL has a substantial degree of market power. Because we have no divestiture law in this country, the ACCC normally couldn't force a company to sell an asset to a competitor if the company was still using that asset, but things are completely different if the company withdraws from the market an asset that is still potentially usable. By doing so, by refusing to put on the market an asset that is still potentially usable, a company is:
preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market—
and/or—
deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.
Those two clauses are in section 46 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act. They prohibit a company with a substantial degree of market power using that power to prevent the entry of a person into a market. That is exactly what AGL would be doing if it closed down and dismantled the power station and did not offer it to other competitors to maybe take it on.
It may well be economically rational for AGL to decide not to continue. It may worry that we may have a future Labor government that may impose a 50 per cent renewable energy target and drive all coal-fired power stations out, as they have done in South Australia and as they are trying to do in Victoria. That is a commercially rational decision. But not to offer that asset on the market to another competitor—to withdraw that supply—is potentially anticompetitive. If you look at the numbers, you'll see it bears out. In its 2016 annual report, AGL said it supplied to the market around 46,500 gigawatts of electricity. Liddell supplied 17 per cent of this. We've seen the previous case studies. When the Northern Power Station exited the market and when Hazelwood Power Station exited the market, there was a large increase in the wholesale price of electricity. It is quite possible that, whatever loss AGL make through withdrawing Liddell from the market, they could recoup that through higher wholesale prices with the rest of their generation facilities.
In summary, the very purpose of our competition laws is to protect consumers and to advance the interests of the Australian public. AGL withdrawing supply from the market by closing Liddell and failing to offer it to competitors, even at a negative price, adversely affect Australian consumers and competition right throughout the market. Given these adverse effects, I call on the ACCC to do their job. On section 46, the ACCC in the past have not had a backbone; they have not had a spine. I call on the ACCC to do their job to investigate this, because this could be one of the most important competition cases that our nation ever has. We have a significant issue with electricity in this nation. This coalition government is doing everything it can to keep the lights on and to keep power affordable and reliable for this nation. The ACCC should do the same. I call on them again to do the due diligence, to do an investigation and to ensure that there is no misuse of market power by AGL. (Time expired)
Business
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:41): Five years ago, Daniel O'Connell took on a contract to do some plumbing work in a caravan park in regional Victoria. Daniel was commissioned to do the work by a firm called Global Contracting, which eventually admitted that it wasn't going to pay him. He was left $200,000 out of pocket, one of around 300 contractors that lost a collective $8 million when the people who ran Global Contracting shifted money into other firms.
Phoenixing activity costs the Australian economy as much as $3 billion a year. In Northern Tasmania, a franchisee who ran multiple Noodle Box franchises was charged with alleged phoenix activity for having reportedly reassigned a number of the Noodle Box store leases, plant and equipment in such a way as to deny the creditors access to what was rightfully theirs. The scourge of phoenix activities hurts taxpayers, workers and honest businesses.
On 24 May, the member for Gorton, Senator Gallagher and I announced Labor's plan to crack down on dodgy directors. We pointed out that it was easier to become a company director than to open a bank account. We proposed a series of measures, costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. They included requiring all company directors to obtain a unique director identification number with a 100-point identification check; increasing the penalties associated with phoenix activity; introducing an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements; and clarifying the compensation orders against accessories.
We noted the number of organisations which had supported Labor's policy. Within a matter of weeks, the Productivity Commission, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Master Builders Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association and the Tax Justice Network were among those calling on the government to adopt Labor's proposal of a director identification number.
As the Commissioner of Taxation, Chris Jordan, told Senate estimates:
This is not a new issue. Phoenixing is a big problem, especially when you have these people that are unassociated with the principals. You cannot keep track.
Mr Jordan told one senator:
I could appoint you as a company director without you even knowing, with me then controlling the company.
One expert said, 'You can almost literally register your dog as a company director.'
It has been four months since Labor put out these detailed costing plans to crack down on phoenixing. This week, from the government, we got an announceable that they would be moving towards a director identification number. But you'd look in vain for the details. It's a headline with no costing behind it. Unlike Labor, who are precise as to how we would crack down on phoenixing activity, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services was on Jon Faine this week, saying, 'Well, maybe you'd do it through biometrics.' It's possible you could set up a biometric database for every director in Australia, but you might want to cost that beforehand. The fact is that, even when you think the coalition are adopting good Labor policy, they muck it up. Frankly, what would you expect from a minister who recently claimed credit for a $340 million judgement against Chevron for violating multinational tax laws, despite having voted back in 2012 against the very laws that took $340 million from Chevron?
After question time today, the member for Fadden made a personal explanation relating to some reports in Fairfax this morning. He mentioned at the end a letter that I had written to ASIC Commissioner Greg Medcraft. Let me be clear. My only focus in the particular issues relating to the member for Fadden was to ask the simple question: is ASIC investigating the allegations raised by Fairfax? I then raised three policy questions relating to the consent required to be appointed a director, to director registration and to the penalties associated with this. The particular affairs of members of this House are not what concern me—indeed, my thoughts are with the family of the member for Fadden—but this is not the first time we've seen allegations raised in the press about Liberal Party members and their roles as directors. The opposition's concern is to get the policy right. The government must crack down on dodgy phoenixing— (Time expired)
Capricornia Electorate: Lives Lived Well
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:46): At the end of last month, I attended the launch of an expanded drug and alcohol support facility in Rockhampton, Lives Lived Well. The primary health network has commissioned Lives Lived Well to deliver drug and alcohol services through a funding boost under the Australian government's National Ice Action Strategy. The PHN has provided funding of almost $234,000 over two years, from 2016-17, to Lives Lived Well to provide new counselling and support services. The funding will significantly increase the capacity of these existing services to deliver counselling and support to individuals, families and children affected by methamphetamines, alcohol and other drugs. It is a vital boost to after-hours and crisis-care support services for people across these communities.
I was so proud to announce and then open the expansion of alcohol and drug counselling services in Rockhampton to help those who need it most where they need it most. I'm not going to speak about the stats of drug and alcohol abuse in Central Queensland today; I think we've all read the reports and gasped at the headlines. What I do wish to touch on are the people who have been able to reclaim their dignity, find inner strength and recover from drug and alcohol addictions. I have heard many stories about how people from all walks of life find themselves addicted to drugs or alcohol.
More recently, I have taken the time to seek out stories of survival, to find out how they came out on the other side. One word resonates—support. Support can come in many forms and from many places. It can be the grandmother who refuses to give up on a child neglected by her meth-addicted parents. It can be the friend who takes the alcoholic into a rehabilitation facility and holds their hand as they go through their darkest days. It can be the therapist at the end of the phone, urging the teenager not to lose hope. 'Support' is the word that arises from every conversation I've had with recovering addicts. It's the difference between relapse and moving forward, the difference between seeking help or spiralling, the difference between life and death.
I was particularly touched by the story of Bernadine Allen, a woman who had endured losses that would break most people. It's understandable that Bernadine turned to drugs as a way to escape the pain of losing two children in separate but tragic circumstances. I was incredibly humbled by the courage Bernadine showed in publicly sharing her journey. Her enthusiasm for living a life free of drugs was addictive and such a positive message for everyone out there who may be fearful of taking that step. Bernadine could not have made her journey without the support of her counsellors at Lives Lived Well. The flexible way these services are delivered is, in a client's words, 'paramount to fighting addiction'.
Successful recovery doesn't happen by taking a cookie cutter approach to rehabilitation—in remote and regional areas, even more so. Lives Lived Well will offer clients wraparound support and treatment including referrals to its day program or other programs of support providing clients with flexibility and the ability to tailor their treatment to individual needs. It will cater for people across the treatment spectrum—from those at risk through to those with severe or complex alcohol or drug misuse. Not everyone experiencing a problem with drugs or alcohol has the capacity to enter full-time residential rehabilitation. So by expanding the services to cater to client demand for a less intensive form of treatment, Lives Lived Well will provide numerous touchpoints to reach those in need—be that by phone, face to face or group sessions. I congratulate Lives Lived Well for their ongoing commitment to improving the lives of people in my electorate, and I wish Bernadine success with the rest of her journey.
Greenway Electorate: Lalor Park
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:51): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a local constituency that is very close to my heart, the suburb of Lalor Park. It's where I grew up. It's where I went to school. There's a feeling of comfort when I round the bend off Vardys Road, go up Turner street, go on to Northcott Road, go past the Freeman Street shops and on to my electorate office in Seven Hills. Every site is a memory: Lalor Park Preschool, which I attended as a child and where my own daughter followed me decades later; St Bernadette's Church, the scene of nearly every significant event in my Catholic life; St Bernadette's Primary School, the scene of my formative childhood education; and the Lalor Park Community Centre, where I first joined the Labor Party 27 years ago.
Over the past few weeks, Lalor Park has featured in the media in relation to two tragic events both involving innocent children. Seven-year-old Julian Cadman was killed in the terror attack that occurred in Barcelona last month. His mother, Jumarie, was seriously injured. Julian was a year 2 pupil at St Bernadette's. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see those images of Julian's father arriving in the city where his young son was at the time still listed as missing, only to have his worst fears confirmed shortly afterwards.
It says something about a community when you see how they respond to such a tragedy; and the manner in which the Lalor Park community has rallied around Julian's family gives a true sense of its value. A special family day was recently held at Prodigy Martial Arts Australia, where Julian trained, in Seven Hills. There was a fundraiser where auctions raised over $50,000 for victims of the terror attack. I note that this was attended by some small-screen stars and Olympians who turned out for support. Julian was nicknamed the Karate Kid for his love of taekwondo. The event, organised by his instructor, Peter Vass, was so broadly supported. I would like to mention a few of the people who supported the event, including Jake Ryan and Sam Frost. In addition to that, there have been several fundraisers held for Julian's family—including the Wiggles, with two charity concerts being held this week. It's a small world. The Wiggles, like me, have a long connection to Lalor Park. In fact, the Field family grew up across the road from Julian's grandparents, and the six Field siblings also attended St Bernadette's in Lalor Park.
The other incident, which was also utterly tragic, was the death of a little girl a short time later from a shotgun wound in Lalor Park. Many news outlets carried reports of the commentary of the little girl's mother, who cried out, 'Not my baby girl, not my baby girl!' A short time after this incident, I was asked to comment on radio. I thought about it and decided I would—because I thought it was important to stress at this time that the local police needed to be able to do their job. It is a fact that nothing good comes from the death of an innocent child. Indeed, we do need to let the police do their job.
I was interested to note that, when I did this interview, the interviewer told me they had asked another prominent local representative to make some commentary on the issue, but they decided that they wouldn't because they feared that Lalor Park and Blacktown itself would be seen in a bad light. It is true that Lalor Park does have challenges and is undergoing significant change. There are a lot of demographic challenges, and some people are really doing it tough. But I don't think we can shy away from these issues. I think it's important to recognise that these tragedies are real, but they in themselves don't define us.
I wanted to say—and I did, and I still believe this—that the vast majority of local residents in Lalor Park and in Blacktown are good, law-abiding citizens. We are a community that has a deep spirit. You can see it from the Lalor Park community garden to the Common Groundz Community Cafe. You can see it in the Lalor Park Preschool fete, an annual event that was held over the weekend. As long as there are good people in our local area, as long as we have people who respond in the way that they have to these two absolute tragedies, we know that we are a community of which we can all be proud.
Air Safety
Ms LEY (Farrer) (16:56): I rise to discuss matters concerning aviation safety and to submit to the parliament a view that Australia needs new safety standards for community service flights conducted on a voluntary basis. Many who live in rural and remote Australia, as I do, are familiar with Australia's best known charity medical air service, Angel Flight, operating since 2003, an organisation that coordinates non-emergency flights flown by volunteer pilots to transport country passengers to medical appointments, usually in capital cities.
In the last six years, there have been two fatal flights, the most recent being on 28 June near Mount Gambier, in which the pilot and two passengers were killed. In August 2011 another flight crashed near Nhill in western Victoria, again with no survivors. I will resist commenting on the causes of the accident earlier this year, as its circumstances are subject to an ongoing Aviation Transport Safety Bureau investigation. At the end of 2013, the ATSB released its report into the 2011 accident and found as follows:
… the pilot probably encountered reduced visibility … due to low cloud, rain and diminishing daylight, leading to disorientation, loss of control and impact with terrain.
This was a clear safety message about the risk of such flights made by pilots without high instrument flying proficiency and recent night experience.
In 2014, CASA released a discussion paper in which it sought to toughen regulations for community service flights. The paper argued:
As community service flights become more widely used, the variable pilot qualifications and aircraft certification and maintenance standards become significant potential risk factors.
It canvassed 10 administrative and/or operational options, noting that too heavy a regulatory hand would mean the cost of compliance would effectively rule such flights impossible. At the time there was strong resistance to change from Angel Flight and from regional communities, and the proposed changes were shelved. However, following the latest tragedy, CASA announced that it will re-examine standards for flights like Angel Flight. That is a good thing. As a general aviation pilot, with a commercial licence I earned in 1980 and having had a career as a bush pilot and still flying myself across the big distances of western New South Wales, I am the very last person to wish for additional regulation on pilots, and it gives me no pleasure to call for change within a charitable organisation that has at its heart and soul the volunteering, giving spirit of so many country people. But a passion for flying and a love of helping people are not sufficient without adequate safety standards.
Most people are familiar with charter flights that leave their local regional airports from time to time—small planes that come and go from out-of-the-way places—and they would consider that the Angel Flight used by their family member is covered by the same rules and regulations. I believe they'd be surprised to know that this is not the case. Operators of charter flights must have an air operators certificate and conform to a far higher standard than regular private flights. Much of this standard is frustratingly bureaucratic, but at its heart is the critical imperative of aviation safety. In the case of a charity flight, the relationship that would exist in a private flight doesn't exist. The members of the public are unsuspecting. There is an element of vulnerability about their circumstances, particularly when children are involved. This may introduce a degree of operational pressure. The level of competency of pilots flying the trips may be as high as or higher than that of those who fly regular public transport routes, or it may be lower than the level of an average pilot.
I have criticised CASA many times over the years, but their 2014 discussion paper should be revisited. Their preferred option—an approved self-administering aviation organisation—would allow this sector to regulate itself. Changes must be made, and I do believe a way forward can be found so that our volunteer pilots can continue to help support country people's access to medical services.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms Chesters to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the ASC Pty Ltd (ASC) shipyard currently employs approximately 1,100 workers in South Australia, who have been building three air warfare destroyers (AWD);
(b) by Christmas this year, 250 jobs at ASC will likely be lost, with that number increasing by 400 to 500 between January and June next year as the AWD project winds down; and
(c) South Australia's unemployment rate is approximately 7 per cent and mass layoffs in the automotive and shipbuilding industries mean full-time employment levels will go backwards;
(2) condemns the Government for:
(a) decimating South Australia's manufacturing industries in an act of economic vandalism, which has resulted in Australia's remaining vehicle manufacturers, Toyota and Holden, closing in October, putting tens of thousands of Australian jobs at risk;
(b) its manifestly inadequate response to the shutdown of the automotive industry, including it's attempt in 2014 to rip $900 million from the Automotive Transformation Scheme, which would have sparked an early exit of automotive manufacturers from Australia and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs; and
(c) failing to keep it's promise to create new jobs within the defence manufacturing and shipbuilding industries, with many South Australian shipbuilders facing unemployment as soon as the end of this year; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) apologise to the Australian people for its reckless and disastrous actions in driving Holden and Toyota offshore and to the workers who will face unemployment as a result; and
(b) ensure there is a requirement in all national naval shipbuilding contracts to use Australian workforces.
Mr Champion to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important role Holden's workforce has played in Holden Australia's history including when it:
(a) was established in 1856 by James Alexander Holden as a saddlery business;
(b) became the exclusive supplier for General Motors in Australia in 1924;
(c) built the first all-Australian motor vehicle in 1948, the FX Holden;
(d) commenced construction on the current Holden site in Elizabeth, South Australia in 1958; and,
(e) hosted Queen Elizabeth II at the Elizabeth plant in 1963;
(2) congratulates the current Holden workforce for their ongoing professionalism which has ensured the Holden Elizabeth plant remains General Motors' top factory for quality globally; and
(3) acknowledges the role of Prime Minister Chifley and South Australian Premier Sir Thomas Playford in establishing the Australian automotive industry.
Ms Claydon to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 15 to 21 October 2017 is National Carers Week and that it is estimated that there are 2.7 million carers who provide care and support to a family member or friend with a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminal illness, or who is frail aged in Australia; and
(b) the theme for National Carers Week is 'Carers Count';
(2) acknowledges the significant contribution that carers make to the Australian community, saving the nation an estimated $60 billion per year; and
(3) recognises the incredible sacrifices carers make and the challenges they face including fewer employment options and a restricted capacity to participate in community life.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Richardson, Ms Fiona
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:00): The idea of the Victorian parliament without Fiona Richardson is unthinkable. Indeed, the idea of the Labor Party without Fiona makes no sense at all, and the idea that Fiona will not be an indomitable part of the political world in which I live is just so hard to imagine. Throughout my life in politics, when a difficult issue has presented itself and rooms have become filled with differing voices and opinions, it's been a reflex to ask: what does Fiona think? Three weeks on from Fiona's death, I find myself still asking that question.
The truth is that Fiona was a colossus on the stage of Victorian Labor, and she shared that stage with her husband and our colleague Steve Newnham. I first met Fiona back in the 1990s, working on resolutions that would go before the administrative committee of the Victorian ALP. Her mind was sharp; her attention to detail, absolute. There was more chance of the earth reversing its rotation than of Fiona missing a fact or making a mistake, and she argued her case with a fierce determination that left the rest of us feeling both inadequate and in awe.
Yet the intimidating nature of her intellect did not extend to her personality, for she possessed a smile that could melt the coldest of exteriors; it changed moods. One flash of it and you knew that, no matter how deep the problem, it would all be okay. Fiona was friendly and warm and, because you so desperately wanted her on your side, inevitably you found yourself on hers. Fiona was a born leader. Fiona was also brave—so brave—and hers was not the faux bravery born of fundamentalism; it was so much better than that, because Fiona knew how to negotiate. She knew how to compromise. Fiona absolutely lived in the land of the real. Her willingness to risk her own fortunes in order to stand up for what she believed to be the right outcome was both compelling and outstanding.
Fiona departs this world with a shining legacy. As the shadow transport minister, she can proudly claim to have been the author of the Andrews government's programs of removing level crossings. Watching the incredible episode of Australian Story focused on Fiona's own experience of family violence speaks to the power of her work as Australia's first Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence. This is a terrible scourge in our society, and, when the battle against it is finally won, history will record Fiona's name as one of the greatest heroes in the struggle. For all this, it is her bravery that to me stands as her greatest political legacy—because being brave was not enough for Fiona; she wanted all of us to be brave with her.
At a moment in time when my voice should have been louder, it was Fiona who exhorted me to use it. She challenged me to be better and assured me that it was possible to overcome the fear of bravery, and I can still hear her voice vividly. Over the last three weeks, as I've shared that story, I have learnt in turn that her exhortations were not just to me but extended to many of us. While we will never be as brave as her in supporting us and seeking to bring out the best in us, there is now an entire class of contemporary Labor politicians who owe our opportunity to her, and, hopefully, we will be better because of her. That is a profound legacy.
Despite all this, Fiona would say her biggest achievement was her family: her children, Marcus and Catherine, and her husband, Steve. She was utterly devoted to them, and their loss is so desperately sad. Most of all, our thoughts and love are with them. But, if there is any comfort in the face of Fiona's death far before her time, surely it is to be had in the knowledge that she made an enormous difference. Her life has mattered, her children carry her spirit, and her memory and her example will live on in all of us.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): I want to associate myself with the comments by the member for Corio to acknowledge the very courageous and intelligent Fiona Richardson, who was my state member, for Northcote.
Petition: Climate Change
Ms LEY (Farrer) (10:03): May I, on behalf of the government, also join the member for Corio in acknowledging his kind remarks and appropriate remarks upon the death of Fiona Richardson.
Today I rise to table a community climate petition from my electorate of Farrer. In doing so, I would like to thank Lesley and Brian Harbick of Albury for the respectful way they put forward their views when presenting these signatures to me. I mention this because those who take a passionate interest in climate do not always allow room for an opposing view. Lesley and Brian are members of the local Uniting Church, and expressed particular concern that poor and vulnerable nations in our region are more at risk from climate change. It is a view I share, and something our government is tackling with increased spending on climate change resilience for neighbouring Pacific island countries. Australia is historically used to extremes in weather, so we understand the need to act. But we need to do so with sensible policy decisions which do not impact too negatively. We're well placed to contribute to the Paris climate accord, which in part seeks to foster climate resilience and lower greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that does not threaten food production. This is extremely important in my electorate, the food bowl of Australia.
Our government continues to review our emissions targets to build on existing policies. There has much discussion in recent days on how and when we should go about this. Many suggest we must sign off on a clean energy target immediately, or that we should already have done so, but we also have a responsibility to ensure reliability of supply. We've been told that shortfalls in the market will come as a result of closing coal-fired power stations. A responsible government does not turn its back on this information in the hope it won't happen or because of some misguided ideology. Coal-fired power is, and should be, a shrinking source for the world's future energy options, but those who say it should be stopped right now ignore the need for adequate storage and backup capacity which both solar and wind require. As the Minister for the Environment and Energy noted last night, for now we need coal to remain an important part of the mix as affordable and reliable base-load power.
This is not an easy path, but governing for all is not necessarily an easy thing to do. As I present these documents, I note a letter to my local paper yesterday. It attacked me for not backing the building of new coal-fired power stations. After two face-to-face meetings with environmental lobbyists from my electorate in recent weeks and having had an Adani coal protest outside my front door, I can assure you that the last thing they call me is climate-centric.
I've been asked to present the signatures before the end of September. As this is one of the few remaining opportunities I will have to do so, I table this for the House and ask that it be passed on to the Petitions Committee for checking and, if appropriate, added to similar petitions presented to the House by the Micah Christian lobby.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
Vietnam: Human Rights
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:07): Upholding human rights is a virtue that members of this place and the wider Australian community have always seen as a cornerstone of a well-respected and functioning democracy. Unfortunately, this isn't so in other countries around the world. Earlier this week I attended a briefing with the Australian Director of Human Rights Watch, Elaine Pearson, and the executive director of the Vietnamese Overseas Initiative for Conscience Empowerment, Mr Hoi Trinh, to learn more about the human rights atrocities being committed in Vietnam.
My electorate of Oxley has one of the highest number of Vietnamese people anywhere in the country, many of whom I'm very proud to call my close friends. They are loyal, hardworking and dedicated members of the community who make an invaluable contribution to the Australian way of life. I work closely with a number of Vietnamese organisations, including the Queensland chapter of Vietnamese Community in Australia, with my close friend Dr Cuong Bui, and the Vietnamese Senior Citizens Association. Through these organisations and their members, I am already aware of the continued attacks on Vietnamese people who campaign for human rights. As a result, I've written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, regarding these violations against human rights activists to ask that Australia do more to see that these people are protected.
Last week I also had the honour of speaking at the opening of the International Youth Conference in Sydney before 300 young activists. Conference speakers included representatives from the United Nations and Amnesty International as well as social campaigners all striving for the same goal—a pathway for freedom in Vietnam. This will be a long and difficult struggle for those bearing the cost of human rights violations.
At the briefing this week with Ms Pearson and Mr Trinh we heard stories of the atrocities being committed every day in Vietnam. In their recent report No country for human rights activists: assaults on bloggers and democracy campaigners in Vietnam the organisation listed examples of horrific crimes committed to people merely seeking justice. These people include human rights activist Nguyen Van Dai. On the morning of 6 December 2015, he delivered a lecture about the rights enshrined in Vietnam's constitution at Van Loc parish in Nam Dan district in celebration of international Human Rights Day. That afternoon he left for Hanoi, accompanied by fellow activists Ly Quang Son, Vu Van Minh and Le Manh Thang. During the course of the journey, their taxi was forcibly stopped by a group of a dozen men wearing civilian clothing and disguised by surgical masks. Nguyen Van Dai said the men dragged them out of the taxi and severely beat them. Three other activists were also severely beaten.
It's stories like this, and much worse, that I've been told that prove the need for greater protection for human rights activists in Vietnam. I'll continue to work closely with my local Vietnamese community and the Australian Vietnamese community to see an end to these terrible acts of violence.
Robertson Electorate: Ward, Mr Bob
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:10): I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Ward, a highly respected and loved community leader in my electorate on the Central Coast, who died on 1 September after a battle with mesothelioma, aged 71. Bob was a devoted father to Susan and father of Stephen, Michael and Stuart, and he had five grandchildren. He will be deeply missed by them and all who knew him. He'll certainly also be remembered for everything he achieved in his time at Gosford City Council, including two years as deputy mayor. Bob was a longstanding Liberal Party member on the Central Coast. He was my first campaign manager and the Liberal Conference president when I was running for the seat of Robertson. He was an invaluable source of advice—not that I always took it!—and direction, much to my chagrin, but he was always the first point of contact for me when I knew that something had to be looked at by the council. Bob always picked up the phone and acted. He got things done, with little fanfare but lots of action.
The administrator of Central Coast Council, Ian Reynolds, said that together with his roles on various committees and the Joint Regional Planning Panel Bob left a long and lasting legacy as a passionate advocate for the Central Coast community. But beyond his achievements, Bob will be missed I suspect more for what he helped others achieve and the selfless, dedicated and humble way he went about his work and lived his life. For Bob, no problem was too small or too big to help solve. Susan, his wife, has a story that captures it beautifully. One night at around 9 pm, possibly to her annoyance, Bob took a call from a concerned local resident. It was about a problem with loud frogs in the pool in a neighbour's backyard. The caller wanted to play a secret recording of the frogs to prove a claim, and Bob, instead of watching TV with Susan, took the time to speak with the resident for around 45 minutes. He desperately wanted to see how council might be able to help find a fix for the frustrating frogs.
But Bob was also a visionary and a longstanding advocate of high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle, something he championed during his time as deputy mayor and also deputy chair of Central Coast RDA. But Bob also made sure that the achievements of hardworking people on the Central Coast got the recognition they deserve. Susan said he was so proud of the fact that for three years in a row the council's citizens of the year had all been locals nominated by Bob. He went out of his way to recognise people, even in everyday life, through local scout groups, the Brisbane Water Historical Society, the Lions Club, the Liberal Party, the Top Blokes Foundation, local Rotary Cubs and more. Bob was in particular a proud Rotarian, and he was recently awarded the Paul Harris fellowship by Gosford City Rotary. In awarding the fellowship, President Kathy Sokk said that Bob was the 'embodiment of Rotary's mission of service above self'. Former member for Robertson Jim Lloyd told me that Bob always worked tirelessly and was always prepared to stand up for the needs of our region. Local Liberal legend Bob Mudge, who knew Bob for 20 years, said he was 'always approachable' and 'a great all-round bloke'.
Flags at Central Coast Council were at half-mast in Bob's honour after his death, in a true sign of respect. The world has lost a beautiful man with a heart of gold. Even more than his community deeds, it is his kindness and thoughtfulness towards others that is his true legacy, one that will always stand the test of time.
AgriFutures Rural Women's Awards
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:13): Last night I attended the AgriFutures Rural Women's Awards held here at Parliament House, and I was delighted to meet with Tasmanian finalist Bec Lynd, the owner of Big River Highland Beef, in the Derwent Valley, in my electorate of Lyons. Big River Highland Beef produces Scottish Highland beef for the local market, and I've no doubt that under Bec's stewardship it will be into the international market sometime soon. For those who don't know, Highlanders are those beautiful hairy cattle with the very big horns. Something that makes Bec and her Big River operation unique, particularly within Lyons, is that she does not have a farming background. Somehow, she just decided one day, 'I'm going to be a beef farmer,' and she's done a magnificent job. She is a wonderful young woman. Bec and her partner—also named Bec—have built up their successful business through hard work, diligence and a commitment to researching best practice.
Bec is an amazing young women, as I said. She's the co-founder of the local growers market, Big River Grower's Market. The aim of the market is to encourage local producers to share their bounty with the rest of the community. It's making a real difference in the Derwent Valley and producing some beautiful food—berries, fruit and other produce. It's really important that places that produce great food don't export it all or don't get rid of it. Local people have got to be able to enjoy what they've produced to get the full benefit of it.
Big River Highland Beef is the only commercial producer of Highland beef in Tasmania. Bec told the audience at last night's dinner that people thought she was mad to go into Highland beef. They certainly don't have the yield of commercial beef cattle, but Bec's philosophy is to use the entire beast. She doesn't accept the notion of secondary cuts, and she works hand in hand with chefs to ensure that they treat every cut with respect. Bec didn't win the national award last night—that went to WA's Tanya Dupayne, who runs a camp in Kulin in WA's Wheatbelt for women and kids recovering from trauma. She's a very worthy winner.
Bec from my electorate hopes to visit abattoirs around the world and Australia so that she can learn more about slaughtering and develop a plan that ensures her cattle are treated as ethically as possible when it comes time for them to head to the big pasture in the sky. As she said, it's not just a story of paddock to plate but one of paddock to processing to plate. Best of luck, Bec and Bec—I look forward to catching up with both of you at your gorgeous property and hanging out with your beautiful and tasty Highland cattle.
Meanwhile, I'd just like to congratulate the organisers of the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award dinner last night. It was a fantastic evening, and every state finalist was fantastic. I'd like to commend Westpac's Business Bank CEO, David Lindberg, who, hands down, gave one of the best speeches I've ever heard from a corporate leader. All in all, it was a wonderful night. Congratulations to everyone.
O'Connor Electorate: Gold Industry
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (10:16): I'd like to endorse the comments of the member for Lyons. I was also there last night. Tanya Dupayne is a constituent of mine, a wonderful young lady and a very deserving winner. It was a fantastic night. All the finalists are wonderful role models for our industry.
I rise today to protest the actions of the Western Australian Labor government, which has just announced its intention to increase the royalty on gold production. This was the government's first budget, which was delivered a week ago today. There are many measures that break pre-election commitments, but none more so than the increase to the gold royalty.
My electorate covers the Western Australian Goldfields, which is the heart of the gold industry. This tax hike will rip $120 million per year out of our local economy. This region, which is home to around 40,000 people, was built on the success of the gold industry. Its economy rises and falls with the strength of that industry, and it does give me some pleasure to say that last year was very positive. But mining is cyclical. When the gold price began to dip in 2013, the effects were felt hardest in the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the smaller neighbouring towns of Laverton, Leonora, Norseman and Coolgardie.
About 13 per cent of the people living in the goldfields are employed in the mining sector. That might not sound significant, but you also need to consider the people employed by the companies servicing the mining industry—the contractors and others. When the industry is doing it tough, so are the communities of the goldfields. From 2007 to 2013, at the height of the resources boom, the goldfields population grew at roughly two per cent per year, but the last census tells us that, in 2013-14, the population fell by two per cent. It dropped by another 1.3 per cent the following year. You only had to walk down the main street of Kalgoorlie, one of Western Australia's most historic and beautiful towns, to see the impact.
Now, at a time when things are starting to turn around, Mark McGowan and the Labor government have decided to increase the gold royalty from 2.5 per cent to 3.75 per cent, and they're not stopping there. They're also going to scrap the exemption for the first 2,500 ounces produced, which will have a massive impact on those smaller prospectors. All this comes after the WA Premier promised he would not increase gold royalties.
Let me read you a quote from the Kalgoorlie Miner from 29 October 2015, when Mr McGowan was then the Western Australian Leader of the Opposition. He said:
It's basically a waste of time to put up the royalty because it impacts the employment and jobs and the health of the industry for—
very—
limited benefit.
The WA Premier has made an astonishing backflip since then, but that might sound familiar. It sounds just like the federal Labor leader here—the Leader of the Opposition. He has done a backflip on the plebiscite, he has done a backflip on company tax cuts and he has done a backflip on NDIS funding. The list goes on.
The Western Australian Labor Party promised no new tax rises, but, in reality, they're increasing taxes to fund the millions of dollars they made in election commitments. If there are rules for governing responsibly, this royalty hike breaks them all. There was no consultation and there was a promise not to do it. The WA Premier is on record as saying that it will impact jobs, but he's doing it anyway. I call on the WA Labor Party to reverse their decision before it has a massive impact on jobs and investment across the goldfields. (Time expired)
R U OK? Day
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (10:19): Today is R U OK? Day. It's an important day that encourages all of us, individually, to take the time to start a meaningful conversation with someone we're worried about or who is doing it particularly tough at the moment. This important suicide prevention awareness day was launched back in 2009, by Gavin Larkin, who sadly passed away in 2011. Fittingly, last week's Australian Story shone an important light on Gavin and the work he carried out to make sure R U OK? Day had a strong future, and, eight years on, this is exactly what has happened.
Under the leadership of Brendan Maher, R U OK? has gone from strength to strength. I was lucky enough to be part of R U OK? conversation convoy that went around Australia recently. It is landing in Cairns today; its destination is up there in Queensland at the end of its convoy. But it did visit Hobart. It started on 1 August and it's been going for six weeks, travelling 14,000 kilometres, visiting over 20 communities, including many Indigenous communities, right around Australia. The most powerful message delivered by R U OK? during the convoy is that we all have what it takes to start that conversation if we're worried about someone who is doing it tough.
There are four simple steps that can make a difference to someone who is having a tough time. The first is to ask: 'Are you okay? I've noticed you've not been yourself lately. Is there anything troubling you?' The second step is to listen to what they say. The third is to encourage action. Ask them, 'Have you thought about talking to your GP? Is there anybody else you can talk to? Is there something I can help you with?' But don't put too much pressure on them. Then check in a few days later or a week later, and ask, 'Are you really okay? Did you do what we said last week? Is there anything further I can do to help?'
It's really important that we take time to reconnect with people and encourage others to do the same, not just on this day but every day. With an increasing number of Australians experiencing mental ill-health, and, of course, the increasing suicide rate, there is a changing attitude across Australia that more needs to be done to address mental health and suicide. As a community we are talking more about our mental health, and this is a good thing.
But the statistics are concerning. Every day in Australia, more than eight people die by suicide. These are not statistics; they're individuals—every single day. They have parents, brothers, sisters, and other family members, lovers, friends, work colleagues and classmates. This is a national tragedy and we need to do better. We can do better, we should do better and we all need to do better, and we can start by taking the time today to ask somebody we care about, 'Are you okay?' and doing that every single day.
Goldstein Electorate: Brighton Sports Clubs
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:22): On this R U OK? Day we extend our compassionate support to those who are suffering. We encourage everyone to ask people who they think may be vulnerable whether they are okay. But it is also an important day to focus on pathways and solutions. One of the things we have in abundance in the Goldstein electorate is sporting clubs, which provide people with a vehicle for social interaction and participation. Today I want to highlight two sporting clubs that have been fantastic in contributing to the social fabric of the Goldstein community.
The first is the Brighton Soccer Club, which has over 1,500 players. More importantly, nearly a third, 450, are girls, and 95 per cent are under the age of 18. They are supported by 250 volunteers. They do an amazing job down at Dendy Park, providing a social outlet and sporting competition for young people across the electorate who like to play soccer. I was particularly honoured to turn up to the opening of their new facility last weekend, with Mayor Alex del Porto and club president Andrew Woodmore, to celebrate the new infrastructure they have to support their community, including changing rooms for both boys and girls who want to play. I was particularly honoured to toss the coin to decide the direction the Brighton versus Sandringham game was going to play. They are both within the Goldstein electorate, so I shouldn't pick sides. Brighton won 3-1, but being a Sandringham resident I concede that I supported Sandringham on this occasion, to my detriment. I wish them both all success in the future. They should be very proud of their sporting prowess.
I would particularly like to thank the president, Andrew Woodmore, who was there; the secretary, Helen Mastos; and the treasurer, Danny Sarra. I also pay homage to Ruth Kyte, who is one of the big advocates for the introduction of women's sporting facilities, and Chris Tait, who was also present on the day.
I would also like to acknowledge the East Brighton Vampires Junior Football Club, which has 840 members, 35 teams, 200 kids who play Auskick, and 350 volunteers. I was very fortunate earlier in the year to be at the opening of their new scoreboard. They have a large new facility at Hurlingham Park. I want to particularly acknowledge the fact that they had 13 teams play in the lightning carnival round, 12 that made it into the finals this year, eight that made it into the grand finals, with five premierships—a huge achievement for a sporting club. So we congratulate the East Brighton Vampires and pay particular respect to the many volunteers. As I said, there are 350 people in the community who support that club, volunteering their time each Saturday. They are ably led by committee members Ian Jensen Muir; Jarrod Hall, the secretary, who was nominated recently for administrator of the year; and Paul Burrows, the treasurer. Thank you all for everything you do.
Murphy, Ms Barbara
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:25): I rise today to commemorate and acknowledge Barbara Murphy, who passed away on 31 August at the age of 85. Barbara was a trailblazer for union women and helped change the traditionally male dominated culture of the New South Wales labour movement. Barbara was born in 1932. She started teaching in 1951 and continued to teach until 1976. Her teaching career culminated in her being made deputy mistress at Neutral Bay Primary School. Like so many second-wave feminists, reading TheFemale Eunuch had a profound effect on her, and in her own words 'opened my eyes to my sexist upbringing and sex role conditioning'. Barbara became active in the New South Wales Teachers Federation, rising to occupy the positions of senior vice-president and deputy president. She was the only female presidential officer in her eight years at the teachers federation.
In her union role, she ran many successful campaigns. Her work had a particular focus on improving the position of female school teachers in areas such as promotion and superannuation. As she said in an interview in 1992 on the discrimination that women faced, not just in teaching, 'Women were being employed on the cheap. They were getting less pay. They were being denied their last few increments. They were denied promotion opportunities and were being denied superannuation. All of these things are now changed but it took a long time. That was the sort of discrimination that was part of the system.'
Barbara was also a trailblazer for women in the broader union movement. In 1979, she was elected the first female executive member of the Labor Council of New South Wales. She was a left-wing woman on an executive dominated by right-wing men, where the battles were very fierce and sometimes brutal. This was the time of Ducker and Unsworth, but she more than held her own. She went on to act as an Australian delegate to the International Labor Organization. Following her time at the Teachers Federation, she went on to become the equal opportunity officer at the Sydney College of Advanced Education. The path forged by Barbara opened the way for other female union leaders to come through the ranks of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, notably, fine women like Jennie George and Sharan Burrow. Barbara's contribution to unionism, to feminism, to education and to the training and welfare of dogs was acknowledged in 2012 with an Order of Australia.
Barbara was a resident of Glebe, in my electorate, and a long-time member of the Glebe branch of the Australian Labor Party. Barbara leaves behind her treasured poodle, Didier, as well as her partner of 48 years, John, who is present here with us today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Thank you, Member for Sydney. I also would like to acknowledge that Barbara's husband, John Grimshaw, is in the audience with us today. Welcome.
La Trobe Electorate: Bunjil Place
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (10:28): Here we are on R U OK? Day. What is great about this day is that we make sure we look after other Australians. When it comes to getting involved in activities in the community, arts is a huge way of getting into the community and making yourself feel great. This brings me to Bunjil Place, and the fantastic news that a cultural, leisure and entertainment precinct will open in October, 35 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD. Bunjil Place will be the first facility of its kind in Australia, bringing together creative entertainment in the community in a way that is unparalleled anywhere in this country. I'm very proud to say that the federal government has contributed $10 million towards the overall cost of the $125 million landmark project. For local ratepayers this reduces the payment terms back from 31 years to 21 years.
The facility covers 25,000 square metres. Bunjil Place will feature a diverse mix of facilities in an open place, including an 800-seat theatre with a full fly tower and orchestra pit, which will be suitable for theatre, musical recitals, ballet and opera. This will be state of the art. It will have a studio with retractable seating for 200 people, suitable for professional and community use, for theatres, cabarets, circus performances, exhibitions and debates; a 350-seat function centre with the latest technology for weddings, conferences, gala dinners and celebrations; an art gallery; a state-of-the-art library; and a community plaza.
Bunjil Place is a result of tireless work from the local community to make something happen. I'd very much like to congratulate Casey council for taking the lead on this project, working with local residents such as Susan Bergman from BATS Theatre and Tony Purcell from Berwick Arts Society. The Casey council must be congratulated on this project. I know Councillor Wayne Smith was one of the people who first mooted the idea of Bunjil Place. I'd also like to acknowledge the mayor, Councillor Sam Aziz, who has been an absolutely staunch supporter of Bunjil Place. It was both Sam and Councillor Amanda Stapledon who first raised the issue with me, also Susan Serey and former councillor Mick Morland, who sadly has passed away. Bunjil Place will be a huge tribute to Mick, for his wife, Kay, and his family, because Mick was a fantastic supporter of the arts. It will be a great opening day in October this year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): If no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
Grayndler Electorate: WestConnex
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:32): I rise to once again raise the impact of the WestConnex project on my electorate of Grayndler, and the need for there to be outcomes that are consistent with ensuring that the inner west remains a fantastic place to live and one, certainly, that I am proud every day to represent in this parliament. Newtown is a vibrant community. It is second only to the central business district of Sydney as a tourism destination. It relies on that ongoing traffic past its cafes, restaurants, music venues and craft breweries in order to continue to thrive into the future.
With the WestConnex project, guarantees were given by the former roads minister, Duncan Gay, and by the people in charge of the WestConnex project, that there would be no clearways on King Street. Clearways on King Street, Newtown, would destroy the fabric and vibrancy of that community for people who live in Newtown and for people who visit Newtown, whether they be from other parts of Sydney or from other parts of Australia and the world.
There has been, once again, concern expressed by the community that that commitment would be breached. I have had constructive discussions with the roads minister of New South Wales, Melinda Pavey, and have facilitated discussions to take place between Minister Pavey and the Chamber of Commerce of Newtown. The Newtown chamber represents those vibrant small businesses, and they're absolutely determined to ensure that the no-clearways policy on King Street is maintained. It is a pity that the state member for Newtown seems incapable of making any representations about practical issues confronting the relationship between the community that she represents as a Greens MP and the state government. But the local businesses—as happens in lots of local communities—are coming to me to make those representations to the state government, and I am pleased to step into the void that has been created. But, given that the state member for Newtown said that WestConnex had been stopped with her election, it is not surprising that you don't have that practical outcome. I look forward to Minister Pavey recommitting to former Minister Gay's commitment that there will be no clearways on King Street.
Banks Electorate: Community Events
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:35): From 25 September to 1 October, we have Men's Shed Week around Australia, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge the great work of Men's Shed in my electorate. We have three sheds in the region: the East Hills Men's Shed; the Mortdale Men's Shed, which actually meets at Riverwoood; and the St George Men's Shed, which used to be at Penshurst and now is at Carss Park—a little out of my electorate, but attended by many gentlemen from my electorate.
Men's Sheds is a fantastic organisation, providing a place for men to come together to do something practical to benefit the community. Many of the sheds provide the goods and things that they have made to local schools and other community groups, and they are a very valued organisation in our area. I would like to thank Bob Bishop of the East Hills Men's Shed, Pat Murray and all the team from the St George Men's Shed, and Greg Moore and all the other gentlemen at the Mortdale Men's Shed for all their contributions to our area.
On 18 July, I visited the Hulusi Folk Instrument Group at Kempt Field in Allawah. They perform traditional Chinese folk dance across Sydney, and were previously asked to perform at New South Wales Parliament House. It was great to see this open air performance by around 25 musicians, who come together in the park every week to play their traditional Chinese folk music. I would like to thank the group's coordinator, May Xi, for welcoming me to visit the group, and I look forward to the group's upcoming performance at my moon festival celebration, to be held in October. Thank you to everyone who is involved in the group.
On 8 September, I visited the Mortdale-Oatley Baptist Church to visit the craft group there and also to see the completed upgrades to the kitchen and cafe facilities at the church. We have a very strong and active Baptist community in the Banks electorate, and Mortdale-Oatley is one of the largest churches in the region. It was good to speak with members of the craft group, who were completing a range of knitting and sewing activities and a whole range of other activities as well. The new cafe facility is very impressive, and I am told that the coffee is particularly good as well. The kitchen also looks fantastic and is very useful in helping the church to service the community for those larger community events that are often held in the community hall and surrounding areas. The church provides a range of support to our community, including language support, parent support and programs for older members of the community. Thank you very much to Mortdale-Oatley Baptist Church.
Australia-India Relationship
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (10:38): With the cricket season creeping upon us here in Australia, tens of millions of cricket fans around the world will have their eyes once again on the cricket teams and sporting prowess found in the Indian subcontinent. With that region's emerging new economic and security power, and Australia's strategy of pivoting its trade and defence interests towards the Indo-Pacific, our cricket friends or foes in the subcontinent region are now our important strategic partners—particularly India.
India, a country with whom Australia has enjoyed diplomatic relations for over 70 years and a country with whom we fought side by side at Gallipoli, is, quite properly, at the forefront of our thinking on international and regional strategic partners. Australia and India complement each other economically. Australia produces goods and services that India wants—energy, education related travel, food and precious metals—and we are engaged in a comprehensive regional economic partnership. We have the Australia-India CEO Forum and Australia Business Week in India. The Australia-India Strategic Research Fund has supported some 300 joint projects since 2007. We of course have a nuclear cooperation agreement and we share an ocean that is called 'Indian'. Governments can and should sign agreements and memoranda of understanding and should host dialogues, forums and leadership summits. But it is the people-to-people links that make these relationships deep, sincere and lasting.
In my own electorate of Batman we have a strong subcontinental community, with the majority of them being followers of the Hindu faith. They are engineers, lawyers, business owners and university professors. They are active in our community. They of course contribute enormously to our society. In recent weeks they have reached out to my office by phone, in letters and on social media because their religious sentiments were deeply hurt by Meat and Livestock Australia's latest lamb ad campaign. In a video advertisement, Lord Ganesh, the Hindu god of learning and wisdom, is found eating meat and toasting lamb. Lord Ganesh is a vegetarian. To the people of Hindu faith, vegetarianism is more than a dietary preference. It is a manifestation of the core Hindu belief of nonviolence, meat consumption prohibition and not killing living beings for food. This ad has been carelessly and callously insulting to the religious beliefs of some 440,000 people in Australia and, of course, many millions overseas. It was crass, it lacked common sense and it was not asserting political free speech; it was simply a very poorly executed ad and it deserves to be condemned.
R U OK? Day
Page Electorate: Alstonville High School Netball team
Australian Bravery Decorations
Mr HOGAN (Page) (10:41): Today the community of Woolgoolga or, as we affectionately call it, Woopi, have come together to paint the town yellow in recognition of R U OK? Day and the very important message associated with this day. Nearly 100 people, as part of the Fluoro Friday Woopi tribe dressed in yellow this morning and formed a large human 'R U OK?' on the beach and in the ocean. Along with the many community members who were dressed in yellow, Woopi businesses got on board and dressed their shopfronts yellow as well. Key Employment, who sponsored the day, LJ Hooker, Taffy's, Woolgoolga Real Estate, BCU, Bluebottles, Amcal Chemist Woolgoolga, The Next Phase, Woolgoolga Medical Centre, Woopi Doo, Blue Lotus Insight and Studio Move Woolgoolga are all taking part in highlighting this year's theme—'You've got what it takes to ask R U OK?' I congratulate the community for supporting this cause. I would also like to make a very special mention of Lisa Nichols, Brad Nelson, Brett Pilon and Robert Watkins, who have been integral in making today's event a success. Thank you.
The open girls Alstonville High School netball team have reached great heights. Recently the team placed in the top two per cent of the state after competing against 467 teams at the state combined high schools competition. The players were Leilani Rohweder, Georgie Hampson, Charlotte Yager, Madeleine Mitchell, Brooke Hofmeyer, Elly Mooseberger, Tarni Fay, Mollie Hughes and Sarah Bransgrove. They were supported by their PDHPE teacher and coach, Debra Barron, and two mums, Bronwyn Mitchell and Trish Rohweder. The girls played very impressively and achieved great wins, displaying the sportsmanship that Alstonville is renowned for. Well done, girls—the community is very proud of you.
I would like to congratulate three people in my community who were yesterday awarded Australian Bravery Decorations. Leading Senior Constable Amanda Vidler, Paul Barry and Senior Constable John Stirling. The three were volunteering for the SES during the June flood last year when they rescued two farmers who were swept down the river and forced to cling to a power pole. They were walking back through floodwaters after securing their cattle when they were swept off their feet and carried downstream by the strong current. Amanda and Paul from Coraki and John from Lismore found the two missing men at two in the morning, both close to exhaustion in fast-flowing water that was at chest height. I would also like to congratulate Mark Crawford, who received one of these prestigious awards for assisting his father, Geoff, who was caught in the floodwaters. That is a great example of the work volunteers do in our community, and I thank them.
Burma
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:44): I rise to speak on the dire situation faced by the Rohingya people in Myanmar in Rakhine State. Rakhine State is the poorest state in Myanmar. The ethnic Rakhine make up the majority of its population, but the Rohingya Muslims make up approximately one-third of the population—around 1.1 million. They live in a state in Myanmar which has some of the highest levels of malnutrition in that country. The Rohingya are not recognised by the Myanmar government as one of the 135 ethnic groups of that country. They are also not considered to be citizens by the Myanmar government.
Earlier this year, I visited Myanmar and Rakhine state with a delegation run by Save the Children. Remarkably, we were able to visit the IDP camps, which tens of thousands of Rohingya people had been forced into following severe operations conducted against them by the military, after a number of police officers were killed in October 2016 by Rohingya insurgents. This year, on 25 August, 12 police officers were killed in attacks by Rohingya insurgents. Again, rather than a proportional response from the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar military, we saw a scorched-earth military response where the military razed thousands of Rohingya homes and villages. Estimates are that 3,000 Rohingya have been killed. There are documented reports of children being killed. There are reports of rape being used as a weapon of war. What we are seeing is ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
More than 300,000 Rohingya have now fled into Bangladesh. Tens of thousands are trapped at the border and some 40,000 are trapped in no-man's-land. Those who cross into Bangladesh are treated as migrants with no legal status. Their ability to maintain a safe haven in that country is uncertain at best. It estimated that 140,000 Rohingya remain in IDP camps in Rakhine state. Tragically, food supply to those people is being blocked. I witnessed a dire situation in January, which was a humanitarian crisis then; it has become 100 times worse now. There is a considerable food shortage in the entire region. I note the disturbing reports that the Myanmar government is only distributing food to the ethnic Rakhine.
I welcome the Australian government's response of an additional $5 million to help in this crisis. The Australian contribution is welcome, but let's be honest about this: we need to do more. On Monday, agencies in Bangladesh launched an appeal for $77 million to provide life-saving support for over 400,000 Rohingya refugees now residing in camps throughout the area. The Australian government, I believe, should also consider reinstating the suspended autonomous sanctions ban on the Myanmar government. Given the scale of persecution by the Tatmadaw and associated parties and the refugee burden being imposed on Bangladesh, it is appropriate that the targeted travel and financial sanctions are imposed again in relation to Myanmar and members of the Tatmadaw. We have a responsibility to respond as best we can to this crisis. In years to come, we will ask: what did we do?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): I want to associate myself with the comments by the member for Wills. I call the member for Fisher.
Petition: Climate Change
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:47): I present a petition on behalf of my constituents concerning climate change.
The petition read as follows—
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of Fisher draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being and security of all people around the world, particularly our poorest and most vulnerable neighbours. We remind the House that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are the highest per person among wealthy nations while our emissions reduction targets are among the weakest.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to protect communities in Australia and our region from the harmful impacts of climate change -such as more sever heat, extreme and unpredictable weather and rising seas by: - committing to deeper and more urgent reductions of our greenhouse emissions; - developing a plan to ensure Australia achieves zero net greenhouse emissions well before 2050, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use: - providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change
from 1,051 citizens.
Petition received.
Mr WALLACE: I appreciate and respect the views of the 1,053 signatories to the climate change petition, which was provided to me on 2 August 2017 by constituents Bob Cullen from the Caloundra Catholic Church, Wendy Loury from the Caloundra Uniting Church Justice Group and Reverend Ray Barraclogh from the Anglican Church.
In a perfect world, we would all like to have low emissions and clean green energy. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I am sure that there is no-one in this House who would like to see environmental damage. Australia, under the Turnbull government, is on track to meet its 2030 emissions target of reducing our emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below our 2005 levels. The government is creating new renewable energy generation and storage with the 2,000-megawatt Snowy Hydro 2.0 and other pumped hydro projects in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales. But the reality is that currently renewable energy does not provide the base-load, on-demand power that our communities need and that our industries need. There are 900,000 Australian workers who work in the manufacturing sector. They rely on base-load electricity. My concern is that, if we continue to go down this route of renewable energies at all cost, like they have done in South Australia and Victoria, we will see a great many situations where we simply won't be able to put the air conditioners on; we won't be able to put the lights on. Pensioners won't be able to keep themselves warm. It is a terrible, terrible indictment on our community.
Let's look at what is happening in South Australia, for instance. Over the next summer break, over the Christmas period, they are having to introduce diesel-powered generators because of the renewable energy policies of that Labor state government, which will burn 80,000 litres of diesel per hour. That's the equivalent of 1,920 litres of diesel each and every day. At a cost of $1.30 a litre, that equates to $2.5 million a day of diesel generation. That's the most dirty, environmentally unfriendly way of creating electricity, all in the name of trying to create clean, green energy. It makes absolutely no sense.
This government is about providing affordable and reliable energy. We are absolutely, 100 per cent, methodological agnostics. We don't care how we provide it. What we do care about is providing economical, affordable and reliable energy for all Australians. (Time expired)
R U OK? Day
Ms LAMB (Longman) (10:50): I rise today on this, the second Thursday of September, to recognise R U OK? Day. In its ninth iteration since beginning in 2009, R U OK? Day is an annual day to ask family, friends and work colleagues—anyone close to you, including your neighbour—if they're okay. It's such a simple gesture but, to someone who really needs support, those three words can mean so much.
The most important thing to remember is that you can't always tell which of your family or friends—or, like I said, your neighbour—isn't okay. So many people every day hide their struggles. These people need us. Each and every one of our friends would need us in this case. As members of our community, it is important for each of us to be there for them and support them, whether they ask for that support or not. What makes R U OK? Day so powerful is that it brings communities together to support one other—like my community in Longman, which, tragically, holds the unwanted statistic of having the third highest rate of suicide in Australia. In spite of this, though, our community really does come together, and we're doing our very best.
In Longman, the trade union movement have gone to great lengths to support our community wherever they can. In fact, just last year, the Queensland Council of Unions got behind this great event and donated hundreds of dollars to our community's R U OK? Day efforts. With the support of the unions, the local Moreton North Suicide Prevention Network were able to buy some marquees so they could then better reach people out in the communities at local events. It was a very welcome gesture from the Queensland Council of Unions. I can't stress enough how important the work of the Moreton North Suicide Prevention Network is that they do for people in our area. Since 2014 they have been engaging with the community to work together to reduce suicide and its impact through education and a range of conversations and, of course, by raising awareness of suicide prevention.
We can all be part of this conversation. That's the whole point of R U OK? Day. It's to get people talking to each other and encouraging each other to take action. We all know it's not good to keep things bottled up inside, so just asking a mate if they're okay and showing them that you're there for them and that it's okay to talk about life's up and downs is really important. In 2015, there were 3,027 deaths by suicide in Australia, which represents the highest rate in 15 years. On average, there are 8.3 deaths by suicide every day. By doing something as simple as talking to your friends, family or colleagues, you could be taking meaningful steps to help reduce that statistic.
Ryan Electorate: Anzac Memorial Church, Indooroopilly
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (10:53): I rise today to speak about the significance of the Anzac Memorial Church in Indooroopilly and its historical impact on the Ryan electorate. This church may well be the only building of any kind in Australia to be designated as an Anzac memorial.
Prior to the Great War, the Indooroopilly Methodist congregation worshipped in a small wooden building located on the corner of Moggill Road and Rylatt Street. It wasn't long before it became inadequate and the trustees purchased a new lot of land on Station Road in 1912, with plans to build a new church. Then, in 1914, war broke out and many young men of the district enlisted to join the forces. Tragedy struck, especially on the Turkish shores of Gallipoli, leaving our nation in grief. With a passionate drive to commemorate the lives lost, the Indooroopilly Methodist congregation sought to make their new church a memorial site for the Anzacs. With support from the Governor of Queensland, construction began on the church under the name 'Anzac Memorial Church'. However, mid construction a federal government edict was passed, banning the use of the word 'Anzac' on all buildings. With the name already quite literally set in stone, and the Governor unable to assist the congregation, they sought help from the then Prime Minister, Billy Hughes.
On 1 September 1917—100 years ago—at 4 pm, the doors to the Anzac Memorial Church were opened for the very first time. It was almost one month later, on 24 September 1917, that the church was informed that the use of the word 'Anzac' was permitted in this one—and I understand only—instance. Those visiting the church today are treated to a small exhibition of photographs and memorabilia as well as the experience of immersing themselves in the rich history of the building and its implications. As the member for Ryan, I am proud to speak about the importance of this site in my electorate, not only as a historical landmark but as a continuous reminder of the sacrifice of the brave soldiers who fought selflessly for our nation.
I would like to pay tribute to local resident and congregation member Mr James Gibson for his hundreds of hours of work and research into the history of this iconic building. James's self-authored book, Anzac Memorial Church, is a publication that will long ensure the church's history and its significance. Earlier this month, on 2 September, Reverend Elizabeth Nolan arranged a special 100th anniversary service. James addressed the congregation and gave a fitting tribute, in which he detailed many facts about the people and families of the district who were there at its inception. For many, the freedoms we enjoy today—indeed the religious freedoms we enjoy today—are a direct result of those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Lest we forget.
Blueberries
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (10:56): Is this government about jobs and growth? Tasmania's and Australia's blueberry industry is being held back by the Deputy Prime Minister. An export opportunity to China is going begging. Chinese demand for blueberries is growing at 20 per cent per annum. It is the fastest growing fresh fruit category in China. Australian blueberries are not on the priority list for export protocols with China, yet other products are, such as macadamia nuts, almonds, walnuts, pistachios, mandarins, lemons and cherries. Horticulture Innovation Australia recommended blueberry access be made a priority over 12 months ago, but nothing has happened. The government needs to act by making the negotiation of an export priority a priority.
China is receiving blueberries from Canada, Chile, Peru and Argentina but not from Tasmania nor mainland Australia. While the Deputy Prime Minister has been sitting on his hands, these countries have successfully negotiated export protocols into China. What I must stress is that this is an urgent matter. While the Chinese are building on their relationships with South American countries for blueberries, over time they will become reluctant to break those relationships and to accept Australian blueberries. At the moment, Australia exports about $2 million of blueberries. If we can export into China, by 2019-20, the conservative estimate for exports is projected to be over $50 million a year, and some quote even as high as $100 million a year. This is because Australian blueberries are superior in quality to those currently being exported to China.
Tasmania and Australia are ideally placed to capitalise on a seasonal gap in the Chinese market. The Deputy Prime Minister's failure to act and make blueberries a priority for market access is unfathomable. Access to the Chinese market will open up opportunities for increased economic activity in regional areas like mine and will grow many, many jobs. In Tasmania the major growing areas for blueberries are in the north and north-west. The industry employs around 300 full-time equivalent workers and up to 1,500 seasonal workers. But access to China could grow an additional 150 to 200 full-time equivalent jobs over the year and many, many more additional seasonal jobs, sometimes doubling the effort. The majority of blueberries grown in this country are grown in two National Party held seats. I beg those members to go to their leader and get him to get off his hands and make this an urgent priority for Australia's blueberry industry.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (10:59): I am very pleased to welcome the announcement this morning from the transport minister on the bridges renewal funding made available to the Northern Areas Council in South Australia for the Broughton Valley Road bridge replacement. I visited this site a few weeks ago with the chief users of the bridge, Clare Quarry. It is a wonderful business, employing about 30 people. This bridge is their only viable link with the outside world. It has been a culvert for many years and it washed away in the floods about eight months ago, and the company has spent a considerable amount of money bringing an older bridge up to the speed where it could be used, just, for their trucks. Around $240,000 in total needs to be spent on the bridge. The Bridges Renewal Program goes about half way towards that. The company itself is tipping in the major amount of money.
Clare Quarry is a very dynamic business—I was informed that they are supplying aggregate as far west as Ceduna, about 700 kilometres away to the west, in my electorate also. It's wonderful to see a family business like this. I met with Russell Schmidt and his sister Deb Sims, who are the family owners; with John Builder, who is the site manager; and with Ian McGuinness, a local mechanic from the Hawker area. I know his family, and let me say he is a very valued resource in the company. They're all pulling together to make this business viable. They have a mining plan for the next 200 years on properties they bought in this area that have a certain type of makeup that provides gravel and then a clay mix for road topping, if you like. They can utilise the whole product stream. It's really uplifting when, as members of parliament, we visit businesses within our electorates that are kicking goals, that have great enthusiasm and that believe in their future.
This bridge is so important to Clare Quarry. In fact, when the bridge is out, as it was, it adds 30 or 40 kilometres onto their delivery distances. Road transport is expensive, so this is a very important economic investment by the government in a very important local employer, who has a long-term plan and goals for their company and for their workers, and it was great to see the relationship that this particular company had with their workers. I congratulate them for that. I congratulate them for making a contribution to fixing up this bridge and I am very appreciative of the fact that this project has been awarded the money.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): In accordance with standing other 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:02): I know the chair made a speech yesterday on the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport entitled Still waiting to be heard: Report on the inquiry into the hearing health and wellbeing of Australia, but I also rise today to speak on the committee's report. Yesterday, the chair of our committee, the member for North Sydney, said 3.6 million Australians experience hearing loss and balance disorders. I'm one of those people who has experienced and is still experiencing hearing loss, and I have a very deep and passionate interest in this inquiry because of my own hearing loss. I was very proud of the bipartisan work that was done by the committee, on both sides, including the 22 recommendations that the committee saw fit to table yesterday that we commend to the House. I'd like to thank all those who gave evidence—the many witnesses across the country that we saw, who provided evidence and submissions during the committee process—but I would like to especially thank the chair, the member for North Sydney, the members of the committee and the wonderful secretariat, including Stephanie Mikac and all the staff who did tremendous work in putting this report together and supporting us during the inquiry. Our committee received evidence from around the country, from stakeholders, constituents and many others to produce this report.
Just before my election—my second election—as a member in 2007, I suffered an acute ear infection. Little did I know that this would lead to a nearly complete loss of hearing in my right ear. One of the groups that gave evidence was the Can:Do Group in Adelaide, which look after a whole range of things for people with hearing loss, speech loss and many, many other things. It's located in my electorate. I met with Judy Curran, the group general manager, and many others there who attended hearings and gave evidence. This is how fantastic some of the organisations that give support to people with hearing loss are. Even though I had been checked out completely by doctors and specialists who told me that nothing would work in my right ear—no hearing aid would work because it was the cochlea—they put together an amazing little piece of technology that has made such a difference to the quality of my life and that of many other people's lives. They came up with a little transmitter that transmits to the good ear to pick up things from the right. This is how amazing these people are. That's why this inquiry was so important. Can:Do and others who gave evidence are making a real difference to people in the community on a daily basis.
I was particularly moved by some of the evidence provided by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I sincerely hope the committee's recommendations can be implemented to make a real difference. We heard that, in some remote areas, classrooms had been fitted with particular technology so all the children could hear well, because a lot of our Aboriginal communities have ear infections and suffer from hearing loss. Where classrooms were fitted with this particular technology, such as speakers placed all around the room, the education levels went through the roof over a very short period. So you can see how putting some resources into the schools can improve the lives of some of our Indigenous communities. That was one of our recommendations.
All of the recommendations are important. I would like to go through a couple of them here today. The first recommendation is that the Department of Health, in collaboration with others, develop a national strategy to improve Aboriginal health in a coordinated way. We found out in this inquiry that, in some of our remote areas where people don't have access to services and have high numbers of Indigenous Australians, hearing loss was much higher as a percentage compared to the people in the rest of Australia. We really need to have a coordinated approach where those services, with follow-ups, are provided to those communities.
The committee also recommended increasing resources for regional and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I just spoke about the technology that's required. This should include support to deaf Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to learn sign language as well. In the cities, there is access to learning how to sign, but in some of the remote areas there isn't the ability to have someone come in and teach the children who can't hear how to sign.
Recommendation 6 is for the Department of Health to develop and implement an education and awareness-raising campaign focused on national hearing. You cover all the remote areas, all the schools, and have regular checks so you can pick up when someone is having a problem with hearing. Sometimes in children it's not picked up. We find there are checks done in the hospitals when they're first born, but hearing loss can come on a bit later. We heard stories from all around the country where parents couldn't quite work out what, but there was something not quite right, and then, at the age of two, three or maybe four, they discovered that the child had hearing loss. One of the things that the inquiry told us was that the sooner it's picked up the more quickly you can start putting services in place to ensure that that child has all that is required to be able to sign, and can get all the technology that is required. You find that, the earlier that happens, the better off that child's future will be. There was proof in the evidence we received from all over Australia that early intervention was very, very important.
So, one of the recommendations I just spoke about includes ensuring that we have programs in place from very early on, monitored continuously throughout their school life, to pick up any issues or problems and tackling them to ensure that the child gets the services required for them to go on leading a normal life and that they do not fall behind in education because of a hearing loss. In addition, some of the prevention recommendations were that the Hearing Services Program and the National Acoustic Laboratories focus on the causes of balance disorders and potential treatment options, genetic and stem based treatments for hearing impairment, and research on the experiences of adults undergoing treatment. I'm also very proud of the recommendation to add hearing services delivered by the internet to the Medicare Benefits Scheme, an important step. A lot of these services now come through the internet. You can put earpieces on and do a test to see whether there are any problems with your hearing. Many people go to these apps, and if there's a problem they'll pick it up.
Something I was shocked to learn, through our many meetings and from listening to people, is that sign language is not part of basic translation services under the new scheme. You can imagine that if you needed an interpreter when you were in hospital or going through the courts, for any language—Vietnamese, Chinese, Greek or Italian—they'd all be available. But if you say, 'I want Auslan,' those services are not available. So we have a recommendation to ensure that the federal government works with state governments to provide interpreting services, which is very important. We take it for granted that if you can't speak English or you don't have a good command of the language then you get an interpreter and they tell you all about the health problems you're having when you're meeting your specialist in the hospital or having an operation. But what's the difference with Auslan? There is no difference. That is these people's language. They need interpreting services, and we made that clear in recommendation 20, which says that Auslan should be implemented immediately and that the government should work closely with state governments to ensure that it is implemented throughout the states for health and court cases, legal issues et cetera.
I want to make the point that a consortium of groups had withdrawn a proposal for purchasing Australian Hearing, and I suspect that was one of the reasons we had this particular inquiry—to look into a view that the government had about privatising Australian Hearing. I just want to make it clear that the committee remained concerned about the intentions in this area. One of the recommendations was to ensure that the government rule this out, and it has been ruled out, and I'm very pleased about that. But I'll certainly be keeping a very close eye on this and sincerely hope recommendation 21 is adopted. That recommendation talks about the government now not looking at privatising Australian Hearing.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:13): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
St Albans Writers' Festival
Macquarie Electorate: Public Transport
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:13): For one weekend every September, the hamlet of St Albans, in the northernmost part of my electorate of Macquarie, becomes the hub of readers and writers, just as it has this year. The annual St Albans Writers' Festival, now in its third year, brings a world of writing to this village, which is in the heart the Macdonald Valley, originally home to the Dharug and Darkinung people and known to the locals as the forgotten valley—there's no mobile phone reception, and you take the ferry to get there. The last weekend that we had the writers' festival the program included Tom Keneally, Stan Grant, Caroline Baum, Fiona McFarlane and Hugh Mackay, as well as the director George Miller and food expert Simmone Logue. The festival has a commitment to emerging writers, and its program covers fiction, crime, history, art, social commentary, politics, food and travel writing. There's no easier place to rub shoulders with your favourite writer and chat over a coffee than the sponsored Saturday Paper marquee. It's an intimate festival, and battling crowds isn't a problem.
It's all possible thanks to the volunteer efforts of the residents of St Albans. In honour of their support, marquees in the gardens of the Settlers Arms Inn are named after the inn's wonderful owners and loyal festival sponsors, Gabrielle and Ian. The St Albans church also throws open its doors to host festival sessions. This is a true community event, and I was privileged to be at the opening night dinner not just as the local MP but also as a sponsor of the panel discussion 'The end of life' with writer Nikki Gemmell, GP Leah Kaminsky and Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi. Congratulations to Catherine, Jonathan, Myra and every single volunteer and sponsor who made the third St Albans Writers' Festival such a success.
Blue Mountains residents have been aghast at the Liberal New South Wales government's decision to build new intercity trains that don't fit the tracks in the Blue Mountains and aren't designed with long-distance cold-climate commuting in mind. My colleague the state member for the Blue Mountains, Trish Doyle, has been incredible in taking this fight to the New South Wales government, who've decided that New South Wales trains should not be built in New South Wales, or anywhere else in Australia for that matter, but should go offshore.
The tender documents called for a train that can be operated with or without a train guard, so we also know that this is a back door to taking guards off our trains. If you're a parent of a young person travelling to or from the Blue Mountains or an elderly passenger or someone with a disability, you really appreciate the crucial role guards play on our 1½- to two-hour journeys. Add to this that it will take years to adapt the platforms to fit the wide-body South Korean trains on the 60 kilometres between Springwood and Lithgow. Plus, there's no plan to deal with the 10 tunnels between Lithgow and Bell. All this is the result of taking the cheapest option, not the best option. Where was the cost-benefit analysis of the flow-on jobs, training, investment and skill that could have been developed in the New South Wales economy from doing this big project? It's also likely that the maintenance contract, which has already been agreed, will involve overseas workers travelling to Australia to carry out the maintenance.
This is the wrong approach for our economy. We need a coordinated approach to train carriage construction and maintenance to ensure that an industry that employs 20,000 people around the country and represents $1.75 billion per year is not lost. Demand for public transport is high, and nationwide there are plans to spend over $26 billion on rail public transport projects within a decade. Our local manufacturers and their employees, including AMWU members, need a chance to compete. Because each state does its own thing, we see the Labor government in Victoria creating more than a thousand highly skilled local jobs with the state's single largest order of trains to be built in Victoria but then see New South Wales sending all their potential jobs offshore. The lack of national consistency undermines Australian jobs and leaves them vulnerable to state government actions. Without action, the current fragmented approach is putting our local industry at risk. It doesn't necessarily cost a lot of money to fix this problem; it just takes a commitment to Australian jobs—local Australian jobs—as our priority.
Singapore
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (11:18): Last week, on 6 September, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment introduced the Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 into parliament. The proposed legislation introduces a range of measures designed to simplify administration and reduce compliance costs for companies engaged in business, including new product-specific rules of origin for goods which are imported into Australia from Singapore. The Australia Singapore Exchange Conference mark 2 is being held at Suntec City in Singapore later this month, from 28 September to 1 October.
On behalf of the Australian parliament I would like to acknowledge the exemplary work of the organising committee, in particular Roy Yeo, Faith Tay, Paul De La Cruz, Nicholas Tay, Clinton Cheng, Livia Lai, Bryan Wee, Lily Phua, Denise Twigger and Jon Szeto.
In 2016, Australian investment in Singapore reached $61.5 billion, while Singaporean investment in Australia amounted to $99 billion. Australia will raise the Foreign Investment Review Board's screening threshold for private Singaporean investment in non-sensitive sectors from $252 million to just over a billion dollars.
In terms of services, Singapore is our third largest trading partner, with international services amounting to $10 billion annually. Singapore is our 11th largest trading partner for merchandise trade, with combined imports and exports totalling $12.6 billion in 2016. I look forward to promoting the sectors of the Western Australian economy which are attractive to Singaporean investment, including mining, resources and energy; hospitality and tourism; retail and wholesale; property development and land subdivision; and agriculture, food processing, agribusiness and fisheries. The Singapore-Northern Australia Agribusiness Development Partnership will attract Singaporean investment to develop northern Australia.
In terms of tourism, 709,000 Singaporeans visited Australia in 2016, and about one million Australians visited Singapore. Singaporeans will have exclusive access to new long-term, multiple-entry visas by 1 January 2018, making it easier to travel to Australia for business and pleasure. The visitor subclass 600 visa will allow travellers to visit Australia for up to three months at a time over a six-year period with a single application. Singapore and Australia have also made commitments on works rights on a reciprocal basis, including streamlined processes to facilitate temporary-entry and work permits for Australian business people. Australians will enjoy longer lengths of stay for independent executives, contractual service suppliers, intracorporate transferees and their families. It is up from two years to three years, with a maximum stay of up to 15 years.
Australia shares an important international relationship with Singapore as strategic partners within our region. Our nations also cooperate in the area of defence and intelligence, including doing joint military training exercises. We share an admiration for the nation building that has occurred over the past 50 years in terms of economic development, the transformation of Singapore into an international financial centre of commerce and the urbanisation of Singapore into a vibrant metropolis. We marvel at the construction of world-class port facilities, refineries, an efficient transport system and social reform, such as public housing and a universal superannuation scheme for its citizens. Australian visitors often remark on the cleanliness, sophistication and high standard of law and order. Singapore shares a heritage similar to our own, combining the British Westminster system with its own eastern philosophies and a strong work ethic. The future looks promising, with improved cooperation and stronger ties between our nations. The 2018 ASEAN Summit will be held in Australia with Singapore as the chair— (Time expired)
Indi Electorate: Community Services
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (11:23): Colleagues, my topic today is regional solutions and the role the government has in supporting communities. The government have told us that they don't have all the answers and that the most sensible solutions are often developed in our regions, and I couldn't agree more. This week, Philanthropy Australia hosted the Philanthropy Meets Parliament Summit, which helps philanthropy organisations and government understand each other's perspectives and priorities and how they can work together to achieve desired objectives. Philanthropy is do-gooding on a grand scale. People give money to an organisation that then redistributes it. They do amazing work at the national, state, regional and local levels.
In the absence, however, of major policy implementation that adequately considers the diversity of our regional communities, our philanthropy groups and community groups, we're often left with: who is going to fill the gap and how do we join the dots to get the solutions we need? I have to say that, in my electorate of Indi, the community plays such an important role in developing solutions and finding ways in which they can work together. And so there are philanthropy groups such as the Tomorrow Today Foundation, led by Sally Gamble; the Into Our Hands Foundation, led by Paul Ryan; the Marysville and Triangle Community Foundation, led by Tony Thompson; the Friday Foundation led by Chris Friday; the Border Trust Community Foundation led by Michael Salter; and the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, which covers the whole of Victoria. We are doing really well in my electorate.
I want to acknowledge and thank the work of all those community committees and volunteers for the terrific job that they do in making our communities better and filling the gaps—gaps that government could never fill. For example, the Marysville and Triangle Community Foundation does leadership and capacity building work; the Friday Foundation based in Mansfield looks after aged care and health services; the Border Trust is doing some fantastic work with the Young Women Leading Change program to foster community leadership; the Tomorrow Today Foundation brings a whole community approach to education and building a much better town in Benalla; the Into Our Hands Foundation is delivering Social Enterprise 101 workshops, in partnership with the Australian Centre for Rural Entrepreneurship; and the Corryong Neighbourhood Centre has developed the Upper Murray Community Bakery, which employs up to six staff—people who otherwise would be on benefits. They're getting jobs in Corryong, learning skills and creating such a positive attitude.
I would also like to acknowledge two of my constituents, who are in parliament today. I welcome Liam and Nathalie. They're volunteers in my office this week, and they're learning how parliament works. They're both seriously involved in our communities, doing volunteer work in so many ways. Thank you on behalf of the parliament for the work that you do.
But what I really want to say to the parliament is that we could get such a better bang for our buck with our community volunteers and philanthropy if we had a framework, if we had a way of government supporting them. The philanthropy groups have told me that they need help with tax deductibility. They have told me that, if they could have some support within that taxation system, it would make the giving of money easier and the spending of it—well, they can spend it easily enough; it's getting it that makes it really hard. My community groups in Corryong say that they're doing such fantastic work but it's really hard for them to get the project management money that they need out of community resources, and so they have to use their corpus money to pay project workers to do all the management. If there was some way that the government could support them in that role it would make a difference.
I'm here to say to my communities: the government is understanding this. We've got some programs that work in that regard. There is one particular program, and that is the community stream of the Building Better Regions Fund. It has been specifically designed to help us with this. It's a call-out to the minister: 'Hey, Minister, can you tell us when you're going to announce the funding for this?' We know that all the submissions are in, but if Senator Nash and the National Party could follow it up for me, I would be really grateful.
Our communities want to know how the government is going to support them to do what they're already doing, and programs like the Building Better Regions Fund are exactly the right programs to help us do it. Everyone is waiting. They haven't got the answer as to who is going to be funded and when they can start the next period of work. I welcome the opportunity to be here today, and I thank all my community for their voluntary work.
Cashless Debit Card
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:28): My contribution this morning has to do with the cashless welfare card. Because of widespread local concern about high levels of alcohol consumption and, to a lesser extent, illicit drug use and gambling, we have many community leaders and stakeholders indicating that these issues have become progressively worse over the last five to 10 years. Excessive alcohol consumption is at a crisis point and is having wide-ranging negative impacts on individuals, their families and the community.
The trial sites have been chosen on the basis of demonstrable need, plus the support from local leaders. The cashless debit card trials operated in Ceduna from 15 March 2016 and in East Kimberley from 26 April 2016 for a period of 12 months. The cashless debit card's operation in the two communities has been extended. It operates like any other bank card, but it cannot be used to buy alcohol or for gambling. It cannot withdraw cash, and not being able to withdraw cash means that people cannot buy illicit drugs. Twenty per cent of a person's welfare payment is placed into their usual bank account and can be used for whatever they want. The 80 per cent can be used in stores that have EFTPOS, to shop at approved online stores, to pay bills, to make recurring payments such as mortgage payments, and for online banking with an app for both android and Apple devices. But it cannot be used to buy alcohol, to gamble or to withdraw cash.
The final independent evaluation of the cashless debit card trials found they have had a considerable positive impact in the communities where they were operated. The research was conducted by ORIMA, and the evaluation concluded that the cashless debit card has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling in both trial sites. It also suggests a reduction in the use of illegal drugs, and there is some evidence that there has been a consequential reduction in violence and harm related to alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling.
Regarding the impact on alcohol use for people who drank alcohol, 41 per cent reported drinking alcohol less frequently and 37 per cent of binge drinkers were binge drinking less frequently. There was a decrease in alcohol related hospital presentations, including a 37 per cent reduction in Ceduna. There was a 14 per cent reduction in Ceduna in the number of apprehensions under the Public Intoxication Act. In East Kimberley, there were decreases in alcohol related pick-ups by community patrol services. In Kununurra, there was a 15 per cent reduction and in Wyndham a 12 per cent reduction. Referrals to the sobering up shelter in Kununurra had an eight per cent reduction. There was a decrease in the number of women in East Kimberley hospital maternity wards who were drinking through their pregnancies. There was qualitative evidence of a decrease in alcohol-related family violence in Ceduna.
Regarding the impact on gambling, 48 per cent of gamblers reported that they were gambling less. In Ceduna and surrounding local government areas, poker machine revenue was down by 12 per cent, the equivalent of almost $555,000 less going through the poker machines. The evaluation found in relation to drug taking that the card has had a positive impact in lowering illegal drug use across the two sites. Of drug takers, 48 per cent reported using drugs less often.
The evaluation also found there were wide spillover benefits from the card. Forty per cent of the participants who had caring responsibilities reported that they had been able to care better for their children. Forty-five per cent of participants said they have been able to save more money. Feedback has shown a decrease in requests for emergency food relief and financial assistance in Ceduna. Considerable observable evidence has been cited by community leaders and stakeholders of a reduction in crime and a reduction in harmful behaviours over the duration of the trials. The Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, who led the design and implementation of the trials, said the evaluation demonstrated that the trials have been a success in reducing alcohol, gambling and drugs.
This issue is very emotive and there will be arguments from both sides. However, what we need to do is look at this very carefully. We need to look at the benefits that have been derived from the cashless welfare card, we need to listen to the community leaders who are calling for these trials to be rolled out in their particular areas, and we need to be a responsive government and assist those communities that are calling for a cashless welfare card.
Turnbull Government
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:33): Today marks two years since our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, became Prime Minister. There were many across the country who welcomed the change from the member for Warringah to the member for Wentworth. They welcomed it because they thought it was going to mark a change in this government's behaviour. We all knew that the Abbott years were about compliance and about punishment for many in our community. The 2014 budget certainly declared that. We've had a list of those things.
But, sadly, I stand here today to share my community's frustrations with this government and its obsession with compliance and punishment. We don't have to look very far. We don't have to look very far at all. We can see it through the disability support pension, where the compliance requirements for people are increasingly difficult to meet. We stand here in this chamber today wearing R U OK? badges and yet, on the ground, people who might need to be asked, 'Are you okay?' are busy meeting compliance requirements so they can get the support they need. We are seeing a government that suggests that people should keep their pay slips for an interminably long time so that, if ever it eventuates, they can demonstrate to an inefficient democracy that they don't owe Centrelink backdated money for the previous 10 years. They are asked to be compliant on that. We are seeing a government in Social Services that is intent in this space. We are seeing young people being asked to work for $4 an hour on top of their Newstart payment without due recompense, without a minimum wage. They are being asked to comply with that. They have been asked by this government to ensure that they are compliant. If they are not compliant, there will be punitive measures. They will lose their Newstart payment for a period of time. They will have a black mark against their name for a period of time. We are seeing it across our communities.
But my question to this government on the second anniversary of Prime Minister Turnbull's ascension is: what happens when this government fails in compliance? What happens then? You don't have to look very far. In yesterday's headlines we saw that the robo-debt disaster had resulted in 20,000 incorrect letters being sent out. Of course, that is only the people who challenged them. Of the people who had the wherewithal, support and capacity to challenge their letter, we find that 20,000 people received incorrect letters. Amongst them, many were accused of being thieves when they were not. I ran into someone in my electorate recently who had come to my office to seek support in this process. They were one of the 40 who live in Werribee who have been found not to owe a cent, after all of that trauma.
So what happens to those in this government who implemented that process? What happens when they are not compliant with what the community expectations are? I ask this pertinently with you in the chair, Member for Hindmarsh, because it was 4 September when we both stood here on a motion to ask: where's the data about the My Aged Care packages and the Home Care Packages? We both noted, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, that it was promised in February, in July and then in August. We stood here on 4 September and asked, 'Where is that data?' Well, it is 14 September and we are still waiting for the data that is going to tell us how long people are waiting, particularly for levels 3 and 4, between their assessment and when they are able to access that home care. We are asking for very important reasons. We have already seen in our communities that we have people waiting up to 18 months to access this. If there is an issue, the longer it takes to expose it the longer it takes to fix it. So I ask: what are the punitive measures that this government will apply to itself?
I suspect it is a bit like the punitive measure the government is applying to big businesses, which is a bit of a 'hard chat' when they fail to meet their tax obligations or when they are perceived to be gouging the system. What are the punitive measures that the ministers in this government will face for their failures to meet community expectations and their failures in reporting to this parliament things that we need to know so we can make a better system?
Goldstein Electorate
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:39): Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House a wonderful visit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently to the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. We were very fortunate that the day started with a visit with Senator James Paterson and the state member for Caulfield, David Southwick, to Leibler Yavneh College in Elsternwick. I would particularly like to extend my thanks for the facilitation of Cherylyn Skewes, the principal, and Rabbi Chaim Cowen, who provided a fantastic tour of the school as well as organised a special assembly that the foreign minister addressed. It was a real treat for the students to hear directly what it is like to be a foreign minister for the Commonwealth and what happens on a day-to-day basis.
We were very fortunate that, after we visited Leibler Yavneh College, we went to Beth Weizmann Jewish Community Centre in Caulfield. It is located just outside the electorate of Goldstein, in the electorate of Melbourne Ports, but it is really the hub and the heartland of the Jewish community in Melbourne. It is a particularly important facility. I just make it clear that the message that was given around security was very well received. There were lots of community leaders there on the day talking directly to the foreign minister, me, David Southwick and James Paterson, amongst others, like Danny Lamm, about the challenges facing the Jewish community and the importance of supporting them—and that is resolute. The Zionism Victoria vice-president, Jeff Morrison, and executive director, Jane Rapke; the Beth Weizmann Jewish Community Centre chairman, Sam Tatarka; and the Jewish Community Council of Victoria president, Jennifer Huppert, and executive director, David Marlow, met with the minister directly and had these important conversations.
Even after that, the foreign minister was generous with her time, coming to the Goldstein electorate office to talk to many of the young women principals of schools, board members of local sporting clubs, school captains, school leaders and teachers from across the Goldstein community about the importance of the role of women in leadership positions. It was a privilege to invite so many young successful women in their fields, particularly from sporting clubs and from local schools, who are making a wonderful contribution as trailblazers and leaders in their community. A large cohort was from women's AFL teams, the Goldstein community very fortunately being the hub and focus of women's AFL. I would like to thank all those who turned up: from Brighton Secondary College, the assistant principal, Lee Angelidis; from Furbank Grammar, the deputy principal, Jo Field; from Haileybury Brighton campus, the deputy head of the senior school, Gavin Watson; from Kilvington Grammar School, teacher Lauren Wade, who attended McKinnon Secondary School; and from McKinnon Secondary School, the principal, Pitsa Binnion, who does a wonderful job, and we are very happy to have her continuing to show leadership at such an important school in the electorate.
I thank our good friends who are co-No. 1 ticketholders of the Old Brighton Grammarians footy club—the players that came from there and also the club president, Peter Grant, and particularly Louise Graham, who does a wonderful job, always supporting the footy club in volunteer roles. Only the other night when I was down at the 60th anniversary of the club, Louise was there dutifully working away while everybody else was enjoying the night, so thank you, Louise, for all the work that you do. I thank Sandringham College and Jennifer Howard, the head of student leadership, and Star of the Sea School's Peter Farrer and Bernadette Turner, who have always been very supportive and who work very successfully with me. Thank you for your work. I also thank the other co-No. 1 ticketholder for Old Brighton Grammarians, and VAFA board member, Felicity Frederico, who also came along on the day. And, of course, thanks also to the many young women who participated.
Minister Bishop spoke about women in leadership. Peter Grant also presented the minister with an Old Brighton Grammarians footy club jersey. I haven't seen whether she is wearing it in her runs around Canberra every morning, but my hope is that she is and that she wears it with pride. Minister, you need to understand that an invitation is coming from the Old Brighton Grammarians, in the hope that you will come and speak at one of their footy matches next year, and you are always welcome in the Goldstein community.
Also attending was Jennifer Herbert, a Beaumaris resident who has stage IV breast cancer and has raised $67,000 to buy two scalp-cooling machines for Monash Health so that women undergoing chemotherapy will not lose their hair. Libby Vance, a local businesswoman, was also particularly happy to come along. So to everybody who participated on the day, thank you for your participation. We are so proud of our Goldstein community, and I am so proud to represent you. (Time expired)
Centrelink
Mr HART (Bass) (11:44): I am deeply concerned about the long periods many Australians are waiting even for simple Centrelink claims to be processed. We know people are waiting several weeks and even months for straightforward claims to be processed and routine Centrelink functions such as appeals, the lodgement of forms and the updating of information to be completed. In my electorate of Bass, there are a significant number of people who are in receipt of support from Centrelink in one form or another, whether that be the age pension, the Newstart allowance or the family tax benefit, or are holding a pensioner concession or healthcare card.
A considerable percentage of this cohort have dealings with Centrelink on a regular basis, and of this group there are cases that require processing by a specialist Centrelink officer known as a complex assessment officer. A CAO is expected to possess advanced knowledge of business structures and social security law in order to undertake the complex analytical work involved in determining a customers' entitlement. The role of a CAO involves assessing and processing complex customer cases, providing leadership within their offices, providing consultancy services to other Centrelink staff and training other Centrelink staff to identify, refer or assess complex entitlements. Technical assessment is the complex assessment officer's major role and accounts for about 75 per cent of their time. CAOs typically assess cases across social security programs rather than specialising in a particular payment or benefit, because the core assessment requirements are common across many programs.
A 2006-07 audit report by the ANAO into the administration of complex assessments found that as of October 2006 there were 166 complex assessment officers distributed throughout the Centrelink network nationwide. To put this in some context, in 2005 there were approximately 50,000 complex assessments related to the age pension alone that required processing by one of those 166 CAOs. As of 31 December 2016, the Department of Human Services had 126 complex assessment officers across all Centrelink locations. We know the number of Australians seeking support from Centrelink has increased and consequently so has the number of cases that require processing and analysis by a CAO. We are in the absurd situation of having 40 fewer complex assessment officers within Centrelink today than we had 10 years ago whilst the number of cases they are required to deal with across all programs continues to increase exponentially. Staff cuts and the increasing casualisation of the Department of Human Services workforce has exacerbated the issue of long processing times within Centrelink.
This lack of investment in Centrelink is indicative of the lack of respect with which this government treats those who are in receipt of any form of income support. In the 2017-18 budget, the Minister for Human Services cut almost 1,200 jobs from the department. Granted, 250 were redirected back into call centre positions, but this seems to have had little effect on reducing pressure on Centrelink staff or improving processing times for Centrelink customers. It is fair to say the majority of constituent inquiries to my electorate office are in regard to Centrelink, often relating to delays in claims processing of weeks or even months. I am thinking in particular of one elderly couple who have been left without any form of support for nine months now, the better part of a year, whilst their case awaits further processing by a complex review officer.
Labor continues to oppose such poor treatment of the more vulnerable people in our community, and this treatment goes beyond just processing delays. Think of the thousands of Australians unfairly and incorrectly lumped with Centrelink debts as a result of the government's flawed robo-debt campaign. Think of the intimidating tone of the letters, displaying the Australian Federal Police logo and outlining various penalties for submitting incorrect information to Centrelink, sent to discourage or victimise income support recipients. Labor will continue to advocate for higher standards and more transparent reporting procedures and for a reduction in the length of time individuals are waiting to access outcomes regarding their payments and assessments of entitlements. At a time of rising inequality and job insecurity, Labor believes that Australians should have access to income support if and when they need it. It should not be the work of an electorate office to do the work of Centrelink—Centrelink needs to be funded and staffed appropriately.
Calare Electorate: Central West Australian Football League
Mr GEE (Calare) (11:49): The Central West AFL season has concluded, and I would like to recognise the Central West AFL board members for another great year: chair Craig Gale, secretary Kass Ings and treasurer Gavin Rhodes. Saturday, 2 September, saw the AFL faithful descend on Bloomfield Oval in Orange for the Central West AFL grand finals, putting the finishing touches on a very memorable season. The first game of the day was the Central West women's grand final, a competition only three years old but growing with great support from the Central West community.
The Bathurst Bushrangers women's side dominated all season, and they didn't give up a single game. They took that momentum into the grand final match against the Dubbo Demons. The game was off to a close start, with only a three-point margin by half-time, but the Bushrangers quickly pulled ahead after returning to the field, clocking up another convincing win, 7-8-50 to 2-2-14. So the Bushrangers have now won three consecutive premierships, proving that they have some serious form when it comes to big games. In fact, in the entire three years of competition they've lost only one game. I'd like to recognise everyone in the winning team, including captain Tori Whitla, Jessica Scadding, Haylee Lepaio, Alora Dickson, Keeghan Tucker, Victoria Matheson, Kaitlyn Kennedy, Mikala Bringolf, Mariah Gilchrist, Sophie Thrower, Abbey Hardie, Selina Harlum, Elise Hull, Amy Copping, Lauren Barnett, Taylor Armstrong, Rachael Shumack, Sarah Weal, Brittany Irwin, Allison Hundy, Meredith Jones, Sarah Shackleton, Jane Hanrahan and Sally Hennessy. Special mention also goes to coach Peter Neve, who must have picked up some tips at the Greater Western Giants coaching masterclass earlier this year.
In the senior men's division, the Bathurst Bushrangers Outlaws had another tough encounter at Bloomfield against the Orange Tigers. The pressure was on for the Bushrangers. The Bathurst club had made it to the grand final for the last four years and after being so close to victory suffered defeat every time. The Tigers took some time to warm up and the Outlaws capitalised, surging ahead from the opening whistle. The Tigers, fighting for their 10th senior premiership in the club's history, fought back in the second half, but it wasn't enough. The Tigers were valiant, but the Bushrangers Outlaws eventually won by 38 points to claim the 2017 Central West AFL premiership, 89-51.
I'd like to recognise each of the players for their mighty efforts, including Tim Hunter, who kicked four majors and was the leading goal scorer of the match and leading scorer of the season right across the Central West; Kaleb Crowhurst; Matt Archer, co-captain and coach of the side, who was awarded life membership of the club; Cameron Richards; and Charlie Flude, who was named best on ground after kicking a 50-metre goal off the back of a penalty. I'd also like to mention Paul Long; Jordan Price; Andrew Grinter; Matt Luther; and Sebastian Matheson, who was awarded the best and fairest in the league at the presentation night recently. I'd also like to recognise John Ellis, Nathan Belbin, Daniel Crofts, Nathan Swards, Adrian Hickey, Jordan Dennis, Michael Long, Brandon Eggleton, Patrick Edsall, Mitchell Bestwick, John Noyen, Thomas Markey and Tom Galloway. What a fantastic achievement by the Bathurst Bushrangers.
Although it was the players who took the to field and brought home that premiership in two divisions, there is also a great team in that club, working behind the scenes. I would like to give a special mention to Bathurst Bushrangers Club president Graeme Grundy, who was the volunteer of the year at the recent Central West AFL presentation evening; vice-president Scott Jablonski; treasurer David Flude; secretary Helen Price; coach Matt Archer; and, of course, the legendary facilities manager, Murray Cheers. Thank you, Murray, for your great work. I'd also like to mention game day manager Barry Fuller, players' rep Andrew Grinter and also junior rep Paul Knight.
The Bathurst Bushrangers are a tightly knit unit, and the AFL competition is really gaining strong support right across our whole region. I'd also like to congratulate the families of the players, the mums and dads, for getting the younger players to games and training, and of course the fans, who attend every week of the season, rain, hail or shine. I'd like to congratulate all players in the Central West, whether they were successful on grand final day or not. We have a very strong sporting tradition in Central Western New South Wales, and the AFL competition is very much a part of that. So I'd like to congratulate the Bathurst Bushrangers men and women on their 2017 premiership wins. Our communities are very proud of you, and we look forward to hearing of your exploits in 2018.
Commonwealth Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:54): In The Government and the People, 1939-1941, Sir Paul Hasluck exposed the administrative heartache and headache caused by the dispersal of the Commonwealth Public Service, saying it 'wasted time and money, fretted men and hampered understanding, delayed decisions and led to conflict and duplication'. It was for this reason that the founder of the modern Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, set about concentrating the Commonwealth Public Service here in Canberra, our nation's capital, deeming it better for the country as a whole.
What is so extraordinary is that those opposite, the coalition government, are hell-bent on unpicking that Menzies vision, that plan to concentrate the Commonwealth Public Service here in Canberra because to do so is the best thing for the country as a whole. We have this ludicrous decentralisation plan that the Deputy Leader of the Nationals has come up with, in which she purports to have a decentralisation plan that is well-executed and well-planned, with the benefits outweighing the cost.
If that is the case, we see from what has happened so far on this decentralisation plan that it has failed abysmally. We know this from what has happened with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the impact this shameless and blatant pork-barrelling has had not just on families here in Canberra but also on the agricultural minister's own agency. As a result of this ridiculous pork-barrelling in moving the APVMA to Armidale, we have seen 50 of the agency's 175 staff move on, and that has had a significant impact on the approvals. The approvals for the agriculture industry have absolutely plummeted because there are no staff to make the approvals. The decades and decades of expertise in the agency has been completely lost as a result of this shameless pork-barrelling by the Deputy Prime Minister. All the years of expertise have been lost as a result of the ill-thought-out APVMA move.
We now have the Deputy Leader of the Nationals wanting to have a broader decentralisation policy to disguise the blatant and shameless pork-barrelling that is the APVMA move. Earlier this year she had senior-level public servants and ministers having to justify whether their portfolios should remain here in Canberra or whether parts could be decentralised. These justifications—remember the Menzies vision—were required by the end of August, with final decisions by December. We are now into September, and what has happened?
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:58 to 12:03
Ms BRODTMANN: As I was asking: what is happening? What is the government doing in terms of decentralisation? What are its plans? What are its plans for Canberra?
There are rumours all over Canberra at the moment about the Deputy Leader of the Nationals being in discussions with her own ranks about parts of government departments and services being moved to coalition held seats. We have seen reports this week of Comcare jobs that are apparently on the move to Geelong, which is in the member for Corangamite's seat. There are other rumours flying around all over this town about parts of government agencies being cherry-picked, despite the fact that the committee has not reported back yet on the decentralisation plan. Despite the fact that the inquiry is still ongoing, there are reports all over Canberra that parts of government agencies are being moved to coalition held seats. This is absolutely outrageous and flies in the face of the inquiry into the APVMA move by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee and the recommendations made by the committee.
Deputy Speaker, I ask you: how many Canberra jobs have to be moved out of Canberra as a result of this government's outrageous decentralisation plans? Are the rumours true that deals have already been done, despite the fact that the committee was still assessing this issue, with coalition members and senators? I call on the government to come clean: What are your plans for decentralisation? What are your plans for Canberra? How many jobs are you going to move out of Canberra? How much more of the Menzies vision and legacy are you going to decimate?
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:05): The CFMEU is the gift that keeps on giving. Today in The Australian we see that yesterday the courts handed down unprecedented penalties for the CFMEU's concerted campaign of industrial lawlessness at the Barangaroo building site in Sydney. There were up to 1,000 workers who were involved in that illegal strike. When we talk about illegal strikes, people in this place quite often don't understand. They say: 'So what? What's an illegal strike? People should have the ability to withhold their labour.' But what people in this place don't understand are the impacts that that can cause on any building site. Most people in this place have never worked on a building site in their life. Most of them, probably, have never walked onto a building site in their life. What they don't understand are the impacts that it causes for small and medium-sized enterprises that are contracting on that building site.
When a building site gets shut down, everything gets shut down—the crane gets shut down and there are concrete supplies that are literally out the front. Concrete goes off in the agitators in trucks, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions of dollars, when a building site gets shut down just for one day. The people who are working on that building site—the small mum-and-dad businesses—don't get paid. When those people get their building sites shut down, they lose money. When they lose their money, they can't put their kids in school and can't put food on the table. People in this place don't understand that that's what happens when a building site gets shut down illegally. The people who did want to work on that building site at Barangaroo were called 'scum' and 'dogs' by union organisers such as Luke Collier. In fact, he told one building inspector that he was lower than a paedophile.
The CFMEU New South Wales branch and multiple CFMEU officials have been ordered by the Federal Court to pay penalties in excess of $2.4 million. The orders included that the CFMEU national body pay a fine of $1.326 million. CFMEU New South Wales was ordered to pay $956,000. Brian Parker was ordered to pay $45,400, Robert Kera was ordered to pay $41,000, Danny Reeves was ordered to pay $41,000, and Luke Collier was ordered to pay $40,000. In addition to issuing unprecedented penalties, Justice Flick also referred union officials Brian Parker, Luke Collier, Robert Kera and Tony Sloane to the Director of Public Prosecutions for possible criminal prosecution for allegedly giving false testimony during the proceedings. Justice Flick said:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU. The CFMEU assumes a prominent role in the industrial affairs of this country and has consistently exhibited a contempt for compliance with the law.
He goes on:
… the CFMEU has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.
He also says:
The CFMEU's conduct exposes a cavalier disregard for the prior penalties imposed by this Court.
These latest penalties of $2.4 million pale into insignificance compared to what the courts have imposed since 2004. In fact, since 2004 the courts have imposed penalties of $10,096,300 for the CFMEU's breaches of industrial laws. The CFMEU were the first ever union to have more than $10 million worth of fines imposed upon them. They have engaged in unlawful industrial action affecting well over $1 billion worth of public infrastructure projects, including the Queensland children's hospital and the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. That is just in Queensland—it's happening all over the country. I ask all those hardworking building industry members of the CFMEU to not let your membership fees go to this organisation—it is money out of your pocket and they are tearing it up in fines.
Mayo Electorate: Public Transport
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:10): Today I'm pleased to announce much-needed changes to public transport in my electorate of Mayo. Following months of community consultation, and then negotiations with the South Australian government, we finally have much-needed new services for the south coast towns of Goolwa, Victor Harbor, Port Elliot and the community of Mount Compass, 25 kilometres inland. The lack of adequate public transport was one of the biggest issues raised with me when I campaigned for Mayo. I heard stories of young people turning their back on further education because of the tyranny of distance, city commuters spending a fortune on parking and petrol and running the gauntlet of daily travel on one of South Australia's most dangerous roads and patients being unable to access specialist services in Adelaide. This part of our Mayo community is home to 27,000 people, and it is rapidly growing, and yet for years there was no will from the current but soon-to-be-retired state member to do anything at all about public transport.
I promised to take this on and advocate for my community. It wasn't easy, but together the community and I and the state government and LinkSA worked on a compromise that will make our towns more connected and help residents reach education and medical facilities and jobs, all within a budget. The new service will allow early morning commuters from the south coast to reach Adelaide by 8.30 am for work. The service will terminate at Marion, not Noarlunga as originally planned. It will allow students and patients easier access to Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University. Thanks to feedback from the community, the current weekday midmorning direct bus service to Adelaide will remain, and as a bonus there will be more weekend services between Victor Harbor and Goolwa. I'm excited about what these changes will mean for our whole community, particularly for young people.
In the 2016 census, we recorded just under 2,000 young people aged between 15 and 24 on the south coast and in Mount Compass. Should these young people choose to pursue a tertiary education, I want to ensure I have removed as many barriers as I can. It is a 71-kilometre journey to the nearest university, which is Flinders. Until now there was no way a student could get there by public transport. Instead, they had to access a car and drive and park, or move to the city—and many of them were doing that. With these new changes, students attending Flinders will be able get from Goolwa, Victor Harbor or Mount Compass to Marion and then a simple bus change will see them arrive for 9 am lectures. Similarly, students attending either Adelaide University or the University of South Australia will also be able to transfer to Noarlunga interchange and catch an early train to the city. The changes will also benefit those who need to attend appointments at Flinders Medical Centre. The current route does not run early enough to allow patients to get there by 9 am. Under the changes, patients will be able to transfer to Marion, as they do now, but they will have the great freedom to book an early morning appointment. I strongly believe the early morning commuter service will provide a huge benefit to our south coast community. Many of our families moving south have jobs in Adelaide, and being able to access public transport will relieve the huge cost burden of having to drive for sometimes 90 minutes a day each way.
I acknowledge that this is a first step, but I think at the moment this is the best of both worlds. The south coast community is growing rapidly, and essential services such as public transport need to catch up. I hope that in the future I'm able to work with the South Australian government to get Metro buses running to Victor Harbor with metropolitan ticket prices. I would like to thank the south coast community for being so willing to engage with me about the proposed changes. There was lots of work done and lots of community consultation, but I think we've got there. I also want to thank the South Australian government for being willing to discuss and negotiate this issue and ensure the best positive outcome for as many people as possible. I'm glad that together we've been able to deliver this important community service for our whole community on the south coast and in Mount Compass.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:15